Jump to content

User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reverted 2 edits by 37.145.188.145 (talk): Block evasion by User:Zhmailik.
Persesus (talk | contribs)
342 edits
→‎Ban request: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 819: Line 819:
::Ah, because of course they were a sock. Thanks! [[:User:Wizzito|<span style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 19:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
::Ah, because of course they were a sock. Thanks! [[:User:Wizzito|<span style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 19:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:::They seem to be active on the 72. IP after the block though... [[:User:Wizzito|<span style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 19:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:::They seem to be active on the 72. IP after the block though... [[:User:Wizzito|<span style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 19:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

== Ban request ==

Can you ban dronebogous or who ever for harassment? [[User:Persesus|Persesus]] ([[User talk:Persesus|talk]]) 14:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:33, 21 March 2022
Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards


GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, 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? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Happy New Year, Binksternet!

Happy New Year!

Binksternet,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

...Backatcha! Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,766 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello. I seem to be in an edit war on the Kool G Rap page with user Donn7, whom you previously warned (they seem to have an obsession with associated acts). Was wondering if you could help settle this if you get the chance. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First I'll try WP:AIV. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock?

Hi Binksternet, I noticed you've dealt with Skoojal socks in the past and I'm wondering if CommonKnowledgeCreator is another one? Besides the similar username to Freeknowledgecreator there seems to be considerable overlap in interests, but I'm not really all that great at sockpuppetry issues. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some compelling diffs to show similarity, that would help. Otherwise, the user in question has a different diurnal editing pattern than previous socks, indicating a drastic change in editing style (rare), a recent relocation some five time zones away from previous socks, or a different person altogether.
If you don't see commonality in diffs between Skoojal socks and this person then you should raise their perceived editing problems at a relevant noticeboard. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music genres

Hi! I just want to say my concerns about my edit... I just added some genres on some songs, is it wrong? 222.127.184.57 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia must come from published WP:Reliable sources to provide WP:Verifiability. You have been adding unverifiable stuff. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Beyond the Sea (song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ChromiumOverload (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. Take a look at WP:SONGCOVER and you'll see it sets a very high bar to inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chew-Chew Baby" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chew-Chew Baby and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9#Chew-Chew Baby until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 (Adele album)

Hi Bink. "Melted Stone" is a copyright holder for her recordings, not a label.[1] Can you remove? 183.171.114.85 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In common parlance, the copyright holding company listed on the record label is termed a "label". It's one of many forms of record company. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown Vandal

Hey, there’s currently an edit war going on between me and a Chris Brown fan who’s intentionally altering quotes, putting in unsourced content, and also using unreliable sources to make Chris Brown’s overall receptions of his albums and image more favorable. I understand that my track record here isn’t the greatest due to my lack of knowledge on sourcing, but I ask that you intervene so that this can stop. Also, he’s sent me an admin warning as a threat, and has also attempted to use some of my previous reverted edits as some sort of evidence that I do this under some false pretense. Anyways, whatever the case is, thank you in advance for your help. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf68, you are removing full sections of sourced content, replacing it with a ton of unsourced stuff, while also edit warring. None of the dozens of sources that you removed, for example on the Chris Brown page, consists of dead links, or things that don’t relate to the content at hand. For example you removed: "Being described by media outlets and critics as one of the biggest talents of his time in urban music, Brown gained a cult following, and wide comparisons to Michael Jackson for his stage presence as a singer-dancer", because according to you it's "fancruft" and "BS", but the source put for it completely supports it, by saying: "Chris Brown has experienced several undeniable peaks throughout his career, as well as a few notable valleys. In spite of the darker days, Breezy has retained a loyal fanbase of devotees, damn near religious in their fervor for the multitalented artist. It's not entirely hard to see why. Throughout his near-two-decade-deep career, Chris Brown has been at the center of countless hits, singing his heart out, spitting bars with slept-on precision, and tearing up the stage with enough prowess to draw comparisons to the late Michael Jackson. Anyone who has ever seen Chris Brown live would probably attest to his showmanship, and not even his haters can deny that he is indeed objectively talented"
I've sent you a warning because you were not stopping your edit warring, inviting you to discuss the edits somewhere else than edit summaries.--Morce Library (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you stop stalking my contributions? Thanks. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... You are blanking entire sections removing sourced content, replacing it with completely unsourced statements, i see that you've been doing that for a while, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and so on. Also adding unreliable sources here and there. Somebody has to check that--Morce Library (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, no? Anyways, please list some bad faith revisions that I’ve put out and then maybe I’ll consider your points legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here it is--Morce Library (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing me reverting an edit made by somebody going against the source that was used in said article. Anyways, before you respond, I’m done responding. Unless my input is needed for something, I’m done wasting my time on a Chris Brown mega fan. Aardwolf68 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morce Library, you said Aardwolf68 was adding unsourced statements, but the first one you linked to here is verifiable in multiple places, for instance this NME piece. The hard policy of WP:Verifiability says "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Ideally, the source would be wikilinked for convenience, and I would encourage Aardwolf68 to WP:CITE sources explicitly, but the policy of WP:V was not violated when the source was not linked. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good edit on Sade (singer)

