Jump to content

User talk:Binksternet/Archive61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have noticed regular editing patterns involving two editors within the Coldplay related articles which one person removes and the other reverts content in the lead part of each of the members of that band. It was four years ago that I was discussing Coldplay to you and this case seems to be more serious than the Kent IP addresses problem.

I don't see the continuation of edit warring stopping anytime soon despite both users (Special:Contributions/GustavoCza and Special:Contributions/Unbh) taking discussions to the talk pages, they both continue to edit war after editing the talk space. Also on the admins 3RR noticeboard, which had disappeared into the archive too soon, no-one, apart from Unbh, had even gone into comment on this report I made at the start of the month.

I'm inclined not to edit these articles in the middle of persistent content dispute, therefore I am not involved in 3RR violations myself. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think GustavoCza is doing the right thing by adding a YouTube video to support his florid description of Jonny Buckland here. Is there a similarly inappropriate behavior of Unbh? If not, then the hammer should come down hardest on the one who is not following editorial policy. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realise that a YouTube reference has been added in to the article. Either way, both editors are violating 3RR and Unbh has been blocked for edit warring once already this year. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you think GustavoCza has been editing once with just an IP address - [1], as far as I know, only one person uses the characters // before the text "Undid revision...."? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You are pointing to an edit which is the reversion of obvious vandalism, so it's a good edit with nobody challenging it. But I believe you are correct in connecting GustavoCza to the IPs which have been using two forward slashes in their edit summaries. I have listed some of the involved Brazilian IPs below, including the forward slashes and also related IPs interested in Coldplay topics. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
That is more than I thought. I've seen that two of those edited relatively recently. The sandbox editing by one of those is a more obvious clue in my view. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Numerical changes IP

98.56.142.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); IP in Sacramento, California making various weird minor changes (mostly numerical) to music articles; is this familiar to you? wizzito | say hello! 05:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No particular vandal case that I know of... Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edits?

I knew Stevie and was a great friend of him and Fay Walker for many years. Everything I added was a fact! Why did you remove my edits? Southy17 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Because you were violating WP:No original research, a non-negotiable policy. You were remembering things and adding them.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published information, not a collection of remembered experiences. Ideally, every article on Wikipedia will be a summary of the articles and books written about that topic. The information on Wikipedia must be WP:Verifiable as published somewhere—another hard policy. If you decide to write about your experiences and publish them in a book, magazine, or any other reliable source, then it may be added afterward. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Southy17: Personal knowledge is not verifiable to our readers or editors and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I know so much more about Stevie than you do, that is very obvious. Who are you to delete content that I added that is fact? Southy17 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If you ignore my previous answer I don't have anything more to say. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actors and Actresses

I don't know why you have been changing the word Actress to Actor on some biographies. In the English language the feminine version of the word Actor is Actress. It is not a "dated" term. 63.152.22.171 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to this change to the Claire Danes bio? I was chasing after the IP editor Special:Contributions/2600:387:F:4319:0:0:0:1 who is a long-term disruption problem. I was less concerned about the content.
Regarding Claire Danes, the biography has had actor/actress swapped back and forth more than a few times. For instance this state of the page in September 2019 shows "actor". The working idea here is that "actor" includes everybody who acts, but "actress" is only the female half, which isn't fair (but it reflects common practice). The idea has been discussed several times but hasn't resulted in any concrete change. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_1#Actor_vs._actress and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2020_April_12#'Actor'_vs._'actress'. In any case I am not trying to change one to the other on purpose. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of David Fisher (architect) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Fisher (architect), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fisher (architect) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong IP address

Hello, I would like to let you know that you have warned the wrong IP address in regards to edits on the Danny Trejo page. I have, so far, not made any edits to Wikipedia via IP address (I do have an account which I have not used in several years) and comparing the two IP addresses, I have found that you warned the wrong one. Thank you for the time, and my apologies for the inconvenience. 2600:387:F:5633:0:0:0:7 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice user page!

Read about half, will get back to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced genre and personnel additions by Nwhrmn13

Hi Binksternet. User:Nwhrmn13 has been adding unsourced genres and personnel information on a lot of different music articles. You can see the warnings on the editor's talk page, all of which are ignored. Here are a few examples of disruptive editing from the last week ([2][3][4][5]. I haven't had to request a block due to this type of behavior before, so I had a read through WP:DRR/ANI, but I found it somewhat difficult to see where one ought to be reporting. I know you're experienced in these matters, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I will dig in and look around. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This is probably block evasion by User:Egapikiw111. I'll file a report. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
You can add to the report if you wish at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Egapikiw111, in the section for comments by other users. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Take Me Home, Country Roads

Hi there. Could you tell me what part of my edits you disagree with in this revert? I made several constructive changes to the article here. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion in one place: the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind where it takes place, but here I am referring to a different issue than what we are currently discussing on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, can you explain what parts of my edits you disagreed with that caused you to revert them? This is separate to the issue of the subject of the song. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks!

ThunderHenry (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy belated 4th birthday on WP. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Dr. Octagoneclogyst album

Hey, Just here to show you these sources to see if there good.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/23101-dr-octagon-dr-octagonecologyst/

https://bedfordandbowery.com/2018/02/trip-hop-legend-dr-octagon-returns-with-moosebumps-lp-and-a-new-single/

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/29/597002303/first-listen-dr-octagon-moosebumps-an-exploration-into-modern-day-horripilation

I'm just going to add Trip Hop, Alternative hip hop, Horrorcore, and Psychedelic rap as it's genre tags. Picaxe01talk 05:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing explicitly supporting your genres. Nobody calls this album alternative or psychedelic or horrorcore. (One song was called psych-horror but that doesn't apply to the overall album genre, and it isn't exactly psychedelic hip hop or horrorcore.) The only source mentioning trip hop is one talking about the artist, not the album. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It seem like you don't get it. Labeling genres it's mostly depends on producers when it comes to hip hop. "The positive reception for “Dr. Octagon” caught the attention of Dan Nakamura, aka Dan the Automator. A young producer who had been learning on the job, he mastered early Solesides Records by the likes of DJ Shadow and Latyrx" - Patrin
All three artists are worked in the genres of Trip hop and Alternative. Some of the sources even use words that implies Alternative by using words such as "weird" and "bizarro" rap."Dr. Octagonecologyst’s afterlife is nearly as weird as its conception and its essence. Seemingly destined for cult status, it instead spread like wildfire, becoming an indie-rap essential..." - Patrin
This article gave a little comparison to the first album, describing the label that was being used. "Moosebumps is being billed as the first “true sequel” to Octagonecologyst," "...The result– more rap rock than trip-hop– doesn’t hold up nearly as well as Octagonecologyst does." -Maurer
Recently, I just found an article that describe the album with the same music genre being used. "Dr. Octagonecologist is credited with opening up the genre to new sounds, previously unheard of in hip hop; mixing electronic, trip hop, psychedelic, horrorcore, and old school hip hop..."
Here the link to the article:
https://centralsauce.com/kool-keith-dr-octagon-dr-dooom
It will be replacing the New Yorker article I used previously as cited. Picaxe01talk 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I don't get it, having worked with genres on Wikipedia for 14 years, making probably 100,000 edits related to genres. You can go ahead and change all the guidelines and rules to suit your vision. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but I have an article that describe the music genre of the "Dr. Octagonecologyst". I have refamed for using the "Alternative Hip hop" label. As for the others it's all there. Picaxe01talk 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:Verifiability, the source you cite needs to verify the facts you add. Your Central Sauce source does indeed supply a suitable genre for the album, talking about "alternative rap" which is alternative hip hop on Wikipedia. The genre psychedelic hip hop is only applied to the song "Blue Flowers". When the source says that the album "is credited with opening up the genre to new sounds, previously unheard of in hip hop; mixing electronic, trip hop, psychedelic, horrorcore, and old school hip hop into a hodgepodge of an album", none of these can be said to be the overall album genre. Rather, they are elements of the production, part of the larger picture. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Rocket Man (song)

I didn’t change any dates in the article in my latest edit referring to the Dua Lipa parody. Sorry for the misunderstanding about the date format. FinngrPrintz (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No sweat. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m not making this up: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qod03PVTLqk — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinngrPrintz (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweat

The info was removed a few months ago and the sources are there. You could go put them in yourself. Reverting your incorrect edit. It's not that simple to cite past edits but I'll do it I guess since you aren't going to agree.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The story is very minor in her career, but you are making it be super huge. You are making unreferenced accusations against a living person, not allowed per WP:BLP. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Very wrong. Maybe ask Minaj if she thinks the "story" of her father dying unnaturally is minor and very minor. The accusations are true if you mean the users on here changing history because it gets their article to GA or better status. I am putting the info back up and posting the references. Do you sometimes listen to other opinions?Pictureperfect2 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Memphis Bleek

I don't want to start anything but there is a user that keeps removing "record executive" from Bleek's lede and infobox and replacing it with actor. I added it back, leaving actor there as well, under the grounds that since Bleek has a small roster of artist through his music group, it is appropriate. What do you think? I don't want to edit war so if you say let it go, I will. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is the head of a label, a small label. Is he described as a record executive by the media?
The issue is not clear-cut. You should start a talk page discussion about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, when he's discussed it's usually as a rapper and friend/protege of Jay Z. I've seen a few articles such as the Huffington Post and Time, which label him as such, but he's considered a rapper by most. He's definitely not often referred to as an actor, even though he has "acted" I guess. So, should I edit to remove record executive and actor? 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no right answer. It's a gray area. Do what you feel best represents the guy, but don't keep reverting someone without talking up a solution to the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, if that user reverts the current edit, I'll just let it be. I'm sure being called an actor isn't the worse thing that's happened to Bleek, lol, thanks Bink. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Don Adams

