User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Help!

Remember me? NTS, Anonymous? This dude named Wasell is messing with all my edits, and I'm using a phone for now until the block by MaterialScientist goes off my iPad. I never did vandalism or disruptive editing or whatever they are claiming. I have references and I'm saving space, but they revert it all back. The critics were right. This sucks! I have no rights! Please help make them stop! -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:850B:297:5926:7550 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

IP user on Terry Christian page

Hello. As you've done previous investigations into multiple IPs, there is somebody appearing to use multiple IP accounts to constantly disrupt this page despite my (and others') repeated reversions. They are using:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:31CC:1300:C10C:7234:6E17:2195 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:2BAE:8100:E13D:800E:C381:81D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EmmaLace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:31CC:1300:89C1:4AEA:4A14:B1CD

Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I poked around and greatly pruned some of the pages involved. I tagged the registered account with a conflict-of-interest notice. I will continue to keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

They are back. I have added a comment to your comment on their Talk page, to let you know. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Furry Vengeance ANI notice

I'm trying to sort out what's happened with you and all the IPs at Furry Vengeance, but one of them just filed an ANI case about it. Wanted to make sure you knew. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babla & Kanchan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanchan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much and cheers backatcha! I have not yet indulged in a hot T&J but I just had some of Mom's eggnog, made this time by members of the next-younger generation working under Mom's direction, and doctored with cream sherry. Best wishes for 2020! Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Rubin spammers

In case you are interested - they are making the same edits internationally. 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty fed up with this as well. Persistent additions of unsourced material, clearly based on personal knowledge, about someone of - at best - marginal notability. What do you think is the best course of action? Should we just let it rest? Rewrite the article from scratch as a much shorter but sourced article (which I certainly don't have any enthusiasm for)? Or just block the very persistent IP editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I would opt for blocking the person – it's the easiest. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Eddie Rubin should definitely have an article (even if just a stub). We certainly have less important/relevant/notable musicians from the digital era that have articles simply because a press agent paid for some advertising. So, it is sad to see a "fan club" tarnish his name like this. But the accounts, and the ip addresses, definitely need reined in. 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Frustration with Binksternet

Hey buddy, listen, you're taking your volunteer job on wikipedia way too seriously. You seem to relish holding power as a moderator and threatening to block people from editing. Adding Eddie Rubin to the wrecking crew is not advertising, it's simply adding someone who did some performances with the wrecking crew. And why does it matter so much to the individual with the ID 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A that Eddie is getting credit for something to the point that he come running to you to let you know about every little thing he finds about Eddie. Its abuse of power deciding which musicians can be mentioned in articles and which can't. As long as they're part of the work or recording they have a right to receive credit. Lastly we don't all have time like you to know every detail about wikipedia's rules, so stop assuming that people are being purposely trying to do wrong, we simply just simply are adding factual information and rather than threatening people just explain what's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.123.228 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If Rubin took a few session gigs alongside Wrecking Crew regulars that doesn't make him a member. What would make him a member is if the WP:Reliable sources talking about the Wrecking Crew list Rubin as a member, which is not the case. You know this, but you have been coming to Wikipedia to puff up Rubin's career rather than coming here to relay to the reader an accurate summary of what the literature says. Puffing up Rubin's career is what you are doing wrong. Your effort is completely out of proportion to how he's portrayed in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunter Hutchins

You know, Binksternet, you could have yourself explained why it was right to change "1551 CE" to "1551" in the Muromachi period article - instead of defending Hunter Hutchins' totally incorrect approach and appalling attitude.

If you looked at his history, you would see that he has been editing Wikipedia since 2010. Nearly a full decade. And most of the edits he has made, he hasn't bothered giving reasons for them, and has marked them as minor when, most of the time at least, they are not minor at all.

Do you not think that's bad practice - not to mention that it gives the impression that Mr Hutchins thinks "I can edit Wikipedia how I damn well like and I don't give a shit what other users think", which is completely the wrong attitude to have?

If I were you, I would *not* defend Mr Hutchins' approach or attitude, unless he changed them fairly soon. 80.233.35.6 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Giubbotto non ortodosso is back

Hey Binksternet,

I know in the past you’ve heavily dealt with user:Giubbotto non ortodosso in the past, well they’re back with avenge now under the name of Blueberry72, dead giveaway poorly sourced content, removes them to change to suit and their Italian too all classic Giubbotto non ortodosso. Can you please keep an eye out on them please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.215.42 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content on Tulisa staring that the genres were incorrect, their latest effort with The Entertainer (Alesha Dixon album) to say the least. 109.144.212.77 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[1] that explains it all 109.144.212.77 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle Peer review

