User talk:Binksternet/Archive59

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Binksternet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you every time I correct something, do you delete it? Are you doing it to spite me or what? I can delete something for you in the same way. I don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:118F:848:4B00:958B:5BEC:F286:3ABA (talk • contribs)

You can see what I wrote here: "Block evasion by User:Uss7777, using IPs from Poland." See WP:EVADE which says you are not welcome to contribute at all if you are blocked at one username or IP. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Range-blocked for 3 months. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! The guy was starting a revenge path, targeting me personally. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, I'm the guy who usually goes around correcting errors and reverting vandals on Wikipedia pages. Apparently, I think I found a new vandal on here. It's a user with the IP address 100.40.41.100. He's removing songs that are actually part of the album from the track list and he's changing the track orders on albums. I think he might be the same person from last time, who was removing songs from the track lists of albums for no reason at all. I've already reverted two of his edits. MusicDude2020 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm keeping an eye on it. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I'm also doing the same, looking through his contributions as well. MusicDude2020 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

MusicDude2020, this person was using the Rhode Island IP Special:Contributions/100.40.41.41 last year—they got blocked in September 2020 and then January 2021 for six months. If you notify an administrator about the person you would be advised to refer to the older IP so that the admin will see the need for a longer block.

The Rhode Island IPs that have been vandalizing in the same manner include:

• Jun–Sep 2021 – 100.40.41.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 – 131.109.225.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Apr 2019 – Jan 2021 – 100.40.41.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jan 2018 – Aug 2021 – 131.109.225.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun–Dec 2017 – 100.40.121.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2016 – Apr 2017 – 72.87.73.196 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 2016 – 100.40.35.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Dec 2015 – May 2018 – 131.109.225.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Dec 2015 – Mar 2016 – 72.87.75.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I counted eight blocks in there, meaning we have a WP:Long-term abuse case on our hands. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yikes! I've just looked at all the IP addresses and it looks he's gonna be nicknamed the "Music vandal" or "Track listing vandal", because much of his contributions have to do with musical artists or albums. MusicDude2020 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How about Tracklist-juggling vandal? Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s a good one! MusicDude2020 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it would appear on your user page that I found a couple of disambiguation links, they are in an orange color at the moment since I turned on the setting in my own preferences. Which articles should they really point to, re Steve Miller and George Clinton? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for pointing that out. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You'll probably see the ping but I started a discussion to see if we need a broader RfC before removing all embedded military infoboxes from bios, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Wholesale removal of military service modules per 2016 Talk:Mel Brooks RfC?. Cheers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, on the Bauhaus page I've noticed a pattern where the user Woovee waits a number of months then removes information he doesn't like from the article with no discussion. I've made threads for it on the talk page but he does not engage in conversation there. He just removes the information with the same rational without addressing any of the points on the talk page or making any attempt to compromise. The last time he did this, I edit-warred with him and tried to report it as an incident but I was told to go to the talk page and talk there as we both edit-warred aggressively. I made a thread there and Woovee ignored it. Months passed and Woovee removed the information again with the same copy-pasted statements, I reverted it and said we should reach a consensus on the talk page before altering the article (I don't think that section is perfect either and would be open for discussion on how to improve it) but he just said no consensus was reached and removed the information again. I do not know what to do in this situation as I realize that if I revert the edits he will ignore me and just repeat "you are a Bauhaus fan trying to turn the article in a biased essay on goth rock" regardless of whatever I say in my edit summaries. It will turn into an edit war, which at best, will just result in the article being locked for a time, Woovee disappearing for a few months, then returning again to change this aspect of the article with no discussion. I don't know what to do in this situation, so I would like to ask your advice for next steps. It seems to me Woovee's strategy is just persistence and patience and the hope I will give up and just let him have the article his way. I am willing to let things go after discussion is reached and I know that section does need a lot of work, but I don't want to just let someone get away with deleting information they don't like because of their interpretation of how it makes certain bands look. What should I do? Lynchenberg (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Kevin Haskins quote staying in the article. It's interesting to the reader, and you're not trying to use Haskins to redefine the topic.

Woovee refers to a lack of consensus for inclusion. Per WP:ONUS, your task is to form a consensus for inclusion. What I would do in your shoes is start a WP:Request for comment asking only whether the Haskins quote should be in or out. Whenever I start an RfC, I not only lay out the neutral question for people to answer, but at the same time I create the discussion section and plop down my own argument, so that my argument is the first discussion entry. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I requested a comment. Took a try or two to get it right, but I did it. Lynchenberg (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Bauhaus (band). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Do also take notes that you don't have any right to change the text of a rfc filled by another user. Woovee (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. Why then did you change the rfc text filled by another user? Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course I have been helpful to RfC participants by showing them the text under discussion, while you have been just as unhelpful. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my edits without a good explanation of why. It appears that you have no interest whatsoever in the page itself, but just reverted them because...I edited a old section?

The Getter Robo page needs a lot of work, many of which were fixed by my editions, and clearly the page itself is abandoned. I would prefer if you stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A753159 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I was mistaken. Go ahead and make your desired edits. I am taking the article off of my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you revert this edit, there is a editor who is edit and genre warring. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:TheAmazingPeanuts keeps on removing the genre soft rock saying that it's not on the source while it simply is, plus keeps on restoring a not neutral choice of reviews that only picks the higher ones. The same user is reverting me on Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight for putting the correct styliziation of the rating of the source--Hotbox eron (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

To me, this source looks like it isn't talking about the whole album. The writer says, "Much of Blonde sounds more like a minimalist soft rock record with its sparse, isolationist guitars and pianos; little to no drums; and choruses that fade into the rest of Frank's dense, congested lyrics." The same reviewer puts Ocean in the "R&B/Hip Hop space". The editors of the website position Ocean as R&B in the headline "Frank Ocean Blonde album review, the R&B star's first release in four years."