the argument over reverting an edit is 4 max genres in music artists infoboxes? I just referred to Michael Jackson, the article had more than 4. Is this a referable rule i can view somewhere? The artist is on the musicians list for R&B artists.eARTspI . TOK . 3bs 13:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at Template:Infobox_musical_artist say we should use two to four genres. I would welcome a trim job at the Michael Jackson bio... perhaps you can propose such a thing on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The intention of Genre is to include proven music styles(preferably use two to four means as a general rule of thumb), given artists changing genre numerous times during a career or albums with multiple genres, would we rather dismiss legit genre references than break the rule? I remember reading that we are not 100% firm in many rules & that editors should do what seems right. When doing research on musicians for the R&B list, information which supports the truth & ought be properly integrated. If I was a musician that covered 6 different types of music, which would you say I was not allowed to have in my article based on this rule?eARTspI . TOK . 3bs 13:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to have a different local consensus about which genres and how many of them should be displayed in the infobox, you can start a discussion on the talk page. You could make it more formal by following the instructions at WP:Request for comment. I recently did this exact thing at the XXXTentacion talk page, as you can see here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred nothing songs

Binksternet, what do you make of this? I think I'm going to revert that. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We typically list only studio albums on a band's biography page. Individual songs should be notable before being mentioned. The guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section which says only "major works" should be listed in the primary band article. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--that is very useful. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Not Now, When? (album)

Do not take away the proper chronology format. 2607:FEA8:F423:A400:2802:BCE3:E313:9D27 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help dealing with a user

I need your help dealing with a certain anonymous user, User talk:2600:1000:B00C:8AE3:38D1:6996:306B:8583 to be exact. As I’m sure you’re aware, they kept making disruptive edits to the pages about Emma Watkins and Lachlan Gillespie yesterday, but they haven’t stopped and is now using this IP address, User contributions for 2600:1000:B02D:68B1:A0BE:631F:67BB:6535, to continue their disruptive edits to Emma Watkins page. I would deal with them myself, but they’ll just revert my edits. If you can help me with this problem and, if you’re able, find someone who can block both of their IP addresses, that’d be very much appreciated. Le Beaglelution 04:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LB, I asked for page protection here. Let's see if that settles the matter. I'll keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, he was the one that caused the edit war in the first place. I literally told him to stop and asked him what his deal was with my edits yet he would not listen, I literally asked that same question on his talk page and yet he continues to ignore me and continues to violate the policy, he literally refuses to take the issue to the talk page we’re I clearly told him countless times in the edit summaries to talk it to the talk page instead of reverting edits back and fourth. But yet again, he still will not listen. Le Beaglelution, I don’t mean to be rude, but your the one that caused all this in the first place, I’ve seen so many other users complaining about you in the past, this is not your first you have given a user a hard time, so don’t blame me for the problem you literally caused in the first place. Plus, you literally left me a harassment block message threatening me to have me blocked over a completely dumb reason. You keep wrongfully accusing me over an edit war you started in the first place. Again, I have done nothing wrong. Like I said, it was you that caused it in the first, plus, your literally writing harassing messages about me on here which is a violation to the Wikipedia policy. Calling me this and that and all other stuff, the only person who is acting like a baby is you. First off, you don’t even know me, why do you have so much hate over a person you don’t even know. You were literally being disrespectful and threatening me, this is not how editing is suppose to work. Again, you can’t just go around those articles and act like you own them. Besides, there is nothing wrong with those infobox and your literally making a big deal out it which it isn’t even a big deal in the first place. Users can change infoboxes whenever they want, there is no rule against that. Seriously, think about that. Plus, if you read my this message, I want my apology. Once you apologize to me, I will apologize to you. I will be waiting. 2600:1000:B02D:68B1:A0BE:631F:67BB:6535 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are ready to tell others what they should do but you could take your own medicine and start a conversation on Emma's talk page. The attitude of "you first" isn't going to get you the results you are looking for. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because he’s still in the wrong for what he did, I was the one explaining to him on what he should do so he wouldn’t continue to violate the editing rules. Again, he would not explain him on why he kept on reverting my edits, he continues to harass me and revert my edits for no reason. But not all of us has to take the issue to the talk page. The person who started the edit war in the first place should take it to the talk page, not us. That way if he explained himself, this whole edit war would of never happened in the first place. But you still should have left him a warning message, not me. Because changing an infobox is not even a violation at all, there is no rule against that at all. He needs to learn criticism, that why he can learn to respect users and accept their edits too, yet he will not take criticism. 2600:1000:B02D:68B1:A0BE:631F:67BB:6535 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS guideline says that the person who wants to include text must argue for inclusion after that text has been removed. You added spouses to the infobox, though this information is purposely kept out of the musical artist infobox. It is you who wishes to include text. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, if I can’t delete the spouse info and the other additional info in the Emma Watkins article and I can’t add the spouse info and additional info in the Lachlan Gillespie article, then why don’t you make up your mind then. Because this was starting to become confusing as hell on why both sides edits kept on getting reverted. The Emma Watkins article spouse info and other additional info is already accepted, but the Lachlan Gillespie article spouse info and additional info can not be accepted? That does not make any sense. So your telling me I can’t add any spouse and additional info in the Lachlan Gillespie article but I can’t remove the spouse and additional info in the Emma Watkins article? I’m sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. You guys are just accepting edits only because you feel like they should be accepted. I don’t mean to be rude about it by the way. 2600:1000:B02D:68B1:A0BE:631F:67BB:6535 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come Out and Play (The Offspring song)

See you deleted the whole section of References in popular culture as they were unsourced. If I find sources, ok for me to add them back? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you find WP:SECONDARY sources talking about each appearance, not just listing it. The secondary sources prove importance to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sia (musician)

I know that you have contributed to this article before. Please take a look at the recent changes to the Lead and the Talk page discussion. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is AllMusic reliable or what?