I restored the text that you deleted for lack of sourcing with an appropriate reflink. Yours, 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

HELP

Hi dude. How are you? I got a problem; this user BOZ are vandalizing the articles about Marvel's characters, not only for troll me, but for pure arrogance. Please read his contributions, his actions are unacceptable and have no presentation. Greetings.--2800:484:7393:A52E:9462:4916:83D2:9DA2 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the IP user decided to reach out to you, but for the record, they often edit war against consensus and without discussion (see most recently[6]) and were recently blocked (for personal attacks and harrassment[7]) which are common enough if you review their range contributions. Maybe they picked you because they reverted you[8] twice[9] recently? BOZ (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Album reissue info in prose

Quick question for you. I noticed someone has recently removed brief, sourced info about reissues that I've left on two Oingo Boingo album pages. Can you take a look here and here and let me know if you think the reissue material I had added was unnecessary, or if I should restore it? I'm pretty sure there were ulterior motives behind the removal that extend beyond WP (long story on that), but I'd first like to get your take on whether or not that info belongs here. Thank you!
—The Keymaster (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

TK, is this an accurate assessment of the problem? Last year you began expanding the article "Only a Lad", adding a paragraph about a colored vinyl reissue,[10] and tagging problematic material such as likely original research. This year in February, Detachio removed your paragraph about the colored vinyl reissue, and also a paragraph you had tagged.[11] Much the same action happened at Nothing to Fear (Oingo Boingo album) where Detachio removed[12] a similar paragraph about a Rubellan Remasters colored vinyl reissue.
Perhaps Detachio is acting against perceived promotional activity on your part, with Detachio assuming that you have an interest in seeing Rubellan Remasters releases listed on Wikipedia, or that you have an interest in the record review website theseconddisc.com which was cited both times. The cite removal by Detachio might be based on WP:REFSPAM which says "Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." The Rubellan Remasters removal might be based on Detachio's assumption that you are promoting that company. Those are guesses. Have you asked Detachio about their motive?
Otherwise, I can't see why Detachio would be removing relevant information about the album. It's quite normal and usual to tell the reader about reissues of albums. I would argue on the talk pages about the relevance of the facts and the neutral, non-promotional tone. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Binksternet, yes, that's pretty much it. He also removed the sourced information about CD reissues with bonus tracks. Conversely, I deduced a while back that much of the OR he's added here through the years is "sourced" from Boingo bootleg videos he's uploaded on his own YouTube channel. Go figure.
I haven't spoken to him directly, but from my observations in the past, he usually ignores any attempts at discussion. I did think about the promotional angle, but in his rationale for deleting the info on Only a Lad, he said in his edit comment, "Short run reissue not worth its own section when the contents already covered in the track listing".[13] I find this odd, as it was only one sentence, not a section, and this is not a rationale I've heard before. I know that he had a public spat with Rubellan on a well-known music forum and I fear he is bringing that into WP by needlessly removing sourced information. He also removed similar reissue info[14] from the Legacy section of the main Oingo Boingo page on the grounds that it was not part of a band's legacy. I guess that one is debatable.
This is not the first time he's done this kind of destructive editing. He was called out on a Boingo page for doing these kinds of edits before (under both his then-username and also an anonymous IP, although it was dead obvious the latter was him) and a few months later he popped up under his current user name. This is (at least) his second user name here.
Perhaps I should just restore the information and give my rationale for doing so on both talk pages?
Thanks for your help, as always.
—The Keymaster (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
You didn't say you were not connected to Rubellan—you don't have to answer—but your description of Detachio's editing pattern is troublesome. I think the wiki is a better source of information when all the major album reissues are listed.
Certainly you can restore the reissue paragraphs and whatever else you deem wrongly removed, while giving your rationale at the talk page as you suggest. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm not connected to Rubellan at all, outside of speaking to him on the aforementioned music forum a few times. I'm just suspecting that their tiff may be a factor in Detachio's rationale for deleting any information related to his reissues, given what I have witnessed between them. I can't even remember what caused their rift at the moment, although I believe it had something to do with the YouTube channel.
—The Keymaster (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Let's return the Rubellan reissues to the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Will do! Thanks, Bink.
—The Keymaster (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I went to restore the info...only to find that you'd saved me the trouble! Ha! Probably better that way, as it shows a veteran editor did it. Thanks again for your help and advice!
—The Keymaster (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

DS4Ever album cover

Can you upload a better version of the album cover. The current image seems to be in lower quality. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The current image is 200 pixels square. I've done a few 300-square albums and I saw a bot reduce one to 315 square. How large can a non-free album cover be? Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think 300 pixels square is more appropriate size for the album cover and the image came from Instagram (now a dead source), but if the current image is fine as it is, sorry for bothering you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No sweat! I just wanted to get it right. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's see if 315 is acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Guy Eckstine

Hi, thanks for the ping. I've blocked the editor; they're not doing anyone any good on Wikipedia. But the article itself is mostly unsourced promotional garbage. If you feel like it, improving it would be appreciated, although, without a fair amount of work, the only hope for it may be gutting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be blown up and rebuilt. Thanks for the mop action. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. For now. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much better.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Digital liner notes are available whenever an album pre-order is

Harder Than It Looks has digital liner notes for its available singles if you access and add the album to the Apple Music app, so yes, it does. The band members are all credited. Liner notes does not exclusively refer to physical copy—most albums that are available to pre-order have liner notes up on music platforms. Again: MOS:ALBUM states an album does not need explicit citation for credits because it is assumed they are taken from the liner notes. Regardless, that doesn't justify you reverting all my contributions to the article. Be more careful. Thank you. Ss112 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder My cherie Amour

"A cover version must be important" The Boney M. version is no big hit but despite of that okay and launched all over the world with here and than some succes like in South Africa,France and Spain (countries where the succes of Boney M.continued) .There is even a 12 inch USA mix. Finally stands it nowadays on several compilation albums. Many Boney M. fans find it a super production expecially the 12 inch version with jazzy styled instrumental parts ....regret that you deleted it.... Musicworldvision (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The guideline WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. The media should publish their opinions about the cover version, or it should enter a national chart. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Frank Farian Wikipedia

...Thanks.... for keeping and reworking my added information in the rubrice Personal Life! Musicworldvision (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

The Music Barnstar
It's good to see your username regularly. Thank you for all you do, in music and everywhere else too. Bammesk (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Gabi DeMartino

Hello! A while ago I created a draft page for Gabi DeMartino who is apart of the Niki and Gabi duo, the singer has gone solo and I think she needs her own page, she recently released her solo album as well, so if you have time could you review the draft page and help me improve it if it needs to? Thank you so much! Gabriella Grande (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

YouTubers are not my thing. Too many of the sources are unfamiliar to me; I would have to figure out each one of them to see whether they would be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Godfather III

Sorry about the edit war we over regarding The Godfather: Part III page! I edited the Sofia Coppola page too and got my edits in the two pages mixed up Gabrielle103 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw that. You are removing the assumption that Sofia stopped acting and started directing because of the poor acting reviews. Such an assumption is widespread, so I don't see complete removal as optimal, no matter whether the assumption is true or false. Author Suzanne Ferriss addresses this issue on page 167 in the book The Cinema of Sofia Coppola: Fashion, Culture, Celebrity (ISBN 9781350176638). Ferriss says "Much has been made of the harshly critical reviews of her performance in The Godfather III... as being responsible for Coppola's choice of directing over acting. She has disputed this narrative..." I imagine our readers would be best served by hearing the common narrative followed by the contradiction of the narrative. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel like it would be best if we talk about how 'a lot of people perceived Sofia to have stopped acting due to negative criticism of her performance in The Godfather Part: III' - before going on to say that Sofia disputed this. Gabrielle103 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Need guidance please

I am heading towards you because you have already intervened on the main article of Dalida and gave me your support. I am not asking for support but only your participation and your opinion, whether or not it goes against the elements that I have brought. I'm not looking for approval but a clear opinion. And you are a wikipedia regular. Your experience will be beneficial. This is the subject that is being debated : Dalida's nationality. Thanking you again. --Elenora.C (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will look at the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention. I allowed myself to complete. Have a good day Elenora.C (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Binksternet Thank you for your contributions on the Dalida page, the main article is gradually taking on a more encyclopedic form. Despite a user who does not fail to bring the page back in the event that it was. This slows down any development. Elenora.C (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Binksternet I will now avoid going over the modifications of DalidaEditor not wanting to infringe the principles of Wikipedia. But the actions of this user are beginning to look like vandalism. I don't know what to do anymore. Elenora.C (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Not "vandalism" exactly. More like misplaced enthusiasm. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
A user has proposed a permanent block concerning him. Elenora.C (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I think DalidaEditor has some good ideas, but that person is too resistant to others collaborating. One of DalidaEditor's good ideas is that Dalida's success should not be gauged solely on song sales and album sales.[15] To fix this problem, we can tell the reader that Dalida was influential in certain ways because of her beauty or mystique or soulful depth—whatever it is—cited to a biographer. We can add that sort of spiritual assessment to the raw sales figures to tell the reader how important she was. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree with that. If you refer to the sandbox it is not finished and having a source that indicated charts and sales I used it. Hence this impression given.The main article, as it currently stands, also advertises sales, charts, and even section titles use the song titles. However, some of his successes are to be put into perspective. DalidaEditor says the sandbox always talks about millions and millions. However, in total, 14 times the term "million" appears in the main article, only 7 times in the sandbox whose sale part is settled. There now remains a whole other work of contribution: the concerts, the key dates of its history, its capacities of interpretation. Besides, I clearly told him that I was not refractory. Quite the contrary. But where to start ? I had made that choice. The sales that are or have been mentioned are sometimes false like the level of success attributed to them. We already have you and I participating in making this introduction closer to reality and we can see the change. Wishing you a nice day. Thanks again. Elenora.C (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way here is my answer to DalidaEditor. Elenora.C (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