If a second reviewer says the album is soft rock, then the opinion is no longer an outlier. We should be telling the reader what are the widely described genres. Ideally, each listed genre would have multiple supporting cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The editor is was a sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso, what a pest. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a huge time-waster. I wonder what the human society penalty should be for that kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed you have thanked me mainly because I requested global locks for those recent socks of Giubbotto non ortodosso. I thank you for that, as I genuinely thought it would be alright to request global locks on them. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all 'round. I'm just glad to see global locks being discussed for that case, because the person was active on other wikis. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:1947logo-UniversalRecordingCorp.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello B. When you have a moment you will want to sign this post. Best regards and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 04:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are all my edits to this article, Switched-On Rock being reversed?.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Because it was better before. The wording was fine. The category of electronic rock already populates the electronic category. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, there are things that are fine and blah blah blah, but it does not mean that there are not things to correct, such as the spelling of some sections of the article. And if you continue with that thought of reversing any type of edit, the article will never improve.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If somebody improves the article, I will respect their changes. You did not improve it; in fact, you made it worse by removing "exaggerated" electronic style. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would not have any problem with you if you had not reversed parts of the edition that do not make the article worse at all. For example, the spelling improvement of the text, such as the one in the "Legacy" section. The worst thing is that he didn't even remove the "overdone electronic" thing, this because apparently it bothers you that he does that. In addition, I would not consider it as "making the article worse", since the only thing I did was improve the spelling of some parts of the article.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It also seems contradictory to me that you say "if someone improves the article, I will respect their changes", but on the other hand you eliminate any edition of mine. When all you wanted is to improve some things in the article. , and that's it. In fact, I don't want to get into an edition war, so I'm not going to edit the article any more because for me it is a waste of time. I hope you learn to respect the edition of one, as long as it is not vandal, since mine are not at all, at least in this article.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There were no misspelled words for you to correct. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not misspelled? Or is that perhaps you kidding me: «After Switched-On Rock was released, Dolph, Ascher and Foust quickly regrouped as the Moog Machine to create one more album, this time featuring Christmas songs. The album Christmas Becomes Electric was released in late 1969». I repeat it again, the article is not perfect and has things to improve, and if you continue like this, this article will continue with those problems of grammar and duplicate references. Also this also needs certain improvements:

Switched-On Rock is an album of instrumental cover songs, popular songs from the mid-to-late-1960s» which could improve with this:

Switched-On Rock is an album of instrumental covers of Pop songs from the 60s»

I honestly do not wish you anything bad, all I want is for you to stop reverting edits that are not malicious or vandal. I understand that you revert the editions if they are vandalized, but mine are not , omitting the Electronic rock template, all my other edits are completely valid.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have seen you poke at articles, changing them in little ways and in big ways, but the end result is not always an improvement. My English skills are honed from 60 years of speaking the language. I worked extra hard on Switched-On Rock to convey the proper feeling in the prose, and I even communicated about the topic with producer Norman Dolph who expressed satisfaction with the end result. Which is why I don't think your changes are an improvement.

You added this bit to the article, which was fine.

But nothing was misspelled for you to fix. Nothing. Your edit summary of "Spelling and grammar improvement" corrected no spelling errors and introduced the grammar mistake of "regrouped again". (The re- of regrouped already means "again".) You also made the mistake of confusing an album of Christmas songs as an album of cover songs. Christmas songs such as "Silent Night" and "Deck the Halls" are generally considered set apart from other songs. In English we do not say that a musician "covered" Franz Gruber's song "Silent Night", they just performed it as a Christmas song. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

But it could at least edit it?:

"After Switched-On Rock was released, Dolph, Ascher and Foust quickly regrouped as the Moog Machine to create one more album titled Christmas Becomes Electric, this time featuring Christmas songs performances."--Germanico5468504 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the rest of the contribs to get the last of the hoax content out. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• You betcha. I hate hoaxes. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm surprised they didn't get indeffed after keeping it up for half a decade. I'm going to have to make a note to check their contribs from time to time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like you're reasonably active on commons. Any way you could help with [1]? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If the program started at midnight, and hasn't finished yet, then on a strict literal interpretation of the words, it's not wrong. ;-) Cabayi (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I walked coast to coast across America in 20 minutes once. Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand there are some mushrooms people can eat that will satisfy their hunger for the rest of their lives. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

:-) Cabayi (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I was waiting for your reply for a long time. I've proven I wasn't violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, If you can, I wish you removed that heavy warning you gave me to me which I really don't deserve it ( with the hand exclamation mark) or I have to at least edit back what was removed when you said "failed verification" so that so that people don't wrongly think that my previous edit was a violation or deliberate violation.

I showed you everything about the white female mistress to Japanese and everything else was all sourced in both of Mark Felton WW2 books. It's on both of his 2009 and 2011 book source. Just click here [2] it's in the lower section of the first paragraph. It says " In addition, fewer European women were available for work in the brothels, as most of them [Living outside of the internment camps] preferred to establish relationship as mistress to one Japanese man. "Vamlos (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

First of all, thank you for all your work for Wikipedia. Seeing all your work and your dedication is very admirable for me personally. I was wondering what the specifics of the WP:LEAD regarding using the introduction section to introduce a new idea are. Does that mean that any new information presented in the lead section without a proper edit summary or false edit summaries means that it is invalid?

Thank you!Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

What it means is that you must add new information to the article body, not the lead section. The lead section is a summary of the article body.

If your additions to the article body are of major significance, you can summarize the additions in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Got it. Understood. Thank you so much for that explanation. There was this edit on the South Korea article where the same notion was presented in the same manner by a user. The edit is shown here where the user claimed that he was "condensing and trimming excessive citation" but introduced this whole notion of Korea's pop culture being supported by government funds. If it is ok, could you please look at this edit, and may I also ask if this edit is also against WP:LEAD in the same manner my edit was? Thank you!Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Thanks for uploading File:Little David Records logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the clean-up on the "Louie Louie" versions. I want to include as many notable versions as are eligible, but I want to make sure I'm identifying and sourcing correctly, i.e., versions that have independent notability by being written about separately by a reliable source. There are multiple books and articles discussing the many "Louie Louie" versions that can be cited instead of 45cat or Discogs (which have by far the most complete data, especially images), so I'll do the legwork to create acceptable citations for the versions that qualify.