What's your problem with removing my edits while i'm just refering to AllMusic?

And regarding Numan's Sacrifice, i took time to divide the text in sections in the way of making it more readable, so i don't want it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.100.139.151 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the Sacrifice article is not explicitly supported by the AllMusic source describing the genre. The phrase "electronic goth mutation known as darkwave" is given as a side note about the audience.
This kind of thing is all I was looking for, with the genre cited. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned at the similarity between you and User:Tigre super atomique flamboyant, who was blocked for genre warring, and continued with IPs from France including Special:Contributions/92.184.106.16. If you're evading a block, all of your edits can be reverted without question. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I gotta tell that regarding Sacrifice, I give up. Erase the supposed "unsourced" analysis and informations, and make it a straightforward "rock" album (coming from a surely better source which was itself better analysed) if you want.
Next time, you can remove all the text and put "Music" in the genre section. ;)
No, wrong idea. You better erase the article completely. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.100.139.151 (talk • contribs)
The first thing you did there was put darkwave in the infobox, even though it is described as an element of the album, not one of the overall album genres. After that, you doubled down by also adding goth to the infobox, and you kept restoring all the unreferenced musical analysis that I had removed. Wikipedia's job is to summarize the literature for the reader, not to analyze the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fonda

I don't really know how to talk to you, so I'm going to do it from here, I saw your message, and I know I didn't provide a reliable source, however there is proof that those films were the second biggest box office hits of their respective years and I'm going to add a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahyanmovielover (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your fact about the 9 to 5 film was redundant, already stated earlier in the same paragraph, and your "fact" about On Golden Pond is wrong. See https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1981/ for a list of 1981 films and how much money they made. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1981/?grossesOption=totalGrosses, looks like I did a mistake also, what's your obssession with removing my edits, I provided a source that Ingrid Bergman was 1946's second most bankable star, so it does show she was popular and I'm not over exaggerating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahyanmovielover (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My "obsession" with your edits is simply me noticing one of your edits that was problematic, followed by me checking some of your other edits to see if they suffer the same problems. This is a normal part of keeping Wikipedia in order.
Your choice of words was what I did not like at the Bergman page: "said to have been" incorrectly suggests a minor opinion rather than fact, and "arguably one of the greatest films ever made" is out of place as it refers to Bogart just preceding. Elsewhere in that edit, you clogged up the reading flow with too much verbiage. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay I understand, I said that you had an "obsession" with me because I found it weird that you changed my edits, I'm a newcomer on Wikipedia. Also I guess I talk like that in real life, I tried to make it grammatically correct, but I guess it didn't work. Also sorry if I came off as a bit cold, I guess I kind off got annoyed by it, anyways have a nice day!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahyanmovielover (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 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) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humanz

Hi Bink. I think it would be helpful to do the same for regarding genres. Would you mind to check that please? 113.210.55.169 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Barnstar
Thanks for keeping the music articles clean and free from vandalism. Rlink2 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rlink2! I appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roots Bloody Roots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville sound

What do you mean when you say that Nashville sounds too minor for the Pop template? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scale is off. The list is national pop genres, and Nashville sound is not national. It's just regional. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slips

Hi Binksternet, my rv of your edit was totally accidental. Sorry about that. Moriori (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

No sweat! Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A RfC has begun at Kids See Ghosts talk page regarding the genre "psychedelic". Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Uh is there a reason to remove early career off Nick Carter page?173.56.58.244 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just trimming the unneeded stuff. The first section of Career doesn't need an explanatory header. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"dmy" date style?

Hello Binksternet,

Can you please tell me what "dmy" means/stands for? It might be obvious, but I am not sure. Also, I changed a bit of minor items other than just that spelling piece, so I would hope you could change those back instead of a blanket revert. Nothing in my last edit was of the substance being discussed on the talk page as well. Thank you for your time and for reading my comment. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the day-first date style, abbreviated dmy for day–month–year. Wikipedia allows various country-specific spelling styles, including the major two: UK and US. UK spelling is usually associated with dmy dates. Once an article has been established with one style, that style is typically kept until a successful argument for change is made on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Of Noise - Beat Box sampling Toto.

You asked for proof or citations.