Hi Binksternet - Happy Holidays! There's been some interest at the PR, which has been very useful particularly in relation to prose. But I've not managed to drum up any US perspectives. I've posted notices on the California and National Register of Historic Places Project Talkpages but to no avail to date. I could just push on to FAC but I'd ideally like some further input from US editors first. Any ideas on how I might generate some? While I'm on, how are you on image copyright? It's proving a devil of a job to get a picture of Morgan in. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, let me tap my contacts among the local Julia Morgan fans to see if someone can help me figure out how to get her estate to publish a photo free from copyright. Regarding more eyes on the PR, I'll ping some Wikipedians I know. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Sorry. I wasn't aware of my undo. Slow screen updates sometimes cause my clicks to hit the wrong link. My apologies. Meters (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all good! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

removing military record from info boxes

One could make the argument that the person's date/place of birth/death, education, and family have no relationship to their fame. Should we remove that information also? --rogerd (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the most important stuff we can tell the reader about a person? The most basic important facts appear in the infobox, while the prose fleshes out the facts and adds the less important stuff. Whatever else appears in the infobox – the less important stuff – is noise. I am all about removing noise so that our readers have the most pertinent information available in the easiest format. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, does date/place of birth/death, education, and family qualify as noise in your world? --rogerd (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the person. I definitely shy away from listing cause of death if it's just natural causes. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My original point was that if you are going to remove information from the infobox that has no relation to the person's fame (military info), why shouldn't you also remove the person's date/place of birth/death, education, and family? You really haven't answered that. --rogerd (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The date and place of birth are standard fare, expected in an encyclopedia. They are one-line entries in the infobox, unlike the military service module which has battles, awards, service arm, etc. Family is also fairly standard. Education should be judged per person. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!

Happy New Year!

Hello Binksternet:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Binksternet:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Getting closer to countdown!

Hey there, Binks!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!! 🎊 🎉 🥂 🍾 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Time to request protection on California town articles?

Is it time to request protection on California town articles so that they can't be edited by IP editors? This editor appears to be a continuation of this Hanover Research nonsense. Also pinging Antandrus, since the two of you appear to spend far too much time reverting these bozos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I can do it -- the only reason I haven't is that town articles tend to get useful edits from anons, and long-term protection would prevent that. What do you think, Binksternet? Worth the trouble?

As an aside, if a long-term good faith editor wants to take ownership of any of these edits (see this, for example) I've been letting it go. Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

How about this: if the article's history has a majority of IP edits made by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanover Research, then it can be protected from all IPs without too much collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do that. Start with a month. It's easy enough to change. Anyone let me know if there are complaints I miss. Antandrus (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

CAIR Edit

[Retracted statement / argument conceded]

The source is a scholar who carefully studied CAIR, wrote about his conclusions, and presented those conclusions to a panel of other scholars to make sure it was correct. Which means the source is topnotch. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

[Retracted statement / argument conceded]

Wikipedia articles should summarize WP:SECONDARY sources, also known as third party sources. This is because secondary sources are written by independent observers who do the research and write about their conclusions. Of all the secondary sources available to us, scholarly papers are the best ones, the most reliable and objective ones. Are you looking at any secondary sources which contradict the paper by Lorenzo G. Vidino? If so, you should start a talk page discussion at Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations and tell the involved editors what your source is and what it says. If you don't have a contradictory source then you don't have any leverage in an argument. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Underworld Unleashed article

Please look up the talk page of the Underworld Unleashed article for an important message. Then contact me again. I hope you'll give me permission to do what it says. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that I know I'm right here - and I'd like to think that, when it comes right down to it, you know I'm right here. Thank you for your consideration.

By the way, I didn't get the information that I've added to this article only from websites like The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe and the Comic Book Database, I also got it from the stories themselves after I looked at them myself based on the information in such websites. (UTC)Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have with much of your work is that you are analyzing and comparing. The sources don't do that, so your analysis is a violation of WP:No original research. It doesn't matter if you think you're right; the policy against original research is final. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox album

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Ref_3_doesn't_say_anything_about_her_name,_even_in_the_archives.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Ref_3_doesn't_say_anything_about_her_name,_even_in_the_archives.. I am surprised it was not considered in the GAR. But you need to comment there now and clarify on this aspect since an editor is using the GAR to block the removal of the name. DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

looks like you missed the thread above where your intervention was sought. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are too quick. I saw an obvious bit of nonsense and I hit that first. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 separate threads on 3 names, consider them separately. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Please do not make blanket WP:Reverts. FYI your revert restored egregious BLP violation (juvenile case) and some vandalism.You also removed content unrelated to the name dispute that was added into the article to as recent updates. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand about the recently added material updating the article, so I retained that stuff this time. But there's no BLP violation in adding the name of a widely reported criminal who is an adult now, hiding out under a new name. How could it possibly hurt him for Wikipedia to follow the style of the sources and publish his birth name? Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    Binksternet, please discuss the content on the talk page not here. DBigXrayᗙ 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2012 Delhi gang rape; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.