I thought I read on an earlier thread that 45cat, Discogs, and retail sites could be used, but only when only referencing images (album jackets, etc.) via the cite AV media template. I would think that these couldn't stand alone, though, without another reference establishing notability, correct?

Regarding The Louie Report at www.louielouie.net as a source, the author is internationally recognized as an expert on this topic as attested by mentions in multiple books and articles. Although self-published, his site has been a critical repository of information on the subject of "Louie Louie" for over 20 years. Is there a process by which a self-published site by a subject matter expert can qualify as a reliable source?

Thanks for your help and would welcome any additional guidance.Relbats (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The main goal is to give the reader the important stuff and not overwhelm them with excess. Everything we do should serve that end.

Toward that end, I don't see the benefit of hunting around for rationales to include little-known examples of the song. Important ones only.

Your blogger, Eric Predoehl, was interviewed on NPR about the song, so I concede he is seen as an expert. Still, his list is exhaustive, not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE), so I don't think we should include every act that he lists just because he lists it. The bar should be set high... perhaps only entries that are described in depth by Predoehl. Entries that help the reader understand the song better. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I agree that important versions are the key. To me that means the 60s (to demonstrate its versatility and wide coverage by disparate acts), the 70s punk covers (the Clash, the Fall, others) that show how it entered the punk canon, mainly via Iggy Pop), and other examples from surprising and interesting genres -- jazz, reggae, zydeco, classical, psychedelic, hip hop, etc.Relbats (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Borthwick describes "Louie Louie" as a staple of punk; perhaps you can cite that. Another good source for the article can be brought up from Further reading: Christopher Doll, 2011, a Rutgers paper. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff - thanks!Relbats (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Question on notability of cover versions. Obviously if a cover version has been written about in various reliable sources, then it qualifies as notable. Separate and apart from that, though, it seems that a cover version by a legendary act (e.g., Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift, The Beatles) or a RnR Hall of Fame member would be notable in and of itself just based on its existence as an issued recording or documented performance. What are your thoughts? Relbats (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The WP:SONGCOVER guideline is usually interpreted to mean that other characteristics of the album or artist are not relevant to the status of the cover version. If Michael Jackson covered Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and nobody wrote about the cover version, then it is not important. Another thing that doesn't lend extra oomph is whether the album was Gold or Platinum. In all of these cases, the cover version will get some media interest by itself if it is important, and it will be ignored if it is not important. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you’re trimming some key punk rock versions of LL that I entered like Patti Smith, Joan Jett, Stiv Bators, James Williamson, etc. They should qualify on notability and importance. Do these just need better references? Thanks for keeping the standards high on this page! Relbats (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The page has a LOT of information. I am working to prevent it from becoming too hard for the reader to digest. Toward that end, I am applying WP:INDISCRIMINATE by removing long lists of artists.

The reader is best served by telling stories about the more important versions. When I looked up Joan Jett's version in a Google search, I did not find any kind of description of how it was important... instead there were plenty of sources listing it in passing. But when I looked in Google Books, there was a story inside the book Going Platinum, describing how Jett recorded the song "under protest", pushed into it by Neil Bogart, and she tried to ruin the recording, but it didn't work. That's the kind of stuff the reader will be happy with. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I know you are having problems with the audio samples on The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song), I will admit, I may have edit warred, but now i'm going to stop and let your edits stand, because you have reverted for the third time, please note i'm just trying to contribute here, i hope you have a good day, and wish you the best. P.S., we can be pals if you don't mind. SomeWhatLife (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If you put context into the article to support each audio sample then that will be enough. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello there! I’m seeking some neutral opinions for the discussion at Talk:Hard Skool and hoped you might oblige as you have been involved in these areas for a while. Thanks for your time if you choose to join the discussion! DLManiac (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

More than three weeks ago, I made some edits to some pages and templates, but when I later looked at them, I discovered you'd undone them. You even deleted an edit request I'd made for the Jazz template. The reason you gave for all this was block evasion. However, I had moved to another location when I made those edits, and I no longer live at the location with my old IP address, so I do not believe I was evading a block. Also, I was trying to fix some templates. What do you have to say?

47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's blocking policy is clear that when a block is put in place the intention is to block the person, not just the digital address or location. You are the person who was blocked, and the reason you were blocked remains an issue that needs correction. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been doing no more edit warring. I even waited until yesterday to send you my message and held off any more activity. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Right! Your 47... IP has never been blocked, and the block expired on the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:C7:C201:C640:0:0:0:0/64, so you're in relatively good standing. What kinds of edits are you looking to make? Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I made a lot of edits and one edit request that you reverted. Is it okay if I put back those edits and remake the edit request?47.36.25.163 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You can restore your talk page edit request.

Please don't put navboxes inside navboxes like you did here. That's just waaaay too much clutter.

Also, I don't think that https://www.musicgenretree.org/genretree/rock.png is a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A user called Apokryltaros keeps undoing my edits. When I tried to confront him, he deleted my message to him. Could you try and do something about this? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to defend your recent edits such as this one which violates a few guidelines. You added "protagonist" and "villain" which goes against WP:PROTAGONIST. You also added this sentence:

"Extreme Dinosaurs was DiC Entertainment's second attempt at a dinosaur-themed cartoon, their first being Dinosaucers."

That's a violation of WP:No original research because you thought it up yourself and added it without citing a source. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think of the sentence myself; I honestly believe it's true. Can you at least do something about the problem of him reverting my edit request? (BTW, what's the protocol for WP:PROTAGONIST?) 47.36.25.163 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if something is true. Wikipedia is not supposed to be filled with your casual observations. It's supposed to be filled with summaries of published observations.

PROTAGONIST means don't tell the reader that a character is the good guy or the bad guy. The plot description is enough.