Here's the video. You can plainly hear the sample in question at 6.09.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSWhzsGY3hA

Please don't remove edits without checking their veracity first. You say you're a sound engineer, you should have been able to pick that Toto sample out easily. I would appreciate it if you would replace the edits I made to both the Art Of Noise page, and the Toto page. Thanks. 92.239.236.55 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are listening for samples then you are violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of stuff that is published in reliable sources. By the way, whosampledwho.com is not considered reliable because people can log on and change the information. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use Whosampled (I've no idea if its listed there or not), neither did I listen for samples; I'm a 47-year old musician who's been playing an instrument in one form or another since I was 8 and can play pretty much anything, I have perfect pitch, been playing music publicly all over the world for 25 years including being first call dep bassist in my area for studio and live work, and working exclusively in computer-based music and sample-based music since 2000. In my spare time I cover songs for fun, often exactly as the original, including all the harmonic nuances. (https://www.youtube.com/user/EddieG1888/videos) Maybe you don't agree, but I think that probably qualifies me to recognise a sample of a song when I hear it. I'm afraid Trevor Horn isn't available to take my call to confirm, sadly. And if you're a sound engineer like you claim you are, the fact that you can't/don't recognise that horn passage is quite surprising, and rather shocking. Now, stop being so rude and dictatorial, do the job you say you are doing for everyone's benefit, and re-add the CORRECT information you took down. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.236.55 (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I just wanted to apologize for my attitude towards you recently with regards to editing the XXXTentacion page. My hostility was unwarranted. Hopefully the conflict can be resolved and the page can be unprotected soon. TheXuitts (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. My overall goal is to hold various music pages to Wiki standards, sometimes directly against the wishes of interested editors. Things can get heated. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Trouble

Instead of reverting my edits outright, can't you just put the genres under Related or something? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You persistently connect stuff that isn't very much connected. You clog the templates with too many links. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to at least show connection with subgenres. Your excuse also falls flat with rock music. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Lawson

Hi. There is a particular user that has added every notable relative they can find to Ms. Lawson's page in the lead and infobox. This same user has done the same to others associated with her. I find it excessive (and obsessive), considering there is a page for the Gordy family, listing said relatives, already linked and available (plus her connection to beyonce is stated in early life). Am I tripping? If I'm not, can you undo it? And if I am, please, let me know. I took this to another editor but it seemingly went ignored. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:40B6:D656:8FB5:70C4 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to type lede in my earlier complaint. But thank you for helping me out with the infobox, Binksternet. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:40B6:D656:8FB5:70C4 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP

Thanks for setting up that LTA page. I'll work on setting some rangeblocks if I can find decent ranges this weekend. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not so much. I wasn't able to find any practical IP ranges that would have much of an effect without blocking much of the UK. In the past I've had some success when they were confined to fairly discrete ISPs or organizations, but they've graduated to services with huge allocations and highly dynamic addressing. I'll keep working on it. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That means we keep our eyes peeled. More work for us. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner-Gatling Ammunition

Something isn't loading properly on my end and I can't get my source uploaded. Perhaps you will have better luck. The source is... https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-65-inch-gatling/-45-inch-gardner-gatling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.237 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Edwards was a respected expert on small arms. What I'm missing is a sense of scale: how significant was it to the gatling gun that some Gardner rounds could be adapted? Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the gun is adjusted to fit the cartridge. The M1877 Gatling has a knob that adjusts the chamber's headspace, which allows either the .450 Gardner or .45 Gatling cartridge to be used. The Gardner does not have this ability. As a sense of scale, a US Army Gatling Gun normally carried with it four ammunition chests, a total of 8000 rounds. Additional ammunition would be carried the baggage train, usually enough for three or four complete reloads per gun, so roughly 32-40 thousand rounds total. This was considered suitable for one major battle and three or four large skirmishes (each of the Gatlings used at the Battle of San Juan Hill fired about 16,000 rounds in that one battle alone). So if you had 200 Gatlings in your military, you'd need 6.4-8 million rounds just to give them one complete supply. Depots and armories would store 5-10 times that volume to ensure availability. Given the complex and peril-fraught demands of logistics even under perfect conditions, having to store and ship several kinds of nearly-identical ammunition is a recipe for disaster. It is for this reason the UK standardized the .450 Gardner round as a standard for both Gardner and Gatling weapons, and a few years later did so for all Nordenfelt guns as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.237 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on my article for Stem Player

Hello Binksternet, I'm hoping to get some feedback on my article on the Draft:Stem Player

I initially created it in January (I'm a big fan of the artist who created it) and it was rejected due to bias and non-credible sources. In the month or so that has followed I have spent a great deal learning about editing and also improving the tone and credibility of the article. I'd love to see my first page live and would appreciate any feedback if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodlandsleisure (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input

Hi! Would love your thoughts on a thread I've started over at WP:SONGS. Please chime in, if you can. Thanks! — The Keymaster (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revert

I just finished an old episode of Movie Magic where it showcased sea animatronics created in movies including the Jaws films. Why the revert? The films featuring puppetry category exists. Also, animatronics count as puppetry. 72.184.246.1 (talk)

What does it mean, "Films featuring puppetry"? I don't think it includes the Great White shark in Jaws, which is nothing like a puppet.
The word "featuring" means at the forefront, a prominent attribute. The Jaws film doesn't have puppetry as a prominent attribute. All categories must describe a defining characteristic, per WP:CATDEF.
At the very minimum, puppetry should be described in the body of the article for any such category to be supported. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annette, the strange film from last year, has a prominent puppet depicting the infant child of Adam Driver's character.[2] That's the kind of film "featuring puppetry". Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was no real shark. If was legit than it would kill someone on set in a freak accident or suffer physical abuse. Let's not forget that CGI didn't exist yet at the time.72.184.246.1 (talk)

My edit on first-wave feminism.