FH edition claims

Hi there, i would like you to stop adding FH with the so claimed "21 million" sales to the their page, the sources are completely unreliable and do not follow wikipedia's notability rules, the first source states that the group have sold 21M copies only the United States, the second source is a copy of what wikipedia states, and that was the edition which is completely disruptive and misleading, there's still no reliable claming "FH 21M records sold" anywhere, once its proven the opposite, for now there's one reliable source confirming a "33 million" claim so is the one most accurate to add here since it comes from the prestigious TV channel "E!". Cheers and please know that wikipedia editors are here to improve articles, help each other, and to protect pages from vandalism or disruptive edition, i recommend you to stop doing it cause is unclear and misleading information.

The article clearly says "21 million in the United States" so is not accurate to put here, the article needs "Worlwide sales source", plus the second source copied what they saw here, which is fake information anyways, if you want to put the 21 million claim, put it above in the 15 million sales in the USA statement, please find another reliable source to sustain this claim, if you can't then just leave the page how it is, unless if a reliable source confirms FH real sales figure. Moonlight Entm (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Just in case you weren't aware, there is a complaint about you at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Motörhead

I have reverted your revision to include The Damned, as per reasons stated, though I should add that my summary contained one error i.e. that he was continuing to collaborate with as late as 2009, not 2003. To reiterate: if one member in common is insufficient - even when that member is Lemmy - then the entire section should be removed. FrFintonStack (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The guideline at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts says not to include "Groups with only one member in common". If the new touring guy Brian James (guitarist) is counted, then we have two members in common. Otherwise, we can look at the literature and see if the Damned and Motörhead are said to be very closely associated, more than just being on the same tour.
I don't have a problem with the prospect of a big pruning job on the associated acts parameter, if that's what is needed. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand the reason for the template advice but it seems absurd to apply it rigidly when the act is essentially a vehicle for the member in question. On the association between the two acts: see the Motördamn session of 1979 (released 1992) which featured all then-current members of both acts. https://www.discogs.com/artist/2266035-Motördamn also related in the Guardian article on the 2009 tour https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2009/nov/18/motorhead-the-damned-review The Damned b-side Ballroom Blitz feat Lemmy on bass 1979 https://www.last.fm/music/Lemmy/_/The+Damned+-+Ballroom+Blitz

Recording together 2002 https://www.punknews.org/amp/4953/the-damned-recording-with-lemmy-kilmister-in-2003 Lemmy in The Doomed (first Damned reformation, name changed slightly for legal reasons) 1978/9 https://vivelerock.net/the-doomed/ Article here discusses mutual influence and ongoing friendship https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/should-motorhead-be-considered-a-punk-band/?amp Worth noting that Lemmy’s quote about having more in common with punk bands than Black Sabbath (noted and referenced in the Wikipedia Motörhead article) is specifically about The Damned. The Damned’s New Rose (1976) is almost universally referred as the first UK punk record - without an understanding of the mutual relationship between The Damned snd Motörhead, we lose important context in the history and evolution of British popular music, especially the origins of NEOBHM.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You make good points; the literature is supportive. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of multiple IP warning

Hi, this warning isn't really correct. If someone is making edits from different IPs in the same IPv6 WP:/64 range, it's not anything deliberate but rather something that automatically happens - the IP addresses are often automatically switched every few hours within that /64 range. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The person involved used several different ranges. All of it could be "automatic" but it could also be deliberate, with the person purposely restarting their device. Below I have listed the ranges they have used. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
That makes me think, Galobtter, that a multiple IP warning might have been appropriate in this case. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Binksternet Makes sense. Yeah with that previous history a warning is appropriate, just wanted to let you know about the /64 thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Hi buddy, I didn't say that I consider Freddie Mercury to be the 'greatest' frontman, etc. I said what then might be a good truth, which is that many critics might agree with what I wrote, and all you would need to do is find some sources to back up what I said, I'm sure there would be enough, but that's ok never mind. Thanks for the message, I wish you a good continuation: :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreoto (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen edged out Mercury in this piece by Billboard magazine. Robert Plant edged out Mercury in this piece by Rolling Stone. Listeners of XFM voted Liam Gallagher the best frontman, edging out Mercury. Of course Mercury is very highly regarded. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

They're all very valid rankings, of course, but I was talking about critics, not rankings; which are polls, at least the last two. Billboard may be all right, but they are rankings that leave time to be found: even those that place Mercury at number one, that's all right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.97.182 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Marjorie Dannenfelser

Marjorie Dannenfelser's page is being requested to prevent the display of the city/state she currently lives in. The user is attempting to reclaim private information on the Internet and requests this information not be displayed. Bh2win (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of published information. Dannenfelser's city of residence—Arlington, Virginia—has been published multiple times. I'm sure this doesn't have anything to do with the current Supreme Court case, and protesters standing outside the homes of those who are responsible. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Whether it's published or not does not mean it has to be published on Wikipedia, the individual is requesting the edits stand and the page be protected. There are claims of harassment and threats. Bh2win (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
An addition to my last statement shows the name of her spouse and that she has children. This information does not need to be posted on Wikipedia if the page is about her. Bh2win (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Dannenfelser herself supplied this information to reporters many times. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
What are you not convinced of? Bh2win (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
That this information needs to be removed. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: a serial editor

Can we keep an eye on this PrinceStingySpoilero guy? I've been noticing for a while now that he often makes strange and unncessary edits, usually converting lists to that ghastly hlist format. I just reverted a number of them and I see you've already reverted some as well and have even warned him about it once. I just left another message on his talk page. I also noticed his user page is just a YouTube link to an account (presumably his) that was taken down for violating community guidelines.
—The Keymaster (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Already keeping track. Your comment there pinged me. ;^)
Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, cool. I initially had you pinged and thought I did it wrong, for some reason, so I removed it. Still getting used to communicating with folks here. Thanks.
—The Keymaster (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Have you noticed this "hlist" template has been popping up all over various pages here? Is there a protocol for this? MOS seems to state that a simple bulleted list with asterisks is preferred for lists of three or more. I can't find this hlist template anywhere.
—The Keymaster (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Midwest hip hop

the Midwest hip hop article clearly states that its a genre based on cited sources not original research. what's your problem? Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest hip hop. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I added Further reading and you removed them all. The book profiles iconic women in hip-hop and provides historical context as well as the perspectives of the featured artists. Please restore it back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.73.14 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. To me it appears that the book is being spammed into multiple articles for the purpose of promotion. A far better use of the book would be to take interesting facts from it and summarize them for each biography, citing the book. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Covers of "The End of the World"

Thank you for cleaning up the cover versions in ["The End of the World"]; I also had already seen that there were some questionable entries, especially the most recent one, the youtube video. However, I don't quite understand why, with three exceptions, all the cover versions have fallen victim to your work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FePo2 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about this pruning job. I removed so many cover versions because the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. I would have kept the Patty Duke cover because the text there said it charted, but I was unable to find such a chart. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I see. It looks like the WP:SONGCOVER guideline is one of the most overlooked in Wikipedia :-). FePo2 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Marx Brothers and sources

Sorry for the sources, but on Marx Brothers, I agree. A blog is NEVER acceptible and always a lie. On Humor Risk, however, I could not cite a source based on the limited amount of articles on the topic. What I wrote was true, unplagiarised, and completely necessary. But if you feel that adding data is bad, I won’t edit anymore.

On Lion Solser, I am on the fence. On one hand, it is angering due to the exclusive information, but on the other, I agree, it was getting kind of junked up. Thank you.

-User:Sir Robert PerPaper Sir Robert PerPaper (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Some blogs are fine, for instance Roger Ebert's self-published film criticism website. He is an acknowledged expert.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published thought. The published stuff should mostly come from WP:SECONDARY sources—WP:Reliable sources. If there is a topic which doesn't have very much published about it in reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not try to fill in the blanks with less reliable stuff.
Your Marx Brothers addition appeared to me to violate WP:No original research, or it was based on a blog. Either way it should not stay in the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hardbass Artists

Why is it not okay to have an artist list in an article about a musical genre?