Note that you have restored egregious WP:BLP. Please be careful in reverting enmasse.

and Reverting an egregious WP:BLP violations is not considered a WP:3RR DBigXrayᗙ 22:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's only "egregious" in your mind. Nobody is harmed by using names that have been in the news for six years. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, It is "egregious" and that is a poor justification for BLP violations. I am not reverting you "right now" since i do not intend to edit war with you over this. You are expected to discuss your revert or self revert. DBigXrayᗙ 23:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia BLP policy is here to protect the living person from undue harm. If there's no harm, the policy is not being violated. I'm following the BLP policy very closely, as you will notice. For instance, the WP:BLPCRIME section is there to protect the accused, not the convicted. Afroz was convicted. The WP:BLPNAME section says names of private individuals should be kept private unless it has been "widely disseminated" which in this case is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not clear/confirmed if his name is Afroz. No official confirmation, no legal docs, no reliable sources. You are failing to realize this obvious lack of a BLP requirement on solid sourcing. There are political parties and IT cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains. see 2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Attempt_to_communalise --DBigXrayᗙ 23:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I showed you reliable sources, starting with India Today in December 2012. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Legal docs are not applicable here, nor is "official confirmation", whatever that might be. I have no interest whatever in your political maneuvering to protect muslims. My political stance is that I would like to live in a world with less violence committed by men against women. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"IT cells"? I assume you are talking about a political activist unit associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party. By this admission, you have taken a non-neutral political stance on the topic; one that favors Muslims. I looked again at the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and there's nothing at all about violence between Hindus and Muslims, so I have no idea why you played that card just now. I have no political involvement on the topic: I am neutral. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, please copy paste this on the article talk page. That is the correct place for this discussionDBigXrayᗙ 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet you keep coming here. My talk page or yours is the best place to discuss behavior problems. Or WP:ANI, which would be the next step. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't see any behaviour issue being discussed in your reply before the outdent above. So, please explain what the fuck you are talking about and why you think this is the right place for posting your last comment when we are already discussing it in article talk page. As for my reply, I have already moved my comment there and expect you to reply there. DBigXrayᗙ 00:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about your admission above that you have a non-neutral political stance on the topic, to protect the interests of Muslims. Non-neutral editing by one person is a behavioral issue. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, Do you understand the difference between "contextual information" and "admission" ? Just like you have made accusation against me, I can also make a similar accusation on you based on your stance here and on the article talk page that "you have a non-neutral political stance on the topic, to attack the interests of Muslims. Non-neutral editing by one person is a behavioral issue." fine ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." DBigXrayᗙ 12:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian articles under DS

Regarding this edit summary, No I am not overdoing this. you can read more elaboration from Admins about the Discretionary Sanctions on "all Indian articles" here

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#Does_Jainism_Fall_under_DS_ARBIPA

--DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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 Jim Mattis

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

IP user on page Johnny Mathis

Somebody keeps adding to this page's lead a sales figure which is not sourced and conflicts with the List of best-selling music artists page. I'm getting a bit bored with this routine now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BA6C:AA00:2912:F5DF:FE0E:519 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BA6C:AA00:6059:9EBB:168D:FA8B

Rodericksilly (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres of Circles (Mac Miller album)

There an editor who add these genres like this in the article. I have remove them off the infobox believing these genres do not explicitly said what genre is the album. Since you know how to add genres in articles, what your opinion about these sources discussing the genre of the album [2][3][4][5][6][7]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian source certainly says that the album is emo rap with elements of soft rock and pop. I would list only emo rap based on that source, but is The Guardian the only one saying that? If they are the only one then maybe it's not so well established that the album is emo rap. The AllMusic review says nothing about genre, nor does Exclaim. Pitchfork agrees with Hip Hop DX that the album isn't really a rap album; it's more complicated than that, with songs of various genres throughout the album. Rolling Stone seems to agree, saying that the album has songs of many genres. So if we look at all the sources there's not a single genre that rises up as a consensus. I would leave the genre out of the infobox and instead explain the various genre ideas to the reader in the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other sources then The Guardian saying the album is emo rap. I think the best for now is to wait for more sources to pop up. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres

I added sources for Don't Stop Believing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltRockFann (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Socking and/or Block evading

If you have concerns about someone is socking and/or block evading, I suggest you report them as such. Simply trawling through their edits and reverting them all on sight, on the basis of what you suspect looks very like edit warring on your part. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Justhear6873, Special:Contributions/Bestforonce39u4 and Special:Contributions/Friendswoths3784

Hi Binksternet. The sockmaster User:Evedentlyuser made three new accounts who continuing the same pattern as previous socks.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Can you open the SPI (also revert its edit in this case)? 2402:1980:241:7E29:79E5:DCB1:19AB:F47A (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate right now. If I see more disruption I'll try to write up a sockpuppet report. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Uptown Funk