I made this edit on the request of my professor in class. She offered no explanation, but I felt none was necessary as she has a PhD in the field of women's studies from Harvard among several degrees. She claimed only that the information I removed was completely false and should be immediately removed. Chose to leave the information as is but I would trust her knowledge. 2600:1009:B043:DDA4:581E:105F:61F6:A379 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that a professor said it's untrue. If that's the case, we have two professors involved, one of them published,[3] the other one expressing an opinion which has not been published. Wikipedia is based on published texts. It is not based on unpublished opinions. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XXXTentacion

Hey, if you could, it would be appreciated if you could comment on the XXXTentacion talk page show we can show an admin a consensus. Thanks. TheXuitts (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

183.179.122.187

I resubmitted 183.179.122.187 (talk · contribs) to AIV after yours was removed as stale. 3 months. I undid at least 100 of 183.179.122.187's edits. What's with the lack of attention on AIV? The Admin's newsletter is too heavy on those big, fat red . Adakiko (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 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, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you head to my talk page when you get the chance?

I neutralized some of the wording. Message me please before you revert anything else please.

Thankyou. I'll keep on the watch for better sources when I find them. Happy we were able to work this out and compromise. Take care!

NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work it out at Talk:Ciara where other interested editors can comment. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR races

All I'm doing is just helping to add the summaries of some NASCAR races that I know of. What am I doing wrong besides not adding in any reference to them? I usually just watch some of these races on YouTube then I take those events from those races. And those you undid I undid them too but added in a reference and yet that still is not enough? 50.200.136.234 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published sources. You must cite published sources to show that your words can be verified because they have been published.
You are violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. There's no way forward for you if you insist on watching the races and reporting your findings. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Anderson's directing style and Exploitation Film Sub-Genre Section

Hello, I just wanted to reach out to you because I wanted to inquire about the changes that I made to the Wes Anderson and exploitation film page.

The reason I put the other names for filmmakers in Wes Anderson's section was because when I looked at the source article for where it is stated that Wes found Roman Polanski as an influence to his directing style, it also states in that same article that he was influenced by Martin Scorsese and John Huston as well. It also stated in the article where he states that Pedro Almodovar is an influence to him that he is also influenced by Ingmar Bergman which I added next to the Pedro Almodovar citation due to it also being within that same citation. Therefore that is why I added those names because I felt it may have been more helpful for those reading that section for Wes Anderson of other influences he has and worth checking out.

Also for the exploitation film section, particularly the "teensploitation" sub-genre film section, I understand there were many changes being made by me. I do acknowledge that I probably should've used the "Show preview" feature before publishing it repeatedly. I was mostly trying to fix grammatical errors made on my end in the editing section for the teensploitation sub-genre film section, so I do want to apologize for making constant changes to that page. That being said, I believe I was getting to a more succinct and comprehensive description compared to how it was before for what I was trying summarize in the "teensploitation" film sub-genre section. I believe it's been reverted it back to how it was before I ever made any helpful edits to it and now I believe it's even more confusing and even more poorly cited, which I was trying to fix. I put a lot of time and effort into getting it right and I'm a little saddened to see it all go back to it was before I made all those changes. Hopefully you'll change it back to how it was when I was last editing it as I had accurate sources for my changes and edits and it was not my personal analysis. I respect any decision you make on this regard, but I would appreciate that you consider allowing me to change it to how I initially had it. Thank you and take care. 35.8.221.106 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First let's talk about Wes Anderson. In this edit you added a bunch of names without sources, for instance Jacques Demy and Akiro Kurasawa are not discussed at all on the page, not cited to any sources on the page. The guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that what you are doing is not helpful to the reader. It's much better for the reader to dig into a few names, each presented with reasons why, than it is for the reader to see a laundry list of names with no explanation.
Regarding Exploitation film: You said you added sources but I didn't see any of them. My big pruning job did not remove a single citation.
Your anonymous contribution style involves multiple IP addresses generally from central Michigan. You have used the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:409:8500:6D30:0:0:0:0/64 since December. Earlier, you used the range Special:Contributions/2601:409:8502:7230:0:0:0:0/64. You have used Special:Contributions/35.8.220.84, Special:Contributions/35.8.221.44, Special:Contributions/35.20.147.8, and many more. This style of contribution enjoys a certain amount of freedom from oversight, because it is more difficult for admins to keep track. But if you are using multiple IPs to edit-war the same material back into an article, your IPs will be blocked.
At this point, I think your contributions are not a net improvement for the wiki. You habitually add lists of examples without cites or explanations. The encyclopedia should contain explanations, not just bare lists. And Wikipedia is supposed to be based on WP:SECONDARY sources, ideally a summary of all the published literature about a topic. So it would behoove you to crack a book on exploitation films and read what the author says. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic Sourcing For Artist Impact Sessions

I did a little extra research on the use of Allmusic, and found per the FAQ page, that the artists listed under the "related" and "influences by" section is determined from interviews/research and by the editors.[1][2] It's not machines generated. It's also worth noting that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources does not prohibit AllMusic as a source. In fact, it considers it reliable for everything EXCEPT listing genres for albums (and sometimes reviews, though you'll still see those on alot of pages) since it is, and quote, "generated from a separate source from the prose". Ofcourse discernment should be used, particularly if the listed artists are contemporaries, but for artists that are a good decade or so apart, and that have already drawn comparison, it should definitely be ok.