Then it's not so easy to find examples of the corresponding kind of music and additionally it is a notable issue. For example, How would one know who were classical music composers easily, if there would not be a list which includes for instance Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, etc... It is a part of the knowledge about the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.130.57 (talk • contribs)

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists says "Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers." Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My criticism of the tone and quality of the misandry article

Heavens - you have deleted my comment on the article's tone and content! You really do have a power complex, don't you? You immediately assume the likes of Karen Straughan are not 'reliable sources'? At root, you are an arrogant male, determined to treat us as defenceless imbeciles in need of your protection. (86.157.108.146 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.108.146 (talk)

Thanks for the confirmation. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP issues

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eleni Foureira. Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Eleni Foureira shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of geographical features

Hi there Binksternet- you don’t believe that many of these California geographical features need disambiguating..Santa Clara Valley, San Fernando Valley, San Francisco Bay (itself, and not the Bay Area), and the like..? I think it’s awfully presumptuous to assume that people worldwide would know all of these places well. In fact, I’d be actually willing to bet that the average person does NOT recognize these specific geographical features, as places in the Southwest US as well as throughout Latin America have these or very similar-sounding names. I believe it would be innocuous and useful simply to disambiguate these geographical features as California entities in the page names. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The article name should only be disambiguated when there is a good reason for doing so. Otherwise, the most widely used name takes precedence. If there is a Santa Clara Valley somewhere other than California, that particular valley should be disambiguated. The most popular usage gets the main name without disambiguation. See WP:COMMONNAME. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand where you’re coming from. But there’s a bit of a circular argument there. In other words, people are going to base the WP:COMMONNAME upon their own experience. Perhaps try telling someone in Ventura County, California that Santa Clara River Valley has just been relocated 300 miles north? And has someone in rural Spain heard of either American Santa Clara Valley? Wouldn’t it be innocuous (and improve the encyclopedia) simply to disambiguate each page a bit further as Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara County, California, and Santa Clara River Valley, Ventura County, California? Same with other similar geographical features, And from a WP:MOS standpoint, a million hatnotes can be precluded. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Mimi Webb

Hi there, Just wondering why you undid the revision where it said Mimi Webb is English. She is? Scottish and Welsh singers don’t get called “British” on Wikipedia so why does she? She’s English. Thanks COYB01 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. She is English, of course, and also British. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Deadline on Shakira's articles with problems

Hi Binksternet. Perhaps you could help in these articles on Shakira since her articles, particularly her main one are receiving more traffic after her break up with Gerard Piqué. Shakira Studies and Shakira Wannabe are two articles with particular concerns, and maybe you can noticed it. Have a kind of original research and synthesis involved (mainly the first one).

These two articles were created by a then new user, months ago, and inspired (WP:OTHERSTUFF) in both Madonna Studies and Madonna wannabe respectively. The articles regarding Madonna, we can say are both well-articulated terms in popular literature, fairly enough to have a space and with several sections, as well its own WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary, the Shakira ones, mainly the first one, is a term that doesn't exist (possible WP:HOAX), and she is not recognized topic by mainstream academia as to devote either a whole article. There is just insolated scholarly articles on her; many mainstream public figures have received the attention of one, or more than one piece in a journal article, but aren't an established topic amongst scholars. There exists also in both articles, poorly quality on sources.

I still supporting Scyrme's view that even is not worth merging for a term that doesn't exist (Shakira Studies) and originated by an user; Perhaps dedicate a simple line (prose) about scholarly articles on her in the Bibliography of works on Shakira could be ok instead merging. Take the example of Taylor Swift (impact section, last paragraph). The second one, I also support Richard3120's point of view and personally I could add that fails almost everything of these points presented in the AfD of Madonna wannabe.

Perhaps, you agree. Or not. If you are not either interested or don't have the time, no worries. Naturally I reached out to you, since you are a specialist in music-related articles, vandalism, hoaxes, Wikipedia's guidelines, neutrality etc. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:AFD is the next step for both of those. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User's argument about the new wave genre even though reliably sourced

Hi Binksternet, just wanted to know your opinion about the user Msftwin95 who's against the new wave genre being placed onto articles to suit his own point of view even though numerous reliable sources are always present. He claims it's my own opinion when it is clearly not as many sources across the Internet prove otherwise. There's currently a discussion here. Thanks. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lemme look. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

4 genres too many?

Hi, I'm a bit confused as to why you wrote You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) had "too many genres" when I added dance-pop to the list. I accordingly removed synth-pop so that only 3 genres are listed, but I have seen many songs on Wikipedia with 4 or more genres. To give just a few examples: What's on Your Mind (Pure Energy), Domino Dancing, and Go West (Pet Shop Boys version). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msftwin95 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

First things first: Please put genres into the article body using prose. Don't just put them into the infobox. See Template:Infobox song which says the genre "should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article."
There is no rule restricting how many genres can appear in the song infobox. In my comment I was responding to the flurry of genre warring you have been engaging in. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, if genre sources are preferred in the article body as opposed to the infobox, I will do so from now on. I am still fairly new to the music side of Wikipedia and was following the example of the more seasoned user the HiddenStranger, who so frequently puts sources in the infobox that I assumed it was standard practice.
At this point I'm not really genre warring; I have no desire to remove genres already listed, though I may disagree with them. Rather I want to make the music pages more thorough by adding legitimately sourced genres that are missing. Msftwin95 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, is only 4 genres per band really a thing? Many if not most band pages, from New Order to R.E.M. to Frankie Goes to Hollywood, have more than 4 genres listed. Msftwin95 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The instructions emphasize that the infobox genres should be less specific and more generic. Fewer genres is much easier to do if they are generic.
Pointing out examples of articles that are in violation of a guideline is not an excuse to violate the guideline. Rather, it is an indication that some cleanup work is required. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Pooh Shiesty

I have deleted his birthdate as there is no reliable source showing it is true. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Excellent decision. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

??????

Maybe Freebandz isn't the most reliable source, but it's been stated within the Future article multiple times that he songwrites, produces, and is the head of the record label Freebandz.... sooooo why the removal; also you don't have to be rude when confronting someone about an editing disagreement. Peace and love. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mark Owen...

... has been put on the page protections increase page. I am not doing any more reverts on the article since I have done it three times within 24 hours to be on the safe side. Those Denmark IP's don't seem to have anything useful but to change the dates to another language etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I found two Denmark IP changes that were false chart stats. I don't trust that guy after that. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Appeared to start on 27 May and continued till page protection was done. It's pretty much a problem for the last two weeks and it was only us who have spotted these problems. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for third opinion on 27 Club list edits

I have posted a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion regarding your reverts of my 5 edits to the 27 Club list. Goffman82 19:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong venue. 3O is for those times when only two people are talking and cannot settle their differences. The 27 Club talk page has more activity than that. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. The issue at hand is your rationale for reverting each of my 5 edits. You have yet to provide a substantive response to the content issues cited in the edit summaries for those edits, despite multiple requests on the talk page. If a third opinion participant agrees that it is the wrong venue, we'll find a better venue. In the meantime, which venue would you suggest? Goffman82 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
People at 3O will see that the talk page is active with participation from Escape Orbit, Amakuru, Iamtheduckie and Mudwater, aside from me and you. The 3O person will note that you have chosen the wrong venue. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


Cultural impact of Shakira

good afternoon with the respect you deserve, I would like to know exactly why you eliminated some sections such as Shakira tribute artists and bands as well as tribute albums to her, if it is part of her impact as an artist. I also see no reason why you should eliminate the tribute thing, making tributes at festivals and video tributes shows how important an artist is. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that you are putting together a new conclusion that is not found in any of the sources. You are violating WP:SYNTH. Your sources show that the tribute exists, but your sources fail to say that this tribute is important to Shakira's cultural legacy. You need WP:SECONDARY sources explicitly describing the sub-topic before you can start a new sub-section. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It feels good to greet and be greeted, on the page of tribute albums to artists like Madonna they are put by the same bone source "Allmusic" and as a page like that of Shakira is not enough information I decided to summarize it in a small list within its cultural impact.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Because of your unclear English, I am guessing that you are saying AllMusic is a good enough citation because you see it used in the same way at some page about Madonna. To judge that situation I would have to see the exact Madonna citation and the text it supports. But if AllMusic is being used in a manner violating WP:SYNTH, of course I would respond by taking it out of the Madonna article.
Your decision to "summarize it in a small list" was a decision to violate WP:No original research. Sorry, but that is not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a range to block?

Hi, you reported 186.155.140.58, which I blocked, but your message on User talk:186.155.140.58 suggests that a range block may be required. If you can identify a range, let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The ranges change over time. The person used Special:Contributions/186.155.116.237 in late May, Special:Contributions/201.244.43.180 in April–May, Special:Contributions/186.28.40.229 in 2021–2022, Special:Contributions/190.85.103.105 in 2020–2021, and many more slotted in here and there. I don't see an easy range to set a preventive block. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

IPs from Mexico

I've recently seen you post an ANI discussion about an LTA from Mexico who keeps changing release dates, and they were recently blocked, but now I think I've caught another few IP ranges from the Monterrey region evading the block:

They're making the exact same changes as before, which happen to be changing cited release dates to previously uncited dates—quite possibly the ones they saw when they visited the page for the first time. That's just a theory, but the point is that I think they're engaging in block evasion. Can you do something about this? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly a long-term abuse case. The recent activity represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64. The person has also used other unblocked /64 ranges including Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:F32B:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/2806:106E:1F:4259:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:63FA:0:0:0:0/64. This person was discussed last week at ANI:Date-changing vandal from Mexico which resulted in the recent block. I will notify the last blocking admin. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Barry) Islands in the Stream

Michael, what are you going on about?