Put your own edit request back in. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you'd reverted my edits again, telling me not to "put boxes in boxes". But I was not putting boxes in boxes; I was putting subgenres. What's more, you also (among other things) put a red link back in the Hip hop template. Guess what? Said red link was for a page that (because it had been created by a block evader) had been deleted! Also, I was changing the links for Armenian and Chilean hip hop to their adjectival forms. Did you not notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.25.163 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Question - I tried updating the UFO Force It 2021 deluxe release that added the Record Plant show on disc two...it may be a different release, but it IS included on the 2021 deluxe edition! I AM HOLDING IT IN MY HANDS RIGHT NOW! So why would you remove the edit? Rayfromtexas123 (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, we are talking about Force It, re-released in 2021 with a historic live show on the second disc. We have a guideline at WP:ALTTRACKLISTING which says additional tracklists can be listed if they have received significant commentary. I looked out at the interwebs and found one little review, and if you find another review talking about the live show, then you would be supported in adding the tracklist. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can understand your last comment on the talk page of Misogyny, you made a personal attack on me by calling me a card playing "reactionary voice from the manosphere" for suggesting that feminist theory should be described as feminist theory. Please try to be polite. WP:PA ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 23:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The cards were in the deck of anti-feminism. By making that remark, I'm telling you that I can see where you're going in the article, and I am saying that I stand against this effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You have made a futher personal attack, accusing me of wikilawyering. Please stop. This is my final warning before I ask for assistance from an administrator.

Thank you for making all of The Amazing Race pages bland and boring and in some cases more difficult to read and comprehend. It's a travel show, its main focus is to feature travel to various other countries around the world and makes a big deal about being representative of each country as it goes through, but no I guess it doesn't "represent the countries" enough. So thanks again. Love drive-by MOS warriors. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:400A:A610:D0C0:B3D7 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a citation is needed! I warned I was going to make this change on the talk page, and really I was hoping that someone would pipe-up and explain why two completely different hat styles are called the same.

However I also think a citation would be needed for the claim that the rude-boy style is not a distinct style from the other kind of pork-pie hat. Do you think a photo of a traditional pork-pie hat side-by-side with a rude-boy hat would make the fact tag redundant?

It's not OK that the article (before my edit) makes it seem that Buster-Keaton pork-pie hats are indistinguishable from rude-boy hats. The only resemblance is that both have a crown, a brim and a hatband. I was originally going to simply delete reference to the rude-boy style, on the principle that it really should have its own article; but I'm not qualified to write it, and it is certainly the norm to refer to rude-boy hats as pork-pie hats.

Thank you for not simply reverting me without an edit comment; that seems to happen more often than not, these days. I think it's mobiles; typing an edit comment on a mobile is just too much hassle.

Here's a link that says that ska hats and blues-brothers hats are a kind of trilby, rather than pork-pie.

https://lairdlondon.co.uk/collections/trilby-hats

It's not a WP:RS.

Some sources say that a pork-pie is "creased", and some hatters offer pork-pies with a "V crown". Saying it's creased sort-of gets you off the hook - a pork-pie has a crease all around the brim, a trilby has a V-shaped crease that comes to a point and has "eyes". A pork-pie has a flipped-up brim all around; a ska hat is often worn with the front of the brim flipped down. Since the defining feature of a pork-pie hat is that it looks like a pork pie, it needs to be made clear that a rude-boy hat is almost completely unlike a Pork Pie.

[Edit] West-indian mens millinery from the 60s doesn't appear to be a well-researched subject. My guess is that the 60s wave of west-indian immigration to the UK happened at a time when few native british men were wearing hats with brims, and US jazz musicians were wearing pork-pie hats (they were handy as mutes for trumpets). So Britons just referred to any brimmed hat in a west-indian style as the same thing. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Good points. I added the fact tag because I thought the pork pie–ska punk connection was too tenuous, and it would be more convenient to delete the paragraph than find cites for ska punk and then go further and find cites to disprove ska punk. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

From the description of your last revert: “he [Grover Furr] is not a "scientist" for starters” – that is POV. Formally, he is qualified scientist: prof. Furr has position at university, scientific title. He is working outside the scope of his formal specialisation, true enough, and most mainstream scholars disagree with his conclusions – same, true enough. I believe it would be best to make that page as impartially as possible. Look at it as it is now:

1. Straight at beginning, the reader is attacked with information about how he is conducting bad science. A person reading it would immediately have asked himself or herself: what is going on? Why authors of that page are trying so strongly to convince reader, that he's “crank”, so that they put three lines of text of something, which looks like painful complaint straight on person's summary? 2. In “Beliefs…” part: damn, there are so many authors and historians literally fighting, and even some Mr. Szarek from some Polish institution, who are so hard trying to convince reader, that Furr is wrong, as if they have had no evidence to support their own position.

Really, after reading that introduction alone, one could think, that the man is right, and a whole lot of professionalists have a hard time to disprove his claims – and that is a sole reason to put his work into “fringe theories” cathegory.

It would be less intrusive to put one simple sentence at the beginning and the details in “Beliefs…” section, as I tried to do.

Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is Furr famous? Because of his controversial opinions about Soviets and Nazis in WWII. This controversy must be at the very top of the article, one of the first things about the man.

A scientist researches and studies science. Furr is a professor of literature, so he's definitely not a scientist.