Also, I think I found a better source for Iza's video. It refers directly to her behind the scenes clip where she references Ciara, but instead from her streaming page at YouTube Music, which is comparable to Apple. It really can't get any more direct than this as a source.

You've been monitoring my edits, so I thought I'd atleast make you aware before uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Artists who were influenced by the selected artist. This may be directly called out from research and interviews, or it may be a strong inference based on the opinion of the editors.
  2. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Artists that have had a direct musical influence on, or were an inspiration to, the selected artist, as determined by our music editors.
At WP:ALBUMAVOID, we have divided the AllMusic information into two groups: one group has a named music critic reviewing an album or summarizing a musical artist's career, and the other group is automated processes represented by the sidebar genres. The automated processes have been observed to be contradictory and wrong in some cases, so we have decided to deprecate them. The "related" page uses the same faulty automated process as the sidebar genres.
If you think I'm wrong, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN to see whether the fine folks over there have an opinion about AllMusic automated processes.
Also, don't remove comments from my user talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble believing you are not purposely trying to promote Ciara, given your first few edits asserting uncertified sales figures that absolutely nobody in the media had access to. You said she sold 800,000 copies worldwide of Jackie, despite all the media reports that the album's sales were a disappointment. Similarly, you wrote that Beauty Marks sold 450,000 units worldwide, once again a number that the media hasn't published. You wrote that Goodies had sold eight million worldwide, unreferenced and implausible. When you registered your username, you continued doing the same thing, inflating sales figures without a reference. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I got that from chartmasters and similar sources, but at the time I wasn't as keen on sourcing as I am now. You already sent me links showing those are not reliable, hence why I haven't replaced any of those sales figures after you've reverted them and left the previous sales alone (although ABC published under the AMAs that she's at 45 million records. Granted, you would probably ignore that)

At this point, you're just holding on to personal bias. I've reworked practically a years work of additions per your request to support the guidelines set by wiki. I've added and maintained "negative reviews" about Ciara per your request to aid in neutrality.

I spent two days researching strong sources despite you ignoring what's permissible by WP:ABOUTSELF standards to make sure any worthwhile additions would not be erased. You have repeatedly deleted info from the very sources you claim to uphold and consider reliable for no reason at all multiple times, and have been stalking my edits for over a week now.

You are the problem at this point and have contributed nothing.

And the source for Ciara being Layton's influence was already imbeded in the article on her wiki. She says verbatim that in that interview that Ciara was the inspiration and sample for her single, which is her only so far hit. That's why I didn't add a new one ... but you didn't actually verify because you delete other people's work without proper cause or using cherry picked "guidlines".

Instead of abusing your "power" to stop the crime of Ciara being placed as an influence for someone that literally said she was an influence multiple times in multiple taped interviews and shoe horning obscure rules that often don't apply or are given exceptions by other pages, you could be helping to improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with you saying you got those sales figures from chartmasters.org is that the publisher of chartmasters says he's never listed the sales of Ciara because she is not a big enough seller. You appear to be making up facts to suit your goals, whatever they are. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing on you deleting sources from GQ, Billboard, Apple etc. for no valid reason?

Right.

Nothing on you stalking my talk page for a week straight? Ofcourse.

No acknowledgement of me damn near doing everything you asked and only resisting on your nonsensical requests? Typical.

You are a grade hypocrite.

You also missed the "and similar sources" there. I got them from chart following pages, the 40 million figure from @chartdata in a old tweet they had up etc.

Ciara's goodies album is listed between 5-10 mill on chartmasters so that's not made up at all, and was compatible with some other estimates I saw floating around.

I already told you I put most of those figures WELL before I started paying attention to proper source citing.

How about this? You leave me tf alone. You can quit stalking all my edits because unless you actually make a valid point or suggestion, I'm reverting your nonsense. I've played pretty fair with you this whole time, but since you won't reciprocate, it's a middle finger at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What complete bullshit. That Twitter feed @chartdata has never published the numbers you added. Your "other sources" are a figment of your imagination. "Floating around" says it all.
Of course, the main problem is that you are trying to make a middlingly successful R&B singer look like a superstar. Ciara is not a superstar.
My goal is to keep the Ciara biography from becoming a hagiography, and to keep it factual. Our two goals are not compatible. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the 40+ million record one isn't.

https://www.theamas.com/2019/11/just-announced-ciara-to-host-kesha-to-perform-at-amas/

23 million records + 22 million singles = 45.

Whether or not that's valid to add is a whole other conversation that I'm not interested in having. Her wiki is not a hagiography, and barely qualified as one before we neutralized it. But at this point it's whatever.

I also have one more thing to add ... wait for it ... it's important..






"zEiTgEiSt" 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 05:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An issue with which I most definitely have been involved.