Carl Smith of The OCC states: "Kate boasts the longest-ever gap between Number 1 singles in Official Chart history. With 44 years between her 1978 chart topper Wuthering Heights and 2022’s Running Up That Hill, she beats Tom Jones’s 42-year gap between Green Green Grass of Home and charity single (Barry) Islands in the Stream. See the full list of longest gaps between Number 1 singles here."...see there it is in the article.[1]

James Masterton says: "Kate Bush has also endured the longest ever gap between No.1 hits, topping the British charts for the first time since her debut single Wuthering Heights hit the top in 1978. The previous record holder was Tom Jones, and if we count matters from the very last chart week when the previous hit was top of the charts and the date of the first week the new hit climbed there then he officially had to wait from January 12th 1967 to March 21st 2009 - 42 years, 2 months and 10 days - to top the charts."

Alan Jones of Music Week says: "Running Up That Hill is Bush’s second No.1, arriving more than 44 years after her first - debut single Wuthering Heights - and almost 37 years after its own original No.3 peak. It’s a record gap between No.1 hits by any artist, surpassing the previous record of 42 years held by Tom Jones."[2]

So if the OCC, Alan Jones[3] of Music Week and James Masterton (ex-Music Week)[4] have all mentioned this 42 year record relating to Tom Jones being on (Barry) Islands in the Stream recently being broken, maybe it is something of importance that should go next to the information about Tom Moore...as its the same kind of thing, except that one is about age[5] and the other is about gaps between #1 hits.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.171.251 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/kate-bushs-running-up-that-hill-is-official-charts-number-1-single-singer-becomes-3-x-official-charts-record-breaker-with-stranger-things-success__36605/
  2. ^ https://www.musicweek.com/analysis
  3. ^ https://www.musicweek.com/opinion/read/the-chart-show-music-week-pays-tribute-to-departing-chart-guru-alan-jones/079057
  4. ^ https://www.musicweek.com/media/read/meet-music-week-s-new-chart-analyst/079114
  5. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-oldest-artists-to-score-a-number-1-single-in-the-uk__29564/
  6. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/long-gaps-between-number-1s-on-the-uks-official-singles-chart__29295/#:~:text=There%20was%20almost%2026%20years,logged%20by%20a%20female%20artist
Thanks for sharing the quotes supporting your edit. I removed your snide personal attack. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit on Singer's Aaliyah Page

Your recent revert on singers Aaliyah's Wikipedia page literally reverted that page back to when it had multiple problems. For example, that page had multiple un-reliable sources, dead outdated links, and grammar/spelling errors. For over a month, I corrected those things , I removed unreliable sources, by adding sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia, I updated dead links and corrected spelling/grammar issues. I also expanded on and added useful information on certain topics that were mentioned in the article. For a month, I put a lot of time and energy with up-keeping , up-dating and making sure that page was in current tiptop shape. Instead of reverting and removing every edit that I made, The least that you could've done was discuss which information to keep or remove, you literally removed everything. Lastly, the joke is on you because you didn't even analyze the edits, you didn't even bother to make sure that pages previous condition was up to code, instead you reverted it back to when that page had dead links and un-reliable sources in multiple areas.


OkIGetIt20 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, like that aspect is more important than you cramming in tons of unneeded detail and refs, creating an obese cow of a bio. Aaliyah deserves better. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

SPI case

No need to revert user's comments on their own SPI case, as long as they don't delete/modify anything that you wrote. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for filing that; the behavior/edits weren't quite as obvious as those of previous accounts I blocked, so the SPI filing was a good call. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Halsey "So Good" edit challenge

Hello! I am here to discuss the edit you made about "trimming excessive text" on the wikipedia page So Good (Halsey song). While most of the edit is good, the edit surrounding the heading "release controversy" you have made, I believe, has distorted the situation at hand, given the coverage and attention. while Wikipedia is certainly not a tabloid by any means for covering "gossip", the release controversy did provoke substantial attention/discussion/controversy/coverage which your trimming edit has misshaped/misconstrued.(again, obviously, this is my own perception). In conclusion, I believe the edit is a fatal use of Occam's Razor, but I would still like to confer with you to discuss the rationale. Thank you! Chchcheckit (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to get as close as possible to WP:BANREVERT without deleting the article. The problem at a bunch of music articles is that editors who were blocked for their disruptive editing are still editing through IPs and sockpuppet accounts. In this change, banned editor User:Rishabisajakepauler used a Texas IP to take the song topic out of redirect. My goal was to eliminate as much as possible the banned editor's prose additions, while retaining the notable topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. This rationale is valid given circumstances, however with the aforementioned section,as I was the one who wrote said section (with on your linked edit/said banned edit on taking out of redirect not showing this "release controversy"); therefore, politely, WP:BANREVERT has no role on affecting the section in any capacity, because banned user did not create section nor content. Thank you again! Chchcheckit (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Please restore your work. You are more familiar with it than I am. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Carlos Gardel

Hi! As I made clear in the edit summary, the article is not neutral. There are several theories and conspiracies about the name and date of birth of Carlos Gardel, and in the article one of them is chosen as the most "appropriate". Those who believe that he was born in France affirm that it is confirmed and there is sufficient evidence, the same with the population that believes that he was born in Tacuarembo. To this day, there are still disputes on this issue. [16] So I think the best thing to do is to mention both options at the beginning, as it is in the article in most major languages (spanish, german, portuguese, french, etc). :) --BePlus (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As I made it clear, the matter is settled. Your link doesn't have an author, so making it look like clickbait published by BBC. Even this low-quality source doesn't say Gardel was born in Uruguay. Rather, it pulls out the old Argentine identity card which we already know is about Gardel avoiding repercussions from France because Gardel avoided serving France in World War I. And why was Gardel worried about France? Because he was born there. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, that's a theory! :) There are many references that affirm one or another theory. It doesn't make sense to just support one, plus the article has irrelevant data from...? I still maintain that both possibilities should be mentioned at the beginning, as in most languages, since there are reliable references to both versions. --BePlus (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You are asking for a false equivalence, to treat one theory the same as the other theory. But the France origin story stands far above the other. Scholars traveled to France to discover the truth and found everything they needed. They deflated the Uruguay story completely. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And that is the discussion. "The France origin story stands far above the other" is just an opinion, like all there are, of scholars, journalists, writers, historians, whatever they are. There are hundreds of references stating that he is French, and hundreds more that he is Uruguayan. It just doesn't make sense to claim that one is true, you claimed. That seems less than neutral, considering that nothing is confirmed.--BePlus (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You should read more of the writings of the France origin, and you will begin to understand. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 'list of jangle pop bands' article

Greetings,

I have proposed the deletion of the 'list of jangle pop bands' article and would request you take a look and consider deleting it. I'd also like to apologise for the unwarranted hostility I exhibited in our last interaction.

Thanks,

Msftwin95 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will voice my opinion at the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok got it. Also, re: my addition of 'Category:Jangle pop groups' to Aztec Camera which you just reverted, I was basing it off the page for their debut album which begins 'High Land, Hard Rain is the debut album by jangle pop band Aztec Camera, released in 1983.' Msftwin95 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Try reading books and magazine articles about the band. Wikipedia is supposed to be built using WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to blocked my account

ban if you will i'm not afraid to you Leon s redfield (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ban you! I'm just trying to keep your editing style in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. For instance, you made a style change that I reverted because both styles are acceptable. You insisted that a published source was wrong about a musical genre, which is not a winning argument. You added some genres to a song article without references—a violation of WP:No original research.
The encyclopedia is not here for you to establish your viewpoint. It's here to summarize published sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Audio Engineering

Hi, Binksternet. Doing good? I have a question. Your user page details your experience as an audio engineer. Do you have a website or portal where music creators can listen to your mixes and maybe hire you? Just asking out of interest and also since I do create music. Israell (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No portal or website. I am a live sound engineer, sitting at the mixing console for live shows. Almost all of my shows are people talking rather than musicians playing. Two recent standout exceptions have been a brilliant Fantastic Negrito performance at KQED which I was privileged to mix,[17] and one song performed by Meklit Hadero and Kronos Quartet which I had a hand in mixing, along with Kronos staffer Brian Mohr. (Fast forward to 7:00.)
I don't mix songs in the studio or at home. The most I do at home is digitize and clean up rare vinyl recordings.
Good luck with your work! Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Gwen stefani page

What do you mean that the math doesn't make sense? Gwen's record sales sources and is already innacurate cause her sales have been updated, please use consesus and discuss before reverting. Moonlight Entm (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS for forming consensus is on you, the person who wishes to add new numbers. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.
Message added 22:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Serial editor still at it