Wikipedia has a guideline for articles which says that the lead section should explain why a topic is notable, and it should summarize the important points found in the article body text. The guideline, WP:LEAD, gives you no leverage to move Furr's controversial positions out of the lead section and bury them in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, do you have access to page 26 of [3]? The first part of Special:Diff/1051785107 seems to have been verifiable from [4], but I can't see if Dinky Doodle had releases up to 1928. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw far too much bad-faith vandalism from Controlrabbit which catalyzed me to revert every contribution regardless of source checking. Your links show that in this case the edit was well-sourced. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay; all I'm looking for is one single example and I'll block indefinitely. I have seen the block evasion claim regarding the IPv6 range and am unsure about it; having a clear diff of vandalism/hoaxes would be very helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Dang, TBF I should have kept a list of each one as I first encountered it. There are so many edits by this person! But this title change is completely wrong; the animated short can be seen at YouTube proving its title Dentist Love. In the same manner, this other title change is based on nothing. This addition of two more animators is contradicted by article body text saying there was only one animator. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

Binksternet - I'm puzzled why you deleted my link to Zoltron from the Primus page. Check the Zoltron page - he won a gold disc award for producing the "Animals" DVD. Dr. Michael Pearce (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Because you did not cite a WP:SECONDARY source discussing Zoltron as producer. Surely if his being producer is important, then the media can be quoted about it. Also, there's the problem of your conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there Binksternet. Thanks for your work in maintaining the standards of the various music Wikiprojects. Your recent reversion on "Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere" pointing to the Folkestone music vandal was a bit of a laugh for me. Actually, maybe the hardest I've laughed without anyone else around in a while. The dedication held over years to making small style edits, only for them to be immediately reverted, feels like performance art. Hilarious. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for them from now on. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet. Thanks for nominating Ride (Lenny Kravitz song) for deletion. You might want to take a look at the other music articles Lamro has created, particularly the other singles Kravitz released in the late 2010s—none charted, and they seem to suffer the same notability concerns as this. Lamro seems to be quite unconcerned about the notability of the articles they created, but rather they seem to create them based on whether they enjoy the artist or not. They spent most of July this year creating articles for basically every Kravitz song that did not yet have an article, and they also seem unable to be objective about whether they've improved the notability of an article after it's been tagged. I redirected a number of the Kravitz songs the other day, but it seems to be a pattern with this editor. Ss112 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's too late to make the AfD larger, nominating multiple articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely too late to add them now. But if you are to nominate any other Kravitz articles for deletion, notify me. I will definitely support redirecting them. Ss112 03:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I readded Paramount Pictures since it was seen in the opening and also I added (credited) as well. 85.255.234.219 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you have sent me a message saying that I am in an edit war over Get Rich Or Die Tryin'. I am pointing out that Universal and G-Unit are record labels that appear on Get Rich or Die Tryin', but they are removed. The article should include Universal and G-Unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.151.144.86 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The album says "© 2003 Shady/Aftermath/Interscope Records." Violator and G Unit are secondary labels, while Shady, Aftermath and Interscope are the main labels. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Violator is Management and although G-Unit is a secondary label, it should still be a main label.

Why when I edited Ruff Ryders as founded in 1988 with a reliable source it was reverted back to 1997 with the same source as it was originally. I think this is personally unfair. So when I edit the Ruff Rydrs page, I will put the 1988 year back up with my source from BET.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.151.144.86 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

A user has been deleting genres from the Goth subculture template. Was it authorized? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bink. The user keeps on removing sourced genres from "‎Artistry and public image" section and replaced with new sources. [5] Thoughts? 113.210.56.134 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Gossip doesn't belong. Let the situation calm down and then the biography article can summarize what happened. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you mark my edit as an edit war? I simply explained to you that the edit you made actually created incorrect information on the article and recommended you read it before you publish it. I didn't "repeatedly" do anything. It was literally an anti-vandalism revert. 2601:44:C27F:83A0:A4EB:F63D:35CE:DA0D (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I marked your edit as an edit war because you are reverting a bunch of edits very quickly with Pennsylvania IPs Special:Contributions/68.82.232.44 and Special:Contributions/2601:44:C27F:83A0:0:0:0:0/64. You are violating WP:MULTIPLE for starters, reverting the same articles with different IPs along with the account User:Bardberic which you "vanished" (see User talk:Vanished user 3642795). With that as the backdrop, I'm not seeing a solid foundation for good-faith editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I live in a college dormitory in Pennsylvania with hundreds of other students, with some of whom I go to a heavy metal club and we will edit articles sometimes, remotely, since all the bars are closed, it's a rewarding thing to do on the weekends. There are 10 million residents in PA, so if there are multiple edits with a PA IP, there's a 9,999,999 in a 10,000,000 chance that it is not me. The "vanished" username belongs to a friend who decided to stop editing on wikipedia because his article Desert (Israeli band), which he spent like two whole days on was rejected and he's pissed, as if that's any of your business... This is very much good faith editing. You're the one who keeps changing the Scardust article in bad faith, causing it to have incorrect information. Instead of reverting the changes, if you don't like the source for something, then remove it. The article more contains incorrect information. Please read the whole article before and after your edit. The band never released a single called "Nightmare," that was a translation error. It's called Tantibus. Some events which already occurred are now in future-tense, instead of past-tense. Some valuable information was lost in the line-up. The article is inaccurate, because you're hastily making unnecessary changes without reading everything. That's called vandalism. You've vandalized my friend's article... 2601:44:C27F:83A0:A4EB:F63D:35CE:DA0D (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, would you like semi-protection on this page before I go afk? BusterD (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thx, yes, temporary. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the ip again and protected the page for the week. If you get harassed again, just ping me. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

BusterD, you blocked one IP6 address but the /64 is still disruptive.[6] FYI. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A RfC has begun at WT:ALBUM regarding the year-end or decade-end tables should be cut down. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Earlier, a user had removed genres from the Goth subculture template, but you put them back. Recently, the same user removed them again, so I put them back. But now you have not only removed the genres, but also reverted some edits I made on other templates. Why? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you are inventing connections between genres. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't inventing any connections. Heavy metal is a subgenre of rock music, so gothic metal should logically be a subgenre of gothic rock. Couldn't you at least have left the genres on?47.36.25.163 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw what you're doing for Air Force One. I had to make some tweaks on it. And the movie mentions Radak's name as Genreal Ivan Radak. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually have reference so I'll put it in reference and don't remove it this time ProNishu (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It needs a WP:SECONDARY reference, commentary from uninvolved parties. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I went to the Punk rock template and noticed you had not only undone a good chuck of my edits, but also taken out the genres Anti-folk and Ultra. Why? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You are adding waaay too much stuff to these templates, stuff that is two or three steps away from the main template topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What? What do you mean? What main template topic? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This guy is actually named Zhmailik. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

His son once said in a Twitter comment it's not that many but all put together it will 38k songs not 50k Spbian (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rule against using social media comments about another person. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA.