Greetings, Michael. Having just now gotten utterly immersed in your entertaining bio, embarrassment at my apparent breach is fast being eclipsed by guilt over having distracted you from more rewarding tasks. In any event, if you'd like to give me a bit of guidance, I'd be happy to save you and fellow Wikipedians as much trouble as possible by undertaking the extensive but—I hope—relatively straightforward task of revising my plethora of Mediafire-archived additions (those consisting primarily of Proquest-accessed material); essentially de-linking all my Mediafire additions—whether inline refs or "Further reading"—and, whenever possible, converting the latter into the former. Does that make sense? DavidESpeed (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You revising the links would be good. I stil think an administrator will have to sweep through the old diffs and revdel the copyright problems. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 3, 2022.

Hi. I reverted your edit on "Look What You Made Me Do", because your edit summary says something about "praised" and there's no such word in the concerned prose. Witherspoon performs the song in the movie, and that's what the prose says. Can you please clarify why did you revert it initially? Thanks. ℛonherry☘ 10:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. The cover version should not simply be proved to exist, it should be "discussed" in the media. They don't even need to praise it: Leonard Nimoy's horrible version of "If I Had a Hammer" qualifies. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent IP

Hello, Binksternet. There is an IP from Georgia, USA in the Queen of Pop (disambiguation), that insist to change the name of Madonna to Janet Jackson. He is using an old reference of the 1990s, during Jackson peak time and from probably an USA perspective. In my Wikipedia:Worldwide view there is every context applied to Madonna demostrable with facts and references. Even, before the existence of Wikipedia itself to avoid Circular reporting, outlets largely associated this title to Madonna as this 1999 article (has always been considered the queen of pop) against the debut/peak of other major female pop stars (e,g Celine Dion with the association of the Titanic success). Could you please help deal with this issue? I have not experienced with insistent IP/users like this one. Thanks in advance, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem articles

Hi! I noted that several Eminem articles are full of these, is it cool if i remove them for Wikipedia:No original research?--MGK king (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of description has an analog in book summary and film plot sections which do not require any sourcing. A short summary is fine, but if the description is excessive it should be trimmed.
The same issue comes up in descriptions of the action in music videos. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nicki Minaj. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I already told you that the article content in general was supported by an RfC on Nicki Minaj that passed earlier in January. Continuing to remove or modify the content as you see fit is disruptive. shanghai.talk to me 02:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that, and for calling me misogynistic. Hugs! Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: Now who said I called you misogynistic? I said that your implication that "raunchy", "sexy", or "sassy" lyrics can't be beautiful or artistic in any way, come across as misogynist. If you took that as me calling you a woman hating sexist, then that's on your interpretation and not mine. God bless you. shanghai.talk to me 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce

Hi Binksternet. I'm contacting you because I've noticed that you've been dealing with this type of problematic a lot. I have noticed that Beyonce releated articles are filled with biased talk, trivial informations, and every negative review about her / her music ends up being mysteriously deleted. On her article there is an obsessive mention of her being "critically acclaimed", which is partially true, but it's blatantly over-mentioned on pretty much every single article about her. I don't see that happening anywhere elese, not even on articles like Thriller (album). Half of her page is made by contents like "Offstage Beyoncé says that she likes to dress sexily", and if you add legitimate negative reviews on her songs / albums stuff like this and this happens. What do you think about this?--MGK king (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcing isn't very good, and maybe people are responding to that. In the links you provided here, you cited Flavorwire which looks like it has very little editorial oversight, and you portrayed the Indian edition of Rolling Stone as the standard edition.
People might also be responding to the way that you are pushing your negative review to the top, rather than finding an elegant way to work one or two negative reviews smoothly into the narrative. You are coming to the page looking like a Bey-hater rather than a person interested in encyclopedic neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate attack on a user

You appear to be attack another user's phrasing unprompted in your latest comment on Talk:Misogyny. I see absolutely no reason to question Firefangledfeathers' motivations, and I think you might have gotten confused about who you were trying to target. Your conclusions about anyone's motivations are not a substantial addition to that thread, and it would be genuinely helpful for you to give space for discussions to happen in these threads as we figure out how to improve the relevant articles regardless of your differences in opinion with other editors. Kuralesache (talk)

In the threaded conversations at Talk:Misogyny and Talk:Misandry, I have not aimed my horrified disbelief at any user except you. Perhaps you mistook the level of indenting as me making a response to Fff rather than to yourself. The reason I keep targeting you is that I'm amazed by your crude attempts to whitewash the topics. Your queries and proposals demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about the mainstream scholarly consensus on the topics, yet you feel emboldened to change their wording. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You directly stated that the wording they came up with is a whitewash, let some of your feelings be known, and concluded that the author of those words is not operating in good faith (see: WP:AFG). Regardless of who you were targeting, that isn't a good place to target people, since it is intended for discussion on how to improve issues with the article. I assumed since I was not the author of those words that you meant to direct them at the author, but I understand now that you simply misunderstood the situation. Regardless, whatever you are amazed by is unlikely to impress anyone while you continue to let yourself feel as if your harassment is some kind of moral victory. I'm happy to continue to hear out your opinions on my background and character on this or my talk pages, but at this point they are cluttering those conversations significantly. Kuralesache (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to say that despite both our strong views in our apparent respective sociological camps, I am emboldened not by the strength of my beliefs but by WP:BOLD. I'm not more pleased with your actions and words than you are with mine. I should also respect your decision to boldly revert my edits. I would say there's a good lesson here about learning to draw parallels between our experiences! :) Kuralesache (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are drawing an equivalence between your actions and my actions. This is saying that we are equally important, that we have equal standing. However, the opinions of well-informed people and experts have more weight than others. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, there is no lesson! Kuralesache (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tupac Shakur wiki page

Hello Binksternet, I apologise for repeatable editing Tupac’s wiki page. I am a huge huge huge fan of the artist and really want to do his legacy justice by providing people with the best possible information on the man.