Checked his recent contributions and there are numerous instances of him unnecessarily changing lists in infoboxes, etc. to hlist format, despite warnings from both you and I. He's not the first person I've seen do this, either. Is there a protocol for this? I couldn't find anything in the MOS about using hlists. To my mind, this would constitute unnecessary markup, but maybe I am wrong.
—The Keymaster (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If two or more styles are acceptable, then WP:STYLEVAR says it is disruptive to go around changing from one accepted style to another. But commas are only acceptable for two or three entries. Four or more get the list format. For example, PSS changed a list of four correctly, but also changed a list of two unnecessarily.
At Template:Infobox album#Notes the instruction says that "a normal bulleted list" is required for lists of four or more, rendered as list items separated by middots. Bulleted lists can come from two methods of markup, one being the hlist template.
I gave him another warning. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. This guy and his needless tinkering are driving me nuts.
Is hlist formatting mentioned in the MOS somewhere? If it's an acceptable format, I'm thinking that Notes section should be amended accordingly. The Keymaster (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to amend the Notes. The reason I say that hlist is acceptable is because the infobox instructions are firm on the point that any lists larger than three items should be displayed horizontally, separated by middots. The instructions are less firm about how to get there. The suggested way is to use a vertical stack of bulleted items, which the template markup turns into a horizontal list separated by middots. The hlist template is the other common way to get there. A third way exists: use the middot character, as in Item 1 · Item 2 · Item 3 · Item 4. The simplest method for most editors is the vertical stack of bulleted items. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The vertical list with asterisks is the method I use, personally. I've noticed that, for some sections, a vertical list with asterisks will be auto-converted to a horizontal bulleted list, while other sections will automatically keep it as a spaced vertical list. Not sure if that was deliberate on the part of whomever made the infobox scripts or was simply an oversight, but I figure the asterisk method as suggested in the notes then lets it default to whatever format it's "supposed" to be. The Keymaster (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. The studio parameter is reworked into a vertical list while genres are horizontal. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You should read better before mass reverts

1. Article about lofi hip hop has this in the lede: "Lofi hip hop (also known as chillhop or simply lofi) is a form of downtempo that combines elements of hip hop and chill-out music." Not a form of easy listening music? Give me a break

2. House music revert. I strongly suspect you didn't read at all, because I was forced by you to copypaste most refs from appropriate articles (amapiano, drake's "honestly nevermind"). I mean, I am not against adding refs, but I was lazy cause I linked the articles I wrote about, and they have all the info and refs one would need. In this case, one should put [citation needed] instead.

Do you listen to house music at all? Because anyone looking closely at it will say that amapiano, BR bass and Drake's album are legitimate additions to that article. I suspect you may be not a listener of house music at all.. But then again, why revert so boldly?

I know you are a power user in Wikipedia, but c'mon, please read what you revert before you do. 178.121.33.109 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for reverting that person's vandalism on my talk page. Have a great day! :) ACase0000 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

please reply at house music and template:easy listening talk pages

It's been two days since I provided reliable sources for my additions to these pages (additions that you removed). Please reply back on these talk pages with your argumentation. 151.249.142.208 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Gray Brechin

Hi! I noticed you reverted my prod on Gray Brechin. Would you be able to add a source to this unreferenced page to meet our standards for BLPs? Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on it. I was knocked off my internet service for a half day; now I'm back. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you report the block-evading IP editors you revert?

I might've asked you this before, but why do you not report the block-evading IP editors you revert? I'm not suggesting filing a time-consuming SPI every time, but, for example, Sergecross73 has a thread at his talk page for vandalism/open-and-shut block evading cases like this. You could inform him about who this latest 64.40.1.140 IP editor is and he might get to know them if you report them enough. At least if you did report these block evaders, maybe then they would stop editing (temporarily) so they could stop (re-)creating articles, moving content between articles (that you then revert, so then the moved content is on neither the article they moved it from nor the article they moved it to), or restoring the same edits. Constantly reverting them doesn't seem to be stopping them from making the edits. Blocking would at least slow them down. Ss112 05:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I did report that IP, but nothing has been done yet (the case is still sitting there as I post this.) Not everybody at WP:AIV is as understanding as Sergecross73. Every once in a while I file a report with the addition of more convincing history and diffs, but even those have occasionally failed.
On the other hand, plenty of other times my AIV reports were acted upon with a block.[18][19] I feel like the system is mostly working. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Harmony

Can you please explain to me why you completely deleted my full edit that I spent hours of research on in the impact and influence section? Kanyfug (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

?

I don't know how that happened. I was trying to revert Moonlight E who changed a good Reuters source to something much less reliable, and who changed 15 million RIAA certs to 21 million. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Informations about the Queen tracks

Hello Mr. Knowles. So, I am going through a lot of searches about the Queen compositions, taking a lot of information about them, as well as who played each instrument or contributed with vocals. This informations that I had added are in the book "Queen All The Songs: The Story Behind Every Track by Benoît Clerc". It's a book that, as the title says, shows a lot about every Queen song and also about the band. This book is very popular among the fans of the band. I noticed that the Wikipedia page of some albums are lacking information, thus I decided to add it on my own, but as you said, I need to show my references. So, if you think this source is a valid one, I could proceed and make that page more accurate than it is now. IthaloDillon (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the source is good. Please cite it when you are adding information from it. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Needtobreathe is not a Christian rock band

Hello, It has come to my attention that you disagree with my change that Needtobreathe should be categorized as a "rock band" instead of a "Christian rock band." While I agree that Christian rock is one of their genres, I disagree that is what their primary label should be. Due to the fact that their music includes several different genres of music, such as "alternative rock," "Christian rock," "indie rock,""southern rock," "country rock," etc., I believe it is most appropriate to only label them generically as a "rock band." Although many sources list that they are a "Christian rock" band, that is incorrect. There are just as many sources that reference how band has made it clear themselves that they do not consider themselves a "Christian rock" band because the majority of their music is secular. There is even a section within the Wiki page that explains this, so it does not make sense for the Wiki page to contradict itself by labeling them as a "Christian rock" band when later on it says that is not what their explicit genre is. While many of their songs have religious influence and are popular among Christian listeners, these songs are still considered secular. Many secular songs in pop culture reference religion but are not labeled as Christian music, including Needtobreathe's music. I and many others would appreciate it if the label would be changed back to just "rock" instead of "Christian rock" band. Joemamabingbong (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion best conducted at Talk:Needtobreathe. You can raise the issue there, and more interested parties will respond. My stance will always be one of looking at published sources and seeing what the majority do. Your best argument would be showing a great many sources calling the band something other than Christian. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Scream

WP:CENSOR allows objectionable text that is "relevant to the topic." It is not an invitation to seek out and list profanities that are indirectly related to the subject. I would suggest that Wikipedia is also not a bathroom wall. ;) 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough... I thought the cited sources might have stated the word but they did not.
I trimmed the prose to suit. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Msftwin95_reported_by_User:FlightTime_(Result:_) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive / Sticky

Hi, I'm a little confused as to why you keep reverting Sticky and Massive singles pages, considering they're Drake singles that have charted , have releases and have reviews.

I'm also confused why I'd be blocked as I'm not sure how it's disruptive to open a drake single page. 2600:1017:B810:EB36:2994:20BF:3A9B:264 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Sticky, could you please also do the same for Massive?2600:1017:B821:E563:156F:CD8F:85E5:64BD (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Socks

Looks like you're Brettandelle's main foil. He's on my radar now, he's targeting a band I've edited and like, I'll be keeping an eye out as well from this point out. Fbifriday (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey

Remember Richard M.? Today I finally got around to properly filing for the deletion of his content from Wikidata, and was able to point to your AN/I post (from, sigh, 2016) as supporting material. Thanks. DS (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. My. I had forgotten that guy. Thanks for getting that stuff deleted. He clearly wanted to live forever in digits. Which he gets through ANI archives! Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some Advice

I noticed that you (and other users) have been removing genres from infoboxes on the grounds that they are unsourced. I think a better approach would be to look for sources and then, if you find them, add them to the pages.47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the proper way to add genres is to look at the literature about the topic, see what the literature says, and then summarize the literature for the reader.
Regarding your genre navbox campaign: A better approach would be to avoid redundancy in the boxes, putting much the same material into several related boxes, and then putting every one of those boxes into various genre articles. What a mess. Far better to avoid redundancy and keep each box focused. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You could always try locating whoever put the genres in the infoboxes and asking them to provide sources. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Heh heh. I don't think so. People who put genres into infoboxes include a great many who make sweeping assumptions, for instance, that every song by a pop rock group must be pop rock.
Far better to look through the literature and summarize it. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Planes, Trains and Automobiles corrected plot details

Del does not offer to share his room with Neal, he promises to make sure Neal gets "a room for the night." Del does not have a credit card of his own, he has a motel discount card that looks nearly identical to a Diners Club card. The two do not "make peace" at the Braidwood Inn, they simply stop talking to each other, exhausted, and go back to bed. Only Del is angry when they part ways after the meal in St. Louis. 14dtypos (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you do it in 700 words? Per WP:FILMPLOT. Right now it's at 704. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I propose changing the second sentence of paragraph 2 to read "Neal is unable to book a room, but Del has successfully reserved one." Also removing the word "now" from the fist sentence of paragraph 5. That should get it to 700. Thanks. 14dtypos (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Composition

I did put in the key, bpm tempo, and time signature for the song Look At Me Now. I did put it in correctly. 448 Hz (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey

I put Dominican population between Illinois and California by mistake. I won't do that again. Dash John (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Explaining edits

I am sorry that you felt I was adding opinions in my comment explaining my edit - I was under the impression that explaining the reasons for an edit was good practice and courteous to other editors. I viewed the version prior to my edit as showing bias against the organisation and sought to correct it - you obviously preferred that version. 74.119.161.54 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

My comment "whitewash" was about your addition to the article, not your comment in the edit summary. The group doesn't protect any religious freedoms, and the Bloomberg source you used is a machine-generated corporate summary, not written by a named author. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert in Psychedelic trance