Of course I think the 50k number is inflated, but we talked about the contradictions in sources and decided on 50k. See Talk:K._J._Yesudas#The_number_of_songs_recorded. We went with the best sources. It's safe to assume all playback singers have been inflating their numbers, but if the media are reporting it, that's what we write. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reduced this block to Bauhaus (band) only, and for 24 hours, so you can settle your differences on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie, that was judicious, generous and reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone can creates articles for Celtic Woman's concert tours with use reliable sources and all. Otherwise, the tour dates would be forgotten.72.92.40.56 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not my cup of tea. Also, not everything that exists deserves a Wikipedia page about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What is going on? I keep trying to put music genres in the templates in which they belong, but you keep undoing them. What "literature" do you want to correspond to? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What literature are you reading? Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You said you were trying to corral genres to correspond to the majority of the literature. I want to know what you mean, and what you're talking about. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who is making so many connections between musical genres. Can you tell me what music sources you are reading, what's on your bookshelf? Because if you're not reading any books or other good sources, then you are violating WP:No original research. You are imagining what the connections might be; you are shooting from the hip. This cannot be tolerated. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Rock music has the subgenres alternative rock, emo, rap rock, heavy metal and punk rock, and the subgenres for them are treated as genres of rock music, so I believe we should apply this logic to similar cases. What more, the pages for blues rock and biker metal explicitly state them as fusions of blues and rock. If necessary (and possible), you can contact the makers of those pages and ask where they got the sources from. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I gather you are using Wikipedia as a source. That's a red flag; you should be reading books about musical genres, how they developed and how they are related. As a source, Wikipedia fails WP:USERG and thus cannot be used to support your changes. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't you at least leave the Rock templates alone? I've heard a lot of songs from those genres, and they each have elements of rock in them. What's more, I have a YouTube account and several YouTube Music playlists, and your constant reversions just make it harder for me to tell which songs belong where. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are basing your work on what you have heard, you are definitely violating WP:No original research. You gotta stop. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright. If you think you know so much about music, contact the makers of the edits (particularly on Blues and Rhythm and blue) and ask them for their resources. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

All that volatility, pleasure, drama, and fearlessness has a history. Born Anna Mae Bullock on 26 November 1939 in Nutbush, Tennessee, she moved with her family to St Louis at the age of 11. ^[1]

The current wikipedia page said she was born in brownsville, but i cannot anything to say she was born in brownsvile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecosseboy (talk • contribs)

Bob Gulla's encyclopedia Icons of R & B and Soul (ISBN 9780313340444) says on page 170 that Turner was born in a hospital in Brownsville and raised in a four-room shotgun shack in Nutbush. Donald Brackett's biography Tumult!: The Incredible Life and Music of Tina Turner agrees on page 13 that Turner was born in Haywood Memorial Hospital in Brownsville—born in the basement where they cared for black patients. She was taken home from the hospital to Nutbush. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

People commonly say that they were born in their small hometown despite the fact that the maternity hospital was nearby in a larger city. Not a big deal. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you Remove the Releases for Too soon 98.186.54.177 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Because they were unreferenced future listings. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet, I’d like to have your opinion on a particular time-consuming matter.

After 15 years on Wikipedia, I've noticed the following pattern. It seems that some editors have “raised the bar,” or so to speak, when it comes to defining certain rappers and singers as “songwriters” and “record producers” in the lede and the infobox of their articles, a bar that seems clouded by their own perception of said recording artists.

DaBaby, for instance, co-wrote absolutely every single song on his three studio albums and two EPs, and he’s a hand in writing most of the songs that are not of those records. Just why was “songwriter” removed from both the lede and infobox of his article without any prior discussion? I can make the same case for Lil Baby and some others, and then edit those articles, and you see the waste of time it becomes, esp. if an editor takes issue with it, and so forth.

Just because so or so editor does not see with their own eyes Justin Bieber write songs at his place or some recording studio, it doesn’t mean he does not write! His 220 songwriting credits are verifiable, and not including “songwriter” to the infobox is severe misinformation as it leads readers to think he only ever sings!

Remember that months-long debate on whether or not Beyoncé was a legit songwriter and should be defined as such in the lede and infobox? lol It was unprecedented. As as admin Hurricanehink put it, the passion is understandable, but all the time spent arguing over one word could be spent adding content to Wikipedia.

Wouldn’t it be better if there were a general consensus on Wikipedia stipulating that any singer or rapper that writes and/or co-writes a sizable portion of their material be defined as songwriter in the lede and infobox, and any singer or rapper that produces and/or co-produces a sizable portion of their material be defined as record producer in at least the infobox?

Song production and songwriting are major, very important aspects of the craft, just as important as singing, and I do not understand why are some editors so intent on diminishing those aspects just because of their own perceptions of the recording artists in question. What do you think? Israell (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm old-fashioned. I think the occupation of songwriter is someone who writes songs for others, and the occupation of producer is someone who produces songs for others. The people who write and produce their own songs are simply musical artists who have more creative input. For example, Prince wrote songs for others, and he produced other bands such as the Time and Vanity 6. Mariah Carey doesn't do that, and we should acknowledge the difference.

Wikipedia follows the media on many, many aspects of culture. If the media call a person "songwriter" or "producer" then Wikipedia's job is clear. We should definitely not have a rule about this where we-as-editors figure out the proper label. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining yourself as to why you removed my addition to the article? His character appeared in that episode and I provided link for verification, yet you blatantly reverted it for no apparent reason. 13Sundin (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's right, I removed it because it's not shown to be important to the topic of Kenny Loggins. It needs a WP:SECONDARY source for that. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

So I guess we can remove the part where it is mentioned about him appearing in GTA and in Family Guy as well then. It's not really shown to important to the topic of Kenny Loggins. 13Sundin (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar website (a secondary source) talks about Loggins doing the radio host bit in GTA, so that part can stay. And it's Loggins doing his own voice.