Request - since you are very good renowned editor, is it alright if you can expound the page info a little bit more. Like add something about his vocal style, artistry, influences etc. I feel as though there’s more things that need to be spoken about


Thank you :) Confunxion (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider it. No guarantees. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do these IP's contribs look vandalistic to you?

173.63.1.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), editing TV show and Van Halen articles, geolocates to New Jersey. wizzito | say hello! 21:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one is not ringing a bell. I've seen other IP editors twiddling with composer credits in tracklists, but I don't recall a vandalism case with that feature. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Grover Furr page

Hello,

You argued that my edit on the Furr page was not from a neutral point of view. That's heavily ironic as that was my entire purpose of editing the page: to restore it to a neutral point of view. As it was standing the page was heavily biased against Furr. I did not completely eliminate this bias even but rather dampened it, giving room for more points of view than the accepted one by the original article author. I would ask you reinstate the article changes as they make the introduction more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.96.69 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your intended neutrality is not neutral because by far the great majority of historians are dismissive of Furr's writings. Only fringe groups agree with him, probably because of confirmation bias. Furr is a laughingstock for this stuff; he should have stuck to his actual field of study, which is dusty old literature. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With reverting tbe article I was assuming you were acting in good faith, but now I know you are not. Wikiepdia is not a place to attack someone over a disageeement. I do not consider his views fringe, and even then my edit was not to support them - I simply acknolwedged that other people have different opinions, not supporting one or the other. But here you are just directly attacking him and throwing away your claim of neutrality. This is not a burn book about him, it is an article describing him - and when a difference of opinion arises, let people see it instead of censoring any objections. This edit didn't even outline the support, just mentioned it existed. 47.145.96.69 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Furr doesn't "exist" in the sense that such support is at all important. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is important, however, especially on an erticle about the man himself. You attack him in a forum in which any opportunity to respond, let alone encourage neutrality, is censored. And based off your other complaints on this page you never seem to act in good faith - you are always censoring articles to fit your exact wants, and blocking the changes of others. Great way to discourage WP:BOLD. 47.145.96.69 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want any leverage at Furr's biography, you will have to find WP:Reliable sources describing him as having support from some groups, and explaining why. If the media name the groups that support him then they are significant enough to mention at the bio. Such a mention will not change the fact that topic experts roundly dismiss Furr. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you but even a basic Google search can find loads of supporters of Furr. Here's an interview by a source relevant to show up in Newsbreak outlining his support: https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1189461038314/truth-and-lies-about-stalin-an-exclusive-interview-with-grover-furr 47.145.96.69 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Newsbreak link but it doesn't link to an article by Newsbreak. Rather, it links to a self-published blog page by Nikas Mottas. Mottas is not considered an expert, which means his website is not reliable. And any interview of Furr is not the same as a notable person standing up and saying they support him and his writings. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits at Eleni Foureira

Is there an obvious diff that would link the edits of the IP to one of the blocked users? I'm not making an immediate connection, but I may not be as familiar with the blocked users' edits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:LefterisApos was promoting Greek nationalism, reducing the importance of Albania, and was also interested in dividing "British" into English, Scottish, etc.[4][5][6] In January, this person was edit-warring extensively at multiple articles including Poison (Rita Ora), resulting in blocks on Special:Contributions/77.69.111.56, Special:Contributions/46.177.5.227, and the ranges Special:Contributions/109.178.128.0/18 and Special:Contributions/79.167.96.0/19. The range Special:Contributions/5.54.224.0/19 was partially blocked last year. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, an IP subject to a partial block on 5.54.224.0/19 just joined in. Hrm.... —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And a confession. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have taken your word from the get-go. [7] —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This person will likely return. They are on a mission. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, probably true. But at least as far as the Foureira article goes, when the protection expires, I'll have familiarity with the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this exact type of behavior has been seen before and blocked, so it's my guess that there are earlier usernames connected to this person. The sockpuppet page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07, but it should probably be moved to an earlier username. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, if you're still on duty, can you block Special:Contributions/62.74.23.254? The Greek IP is reverting me, restoring stuff added by various other Greek IPs involved with the case described above. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP address making unsourced, unexplained date changes to music articles

108.4.145.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Geolocates to Albany, New York. Also reverting me with no explanation every time I revert the unsourced, unexplained changes. wizzito | say hello! 19:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The block button has been pushed. That same person was blocked last month as Special:Contributions/72.224.11.135. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, because of course they were a sock. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 19:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be active on the 72. IP after the block though... wizzito | say hello! 19:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ban request

Can you ban dronebogous or who ever for harassment? Persesus (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=1078425167"