Your rationale was "rv poor sourcing" yet the only source I've added is a scholarly article by Graham St. Johns, same author, that has written a book on psychedelic trance that is used as a reference throughout the article. Another additional reference I have added was from the aforementioned book already used as a reference in the article. This isn't poor sourcing 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the article I am talking about: https://dj.dancecult.net/index.php/dancecult/article/view/270 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot that I have added a third reference too, to this book: Moreman, Christopher M.; Rushton, Cory James (10 October 2011). "Rave From The Grave". Zombies Are Us: Essays on the Humanity of the Walking Dead. Your revert claiming "poor sourcing" deleted that reference as well, yet the source was already being used in the Psychedelic trance article. 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
If you are still confused how Dancecult journal is a reliable source, I quote from their "About" page (reachable from the link above): Dancecult is a peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal for the study of electronic dance music culture (EDMC). 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
And, to say, it is affiliated with Maynooth University. Proof link: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/research-news-events/upcoming-events/establishing-new-open-access-publishing-partnerships-maynooth-university-and-dancecult 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Men in feminism

This edit of yours at Men in feminism was indeed a much better summary. Thanks for improving the article. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ariel appearing on Honor Society

I thought she will be a part on Paramount Plus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.31.130 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You wanted to add a future TV series appearance that is not mentioned at all in the Baby Ariel biography, and you didn't supply a citation. Articles about the upcoming series don't mention Ariel. Looks like she's not in it. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous warning

Please retract the absurd warning that I was edit-warring about Hannah Gadsby. I made a single good-faith edit on two different articles. That is not an edit war. You have been around long enough you should know way better than that. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is the same as a long string of similar ones, haters throwing shade on Gadsby by citing unreliable audience scores. We never cite user comments, user reviews or audience polls. Don't be like those others. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The revert was justified, but it would have been better to give the reasons WP:UGC (or WP:RS). Even if there is a pattern of other users doing something, we are still supposed to assume good faith, and it appears User:IronGargoyle has only done this 2 times on 2 articles in total. Perhaps it is time to add a warning comment to the wikisource, making it clearer that any addition of user scores will be reverted. -- 109.76.133.142 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cover for Ramona Park Broke My Heart

The album cover for the album has been deleted, can you upload a new image to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Renaissance (Beyonce album)

Hi. All of MariaJaydHicky's edits on the album's article have already been reverted by other editors. The recent one you reverted (wrongfully I guess) is mine, where I had fixed several wrong sources and performed grammatical corrections throughout the article. ℛonherry☘ 07:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

She changed your style of "Primarily drawing from" to "Musically". She added pop and R&B to the long list of genres. I'm removing those per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
She also added the British "whilst". Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think you're a good editor, think again

See this, look for the word 'aggressive' and educate yourself. I don't have the time to quote it for you. 「HypeBoy」TALK 16:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the good-writing essay at WP:TITULAR which recommends against "self-titled" and "eponymous". It's not official policy but it is best practice. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


The word "eponymous" is present on the very lead of The Beatles page, which is a featured article, no less. Why wasn't it reverted if it's such an "overused" word that "creates bad articles"? Why didn't you revert that one too? Or are you just focusing on pages where I happen to make edits? Either way, you're a hypocrite.「HypeBoy」TALK 17:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would you go out of your way to insert that word where it did not previously appear? It's bad practice. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Dead Butterfly genre stuff

Hey there. I just wanted some clarification on this edit you keep making. I have no problem with changing any of the ordering you speak of, but your edits keep outright removing the "genre element" content, and your edit summaries don't address it. Is this an accident or on purpose? Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the source as shifting from talking about the song to talking about the band's general style: "it's easy to see why fans get so emotionally invested in this band's work and have done for so long." After saying "for so long", the source says "The musicality is impressive, as the band incorporate elements of prog rock, nu-metal, post-hardcore into their heady brand of metalcore, proving yet again that darkness can be beautiful." The song itself isn't metalcore (according to Loudwire), so it seems to me that the source is talking about the elements they add to metalcore to create their unique style. To me, the source's "the musicality is impressive" is not "the musicality [of the song] is impressive" but "the musicality [of the band] is impressive". Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha, that explanation makes a lot more sense. While I didn't before, I could see how you could read it like that. That's not really my read on it though, considering the next part continues on to say "proving yet again that darkness can be beautiful." - the yet again part would seem to suggest they're still doing it, and at time of publication, considering it was an advance release single, that could only have been referring to that song really... Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Do what you will with it. The interpretation isn't set in stone. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take care of it. I'm not trying to cause you grief, I was just trying to understand, and avoid edit warring over it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographies

Do you have any thoughts on how biographies should be ordered? For example, I did some very minor rearranging here to reflect the format I've seen used for just about every biography page here at Wikipedia, only to have my revisions changed back (although not reverted, for some reason). The explanation they gave in the edit history seemed like convoluted word salad to me, so I'm pretty puzzled.—The Keymaster (talk)

The other editor has been active since 2005. Ask them what they were thinking. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Seeing how he responds to others, I'm a bit loathe to do that, so I may just let it lie for now. It is odd, though.—The Keymaster (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

False accusation of making multiple reverse

You falsely put a warning on my talk page claiming I made multiple reverts when I made one revert. And you also falsely claimed that I was engaging in sock puppetry which you have no evidence of. This IP address was temporarily blocked some time ago and the block has expired and there’s no evidence that it’s the same sock puppet. So these false and damaging accusations from you really work against productive relationships among editors and discourage improvement of Wikipedia.

Now let’s get to the subject matter at hand. Some completely false information about the national electrical code was placed there ((100 bolts and less) and the information is not cited at all. So I removed it. Twice now people for no good reason other than that there was a temporary block on this IP address have reverted it claiming that it was unproductive or sock puppetry. No evidence for these things. What’s happening is people are insisting on keeping incorrect information on Wikipedia with these reverts.

Please don’t falsely accuse people and please don’t revert information without good cause. 50.225.122.226 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You must think I'm an idiot. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Also...

Sorry for posting twice on your page tonight, but you know who is at it again. For example, here. Three warnings now and no modification of behavior whatsoever. —The Keymaster (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw you warned him again. I don't think he is reading our warnings, to be honest (or he's ignoring them), because he's continued to make similar edits all day. I'm not sure what to do and I don't have enough clout here to do dole out disciplinary action.
—The Keymaster (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Bink, now he's reverting edits of his that have been reverted. *sigh*
—The Keymaster (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

??

Is there any reason I have received this notice [20] and User:Ippantekina has not?

Also,

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Tree Critter (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You are the source of the conflict. That's the reason. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
But I clearly don't think that's true. Why don't you want to resolve this?
The resolution is this: WP:DROPTHESTICK. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The other way to resolve the "dispute" is WP:Request for comment. You can poll interested parties and try to convince them and thus obtain consensus for your desired changes. Either that, or consensus will emerge against your desired changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Because two people who have better standing here disagree with me I guess you're right; she technically COULD have recorded the songs before November 2020 and broken her contract but I think we both know that she didn't do that. Tree Critter (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It's very different to say that she was able to record her songs beginning in December 2020, versus saying she entered recording studio X during Month A and was finished in Month H. One of those is too general for any factual statement about recording dates. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The only thing that Recorded: November 2020– states is that it was recorded no earlier than November. It doesn't state when she recorded it. It doesn't state where she recorded it. It just gives a timeline, per Template:Infobox. It doesn't state that she went in studio X at any point. It just informs people of how early she COULD HAVE recorded them. But you're right, she technically could have recorded them sooner. Tree Critter (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I never said she might have recorded them earlier; you did. I am saying that you are not using a reference for recording dates. You only have a reference indicating an opportunity window within which the recordings might have taken place. You could conceivably tell the reader about this opportunity window at the Swift biography, using prose to do so, but don't add it to every song article. A huge red flag indicating violations of WP:SYNTH is when the source does not mention the article topic. The Good Morning America interview did not list every song to be recorded. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
You're right, the interview only references her first five albums and when she could start re-recording them. Quick question though, maybe I'm confused, what makes up an album? Is it movies? Or is it the songs in question?
Because if she can't re-record an album before a certain time, it means that she can't re-record the contents of that album before that same time.
Synthesis is necessary when implication is necessary WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH What do you think she meant by her statement? That she couldn't release those albums before November? That's not what she said. She said record. And you don't record an album. You record the SONGS of an album. Tree Critter (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
But please, I've DROPEDTHESTICK, I recommend you do too. I'm wrong. Taylor could have recorded the songs back in 2016. She didn't say when she recorded them so its anyone's guess right? Tree Critter (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think she re-recorded the songs legitimately after her contract expired. You're the one saying maybe she didn't. I stand by my interpretation of your addition as a violation of SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Well when the edit war discussion is over you can weigh in on the RfC that I open. Until then feel free to edit Swift's biography. Tree Critter (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

5150

Am I wrong here? Special:Diff/1102837021 The IP keeps reverting and an Admin back it up. IDK I'm asking because I trust your judgement. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The admin is reasonable. Explain on the talk page which genres are the ones that are best supported in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of key-signature category edits for pop songs

I see you reverted some changes I made to some pop song articles where I added categories for the key signature of the song (as recorded), on the grounds that the key signature isn't a defining characteristic for pop songs as it is for classical compositions.

I noticed however that there do seem to be several pop songs in the equivalent categories on the Spanish Wikipedia: do you think these categorizations also ought to be removed?