Regarding GTA and Family Guy, when a person voices a part in a show, the role is more likely to be mentioned in the person's own Wikipedia biography. But for the Simpsons bit, when there is a caricature of Loggins, voiced by someone else, it's one step away from Loggins' personal involvement. It needs a boost from the media giving it some attention, making specific comments about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think I get your point. Kinda like Jagger, Richards, Kravitz, Petty, Costello and Setzer actually voicing themselves vs an actor voicing Loggins. 13Sundin (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey man, I saw you change something up I added on Man in the Mirror about the drum programming, the drum programming was actually done on a Yamaha RX-5, not a Linn 9000. I thought it was done on a Linn 9000 too, but it wasn't. JayBlaster106 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the source of your information? The article is based on the actual songwriter saying he used a Linn 9000. You would have to have a very strong source to contradict that. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in your edits today you removed some very popular cover versions of the song that undoubtedly meet the notability criteria (the Muse version for example that has millions of views just on Youtube [[7]]. Could you please place them back so we can discuss their notability? Thanks :) $8^talk2me 22:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Millions of views should be cited to WP:SECONDARY sources to show that the media have noticed and are commenting about it. Every entry should be a charting single or have some specific commentary from the media. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious they have been covered by major outlets including Billboard and others, a simple search would prove it [8]. Better to reference and improve the article than to delete IMO. $8^talk2me 00:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, you found secondary sources to support the Muse entry. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

1) please stop with the idle block threats. They are getting old. 2) Several Woody pages have been restored and will be sourced properly. See discussion here. 3) Use your energy in a more useful fashion. Do some extensive research and help with this project as Ifnord, GoodDay, DanCherek, SL93, HumanBodyPiloter5 and I are doing. Redirecting and making Wiki threats creates more work.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

These listed editors support a few notable film articles being kept, not the mass of non-notable ones. In terms of improving the articles so they can be kept, you must actually improve them, not promise future improvement. Until then, they should be redirected. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wk3v78k23tnsa I only supported keeping the original Woody Woodpecker short due to a storyboard from it being in a major museum and another short for having significant coverage. The majority of the shorts are not like those two. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sound Logo project
Hello, the Wikimedia sound logo project is in an early development phase -- this stage is for asking all kinds of questions, developing and fielding ideas, finding themes and shaping the direction of the project. Here is a link to the meta page for the project: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound_Logo Your input is welcome. Thank you.

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Did I Get A Warring For 98.186.54.177 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you continue to add unreferenced future stuff. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you undid my edits again. Did you not read the reasoning I gave for my edits? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I remember you saying that you are not reading any kind of literature about music genres, that you are instead using Wikipedia as your textbook. This is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

But there was a source cited. Sure, I didn't put it, but someone else clearly did. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

You stated that my edit was "not neutral". How come? There is only one review from an under-the-radar blog that was posted way back when. It's not really a neutral point of view that is presented in it and to me, it seemed as if the author of the article on the blog might have been the one who put it on Wikipedia in the first place. Especially considering the kind of language used in the review, it makes the Wikipedia article look biased and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.58.230 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You've stated that I what I've done was a Twinkle, when I removed repeated information? 2607:FEA8:F423:A400:F8A5:2B4:C799:E195 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering why you flagged all my edits on this article. As part of the team of Avedon I have been given the task to optimalize his Wikipedia page and by personally knowing him I knowfor sure all my information was right. You even flagged my edits on the picture, birth date etc, how do I possibly reference such information with a source? And how do you know my information added was false when I am certain it was correct. I would like to receive an explanation from you on how to edit the article then and what is in your eyes the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TL.Rust (talk • contribs) 08:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You added an unreferenced birth date, you gave Avedon a Grammy Award in 2020, and you gave him a Grammy nomination in 2021. He did not win the Grammy in 2020, and he is not even listed in your reference for 2021. The Grammy stuff you wrote is false. The birthday is not published, as far as I know; Wikipedia should be based on published writings, and not serve as a first-time publication platform.

I have no problem with the website link you added, and the photo.

You are editing as an agent of Avedon, so your contributions are subject to restrictions described at WP:Conflict of interest. The "conflict" is that you are here to promote Avedon, while Wikipedia's purpose is to accurately summarize everything written in WP:Reliable sources about Avedon. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to downgrade your other samples, especially of ZZ Top songs. However, as I feared, you wouldn't like my downgrading much, especially without further consultation, even when I think I did as much as I can. I wonder whether you would like to downgrade them if you have enough spare time.

Otherwise, to how minimal do you want me to downgrade a sample? As far as I know, you wouldn't enjoy converting a sample into monaural a lot, but having a stereo would take more data than monaural. Furthermore, for Audacity, the minimum settings for MP3 exporting are "45–85 kbps (smaller files)" ('variable') and "8 kbps" ('average' and 'constant'). However, I think "8 kbps" is too small, but I don't know how little I can go without knowing how little you want me to do.

BTW, what about the "Loisaida" and "Higher Love" samples, which I downgraded into mono? Must I revert them back to the revisions that you uploaded, or to how much can I upgrade them? I still have (master/superior) project copies of the samples in my PC, recorded in the 300,000 kHz sample rate and 32-bit float audio quality. --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I don't wanna go further than 250 KB, but I also want to go less than around 200 KB. That's how I've done to images. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (see my belated reply below. George Ho (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC))

Your 200–250 kb size range is something you arrived at yourself. I think it should be larger. We should wait for the community to set a size limit for non-free audio files. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for belated reply. The consensus at MOS:SAMPLE to this date is against setting specific size limits, so never mind the size right now. Now what about sample rate and nominal bit rate? I can go no more than 48 kHz for exporting unless you wish me to produce an export under a higher sample rate. I can adjust the nominal bit rate, regardless of sample rate, to produce a clearer, crisp sound but minimal at best. As for audio channel, I'll use stereo channel if you wish me to. Don't know other differences between "joint stereo" and "stereo" except file sizes, which I can disregard for your sake. George Ho (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Joint stereo is preferred because the file size is smaller. It combines similar material from left and right to encode portions of the signal in mono, leaving the much smaller difference signal in stereo. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A user called 47.33.71.63 keeps messing with the Goth subculture template and removing genres. Is this authorized? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Please can you add Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Username-hopping vandal to the list, thanks. Created it today but can't add it to the list. --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is CappellsFromSkelmersdale, an account registered in 2007 to dispute the deletion of an obvious joke article using obvious sockpuppets, now returning to leave some poorly reasoned AfD comments and create an LTA report? I'm blocking as NOTHERE. Fences&Windows 15:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a sleeper agent suddenly activated. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you undoing my edits for the sake of undoing my edits? You should have read the reasoning I gave. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Your reasoning was that you read some stuff, not specified. I don't believe it. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I already read some stuff. What more do you want? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking to prove yourself, you can add cited text to music genre articles. Here's an example of someone adding text about rap rock, cited to The New York Times. If you make a few edits of this nature I will believe you are reading sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You never answered my question about 47.33.71.63. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Leo Galland has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion per WP:EVADE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Binksternet, I have noticed how in the past you have been able to smell a mile away any sockpuppet's by user:Giubbotto non ortodosso right? Well... they're back again as user:Morce Library, editing Chris Brown related pages, removing sourced content and saying that it's not in the source, I think someone needs to open an SPI into them and I think you'll be able to do that as you know more about Giubbotto more than anyone. 2.220.32.133 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking you because I know you're an experienced editor and I don't known know where to go with this. A user on this page has decided that the Critical response section is complete and no more reviews are to be added. But this is not made clear on the article. Isn't there some way of letting editors know that any addition to this section will get reverted before they try to add, because I know I'm not the only user who adds reviews to established articles. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Well the first thing that hits me, R, is that the other guy has a legitimate point regarding how to compose a brief and succinct article. The difference between you two is not large; it's only about how much text is too much. You like more text, they like less text. The two of you must strike a balance in the absence of strict guidelines. I was trying to remember about a film wikiproject-wide RfC about how many film reviews we should have as maximum. I remember suggesting ten reviews max, but others voiced other numbers, including one who said twenty reviews max. Your linked film doesn't have ten yet, so I would push for a little more text. But don't bore the reader with too many. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whenever I make an edit, try verifying it instead of just blindly deleting it. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

They're back. TheAmazingNerdino77 Backup 5.0. I'm posting here hopping you have background on this guy. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the ping, it's being handled. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI - the sockmaster for this is User:Harry the house. Thanks for being on the case. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Institutional memory! Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Monument Bineothan, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Second Skin (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore I'm not exactly sure how or why you believe some IP address that edits similar music is me, but I should let you know that I only reverted you because the sources do not say such, don't accuse me of using some IP address to edit just because I agreed with some ridiculous edit they did MONTHS AFTER THEY DID IT. Again the the sources on this do not claim anythin that you're so adamant to keep there. It's a really odd thing to edit war over. I check the sources for stuff on every article, no matter how absurd. Removing unsourced content is not "genre warring" btw. Second Skin (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic literally calls the album extreme metal. You don't have any leverage to remove that. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

Hope you're well! I've popped our dispute over the addition to the concept album news on the Son of Dork page over to the noticeboard. Feel free to contribute anything I may have missed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Help_on_Son_of_Dork_page

194.66.200.1 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, I put Glam punk in the Rock music template and then put the template in the Glam punk article. But then a user called FlightTime took Glam punk out of the article, and instead of correcting this or calling the user out, you just took the template away. Why? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you create a brand new Wikipedia page for a brand new subject? And how do you do it properly so you don’t accidentally get in trouble (aside from making sure you give credit to everyone and everything that merits/requires citation)?

Respond as soon as you can, please and thank you Shewolfsiren (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

First thing is that the topic should be notable, for instance the media has written several in-depth pieces about it.

There is a fine tutorial at Help:Your_first_article. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I just heard that you edit the sources from Michael Jackson's This Is It concert from Wikipedia.

Please note that when I edit the source on Michael Jackson's This Is It concert on Wikipedia, it makes more sense in my opinion, and i might have a right decision to edit the source from Michael Jackson's This Is It (concert residency).

Please tell me explain about why do you have to edit the source? Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5801:279:0:B492:601E:A4C0:1A7 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your English skills are not up to the task. You introduced misspellings. It was fine before you made changes. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Producte. I did an update on the Bigmouth Strikes Again single but you archived it stating I did not provide a reliable source. There is no source for a record that has been published and also has an article in Wikipedia already. I stated this song was covered by Placebo in their album Covers (both artists and album linked in the text where the cover can be found) and the same applies for the b-side cover that Bryan Ferry did. If demonstration of accuracy is what's required, there are 2 Wikipedia album articles that demonstrated the relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Producte (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

First problem is the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER says that cover songs must be notable to be listed. An album track is not notable until it charts or the media write about it specifically. The Bryan Ferry cover fails this guideline.

Second problem is that the Bryan Ferry song has a different title. You would need to cite a source to make the connection between the two songs.

Third problem is that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You reverted a number of these articles with the edit summary "obviously a notable album" yet you didn't provide any sources. What's the point of that?! Sikonmina (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To stop your overenthusiastic removals.

The albums in question were written up in the music journals of the day. Paper sources abound, but they are not at my fingertips. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sometime today yesterday (according to UTC) I got warnings on my talk page I believe I didn't deserve. Can you look over them? Response and analysis of the warnings is at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Talk page warnings. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Were you aware that WP:TIME and MOS:TIME go to two different pages? Just curious. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, they don't. Both redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time of day, exactly as the IP editor claimed. WP:Time, on the other hand, redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, also exactly as the IP claimed. —Wasell^(T) 06:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Would it be suitable to redirect WP:TIME to Wikipedia:WikiProject Time? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A while ago, a page for Cachengue was created, but it was later deleted when its creator was determined to be a block evader. Could you try seeing if the page is worth recreating? 2601:C7:C201:C640:187C:DA72:B8B4:6573 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

• Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Binksternet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.