Another point: while you justified your reversions on the grounds that the key signature of pop songs "may be changed trivially for performance convenience": wasn't this also the case for March of Ukrainian Nationalists, which you didn't revert? While this song is most commonly sung in F minor, this popular rendition of it seems to me to be in B minor. --GCarty (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the March because it's not a pop song. I don't know whether the existence of a different-key version would be enough to add it to the type of songs that can be trivially transposed for convenience. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Music video links in article

Hi Bink, just wanted your view on this user's edit warring here. Thanks ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:EL says "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." The other editor would have to argue and gain consensus for an exception to "normally". Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You suppress a correction of an article about Vichy government

Can I know what is the reason why you supppress those modifications?:

"Vichy regime, or Vichy government, is the common name of the French State regime (

"To note that France is the only country of Europe to have two governments during WWII, the fight between the government of Free France led by General de Gaulle and the collaborationist regime of Vichy led by Pétain is a crucial point to understand the french History of this period."

"France protected the retreating of English troops, continuing to fight for a month."

"With internal oppositions, the French government began to discuss the possibility of an armistice. Paul Reynaud resigned as prime minister, rather than sign an armistice, and was replaced by Marshal Philippe Pétain, one of main figures of World War I. Shortly thereafter, Pétain signed the Armistice of 22 June 1940. On 10 July, the Third Republic was effectively dissolved as Pétain was granted dictatorial powers by the National Assembly. But in the same time general Charles de Gaulle create the parallele government of Free France."

"An internal war takes place to prevent the recovery of the French army and the French Navy by Nazi Germany, this is the case for instance of the Scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon " Proximo (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What books are the basis for your changes? Because the literature says that a majority of French citizens were in favor of collaborating with the Germans. Please look at the 1972 book Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-1944 by Robert O. Paxton. De Gaulle did not lead a second "government". Michael Neiberg's 2014 book The Blood of Free Men: The Liberation of Paris, 1944 talks about the complexities of this situation. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ABAI

Please stop wholesale reverting; I've improved sources; removed unsourced assertions, and over-all worked to make the page actually worth being a wikipedia page. Either ABAI is notable for a variety of things, or its not notable. You continue to revert it back to being a poorly sourced "hit piece" suggesting that it is somehow intertwined with another organization when that is absolutely unfounded. This is Original Research, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Wikipedia:No_original_research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.98.71.171 (talk • contribs)

I'm sympathetic to any group that is getting maligned unfairly, but ABAI is truly in bed with the JRC folks who favor treatments using the pain of electric shock. Your assertions otherwise are unsupported by WP:SECONDARY sources, and you plopped more positive material into the article by way of primary sources. It's clear you are pushing a positive spin regarding ABAI. For that reason, I would have to say you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Soul Train list of episodes

It took me years to find, collect, compile and add the extra information in the soul train list of episodes that you cleaned up. I'm very sad for seeing all my hard work wasted. It wasn't totally bad, as each episode that I added info was by watching the episode, and I do admit I loved every minute. ;) Still, it was effort and work that I put in it. Is there any chance we could restore that info, or find some compromise? Feel free to reply on my user [[21]], I'm not logged in right now. I'll probably take a long time to see and answer, as I'm a very sporadic wikipedian. Cheers. 2001:569:7E2E:2B00:6CD8:C97D:4D2E:C4E6 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You made the article be too large. My massive pruning job took it down from 399 kb to 145 kb. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware the article was large. I'm aware that you did a massive pruning job. That's why I'm here talking to you, precisely because you did a massive pruning job that removed a lot of my hard work. ;) How large is "too" large? TV shows' list of episodes are frequently large, but other TV shows don't have as many seasons, it's natural that it will be a large article. Some TV shows have one article per season to store the episodes' details, would you be ok if I created one article per season to add the details back? Msbarrios (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I would be okay with you splitting the article up into smaller segments. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Family Research Council

I am here to discuss Family Research Council's Wikipedia page. Several of the sources used for the top paragraph come from critical pieces of literature despite discussing the group's mission and structure. I think the page could be revised to be more neutral when compared with pages from other groups. 96.243.103.67 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such discussion, and constructive suggestions for improvement (not just general complaints) belong on Talk:Family Research Council. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I need your advice

Hello Binksternet,

I am reaching out to you because I think that you are one of the best editors about rock music. I came across a poor quality article about a successful but not particularly high profile guitarist who has been closely associated with a much more famous musician for about 30 years, and has performed on many of his albums and tours. This guitarist was a friend of my wife in her teenage years and so I would like to improve his Wikipedia biography. He was kind to her at a time when she was being bullied. For the record, I have never met him. The articles about the various albums list him as a guitarist in the personnel sections but there are no references. So, I am asking you what are the best reliable sources for use to verify that a certain musician performed on a certain album, and what are the best sources to get information about "borderline notable" rock musicians. Should I get an online subscription to Rolling Stone, for example? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A subscription to newspapers.com often provides mentions of your desired subject before they were famous, when they performed in local endeavors. For rock music sources, you might try rocksbackpages.com which has a lot of articles archived. Otherwise, I would just try various Google searches, combining different key words, especially adding the more famous musician. Some of these searches might give you another key word and you could keep hunting with that.
To verify that a musician played on an album, look at the album images hosted at Discogs.com. We can't cite Discogs because it fails WP:USERG, but its images can be examined, especially if you open the image in a new window and enlarge it greatly. After you find him on an album you can cite the album liner notes or list of credits using Template:Cite AV media. Just like a book, every album is a published source by itself, considered reliable unless third party sources agree that the album credits were not accurate for some reason.
If you get nothing useful, send me his name by email and I'll see what I find. I won't steal your topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening

Good evening, I would like to know exactly why you are removing so much content from Shakira's cultural impact page. Doesn't the fact that several artists are called by her name demonstrate her cultural impact? In addition to that, the issue is how she impacted the public and the industry, and that was on the issue of how she became an influence and trend in the public. Thank you AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that some other artists have been called by her name is not an acknowledged trend. It's just some instances that you have collected. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, regarding being named as "Shakira's successor" or the "new shakira" is a topic that I am not inventing, in the text of the page there are the sources that its title explains as the "next divas of music Hispanic", that demonstrates her cultural impact and how many girls aspire to be her, so much so that there is a reference to an Indian singer who was named "the Shakira of India" due to her similarity of sounds and image. Artists like Michael Jackson or Madonna have artists who are entitled as heirs to them and there are even pages dedicated to that. Shakira is no exception, although to a lesser extent, I would suggest leaving that part on the page. Thanks AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverting one's contribution without any piece of explanation is rude and counter-productive

Sir,

In article The Unicorn (song), I added in the cover versions part a French adaptation. What I do not understand is that you slashed it without further ado:

1) it's rude;

2) it's unfair;

3) it's counter-productive because this small contribution of mine added a fact to our encylopædia, and you destroyed it.

You boast of 400 000 corrections on Wikipedia, how many of them are as unfair and counter-productive?

I have little hope in your sense of decency since this sort of incident already took place; still, I am going to revert your reversion, maybe this time you will reflect before doing anything – if that is possible to you – and have the decency of writing then some explanatory words.

5915961t (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I explained twice why I removed your addition. The explanation is in the provided link: WP:SONGCOVER.
You would need to cite a WP:SECONDARY source commenting on the cover version to show that it is significant. The fact that it exists is not enough; it should be an important part of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Entela Fureraj

I added a more detailed explanation of what i meant to say here Talk:Eleni Foureira. Moreover, about what you wrote... i'll tell you that the Greek state use the Jus Sanguinis to grant citizenship. This imply that her granfather was considered Greek by the Greek state, but i explained, on the talk page, why this does not mean that he was really an ethnic Greek.FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
She didn't sing a single song in Albanian while her grand-father is considered Greek according to her. She is also Greek according to what she declared in the media. It raises serious wp:BLP issues to name her Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we need another WP:Request for comment to settle this. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete v. Discontinued

Hello, I saw you reverted my change to HD-DVD changing obsolete back to discontinued. The sources on that word indicate the format has become obsolete, and the shift back to discontinued was actually caused by a few edits before me, where someone changed it from obsolete to "discontinued, thus obsolete" and someone later did a minor edit to remove the "thus obsolete." If we want to go with discontinued, I think those sources should be removed? Right now its "discontinued" but see these sources that say it is obsolete and that seems confusing. Sorry for any trouble. I can try and track down those edits if that would help? Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! 2603:8090:0:3D93:E116:D9A:49DC:67E0 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles about historic electronic equipment do not generally say in the first sentence that the equipment is obsolete. The VHS article doesn't, the 8-track tape article doesn't (not until the second paragraph), the S-VHS article doesn't, etc. I think the only reason why it says "discontinued" is because the format is more recent, and it failed during the time that Wikipedia was up and running. Good writing would replace the "discontinued" word with a more flowing description. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh! That makes sense. Okay, I might give it a try later on? Thank you for clarifying though. I hope you have an awesome day! 2603:8090:0:3D93:E116:D9A:49DC:67E0 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Combative behaviour/ Personal attacks

User @HypeBoy is being highly combative and resorting to personal attacks when attempting to communicating with them. Looking at their history i noticed you had also interacted with them. I'm concerned in particular with these edits made here 1, 2 can anything be done about it? Sissyonus (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried one thing at WP:AIV. If that doesn't work I'll try another thing. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet/Archive61&oldid=1142892997"