Hello,

I took a look at the covers you removed by Fleur East and Fifth Harmony and to the wiki article regarding covers, does it need more sources? They seem notable enough to stand alone as covers. If you could elaborate more it would be quite helpful.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The main thing about song covers is that our guideline at WP:SONGCOVER sets a very high bar for inclusion. If you see that a secondary source discusses the cover version, that's not quite enough. The guideline specifies one of the following:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song, or
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

The second point is obvious – if it's a charting hit song then of course we list it. The first point requires that the song is what is being discussed, not the artist nor a particular performance nor the album that the song appears on. So for "Uptown Funk" the source should be talking about the song itself, describing how it has been covered by other artists, and listing the artists. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing original research

You keep removing symbols representing other awards already mentioned on other pages (even on well-sourced ones) and kept calling it "original research". Understandable on the research part. Espngeek (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I keep removing symbols representing other awards. The reason is because of the Wikipedia policy of WP:No original research. If a reliable published source can be found saying that all the winners of one award also won a second award, then we can list the second award along with the first. But if there are no sources making this connection, then Wikipedia editors who are making this connection are violating the policy, especially the WP:SYNTH section. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just mentioning the fact that some were notable Oscar winning/nominated screenplays, but I'll stop. Espngeek (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A key point of WP:SYNTH is that the source must be making the connection between the two awards. If the source doesn't mention both awards, then it's not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH, as noted in my post below (added after I reverted one of your edits but before noticing this post). Merely pointing out a correlation between two similar overlapping awards, without stating or implying a thesis connecting them, is NOT a synthesis and thus NOT original research. See WP:NOTSYNTH. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Long term abuse

The anon editor at 81.159.237.137 has been repeatedly adding the same material to Parlophone that you identified as being associated with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Folkestone music vandal. I have reverted a couple of times but more significantly, I see that this editor has updated dozens of music articles in the last few days: see Special:Contributions/81.159.237.137. Is there a suitable reversion bot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Vulture list

Hi - just wondering if you recall whether there were any bands mentioned on the list that did not have articles. Chubbles (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall. A bunch of bands in the list don't have articles, which means the Vulture source is helpful for establishing WP:GNG notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a text in the "archives" box above

Hi. Sorry for my temper. 174.253.214.85 removed an "Archived 52" page and added a text in "Archives" box above says "Have to Master you most important common sense short and simple explanation point. Problem solving ability tool list. ..." Can you remove the text. 115.164.185.75 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I am embarrassed to say I had not noticed the vandalism for the past six or seven weeks. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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 looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner

Hey man. Any ideas as how best to deal with this sock? I see your last SPI was successful, do you think this sock needs the same or shall one of us take it to the most recent blocking admin? Looking at the edits current and past, I reckon a note to the most recent blocking admin should do the trick. It seems blatantly obvious to me that it is them. Their disruption continues today... Robvanvee 07:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I put an SPI case together just now. Binksternet (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Robvanvee 08:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film

I just reverted your edit removing the flags showing which DGA nominees won or were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director as well as which DGA nominees' films won the Academy Award for Best Picture because I do NOT believe it violates WP:SYNTH, the section of WP:ORIGINAL that comes closest to supporting your "original research" claim.

The content you removed merely summarizes those DGA winners and nominees that were also relevant Oscar winners and/or nominees, facts that can be verified from the official Oscar database as well as the categories' Wikipedia articles. This content does not contain or establish a thesis, but rather leaves the conclusion up to the reader. Thus, it falls under the explanation at WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH is not summary: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. ... As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy." Thus, the content you removed is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia policy.

If you continue to disagree, please propose your edit on the talk page for this article so that other interested Wikipedia editors can express an opinion and reach a consensus on whether or not it should be included in the article. --RBBrittain (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Type O Negative

I didn't "vandalize" anything. Your discography was WRONG and I edited it. The Origin of the Feces is NOT a studio album. It is a pseudo live EP featuring songs on the first album. It's NOT a studio album

166.62.251.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Kerrang does not agree with you, listing the album as number two (pun intended) in the series of seven studio albums. I don't see any reliable source saying the album was not part of the main sequence. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing flags on Masked Singer

Hello, I have seen that you removed all flags in the "international versions" part of the article Masked Singer ([14][15]), but I don't see any constructive point in your edits. Masked Singer is now a international franchise like other television programs in Category:Television franchises such as Got Talent, The X Factor, Idols, The Voice, .... But I don't know why you focused only on Masked Singer to remove flags. If you think your point is right, please do it fairly at all articles in that category with no exception. Thank you! Kenny htv (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, those other articles should have their flags removed. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Raider Klan

Can I get your opinion about the list of "past members" in the Raider Klan infobox? You discussed a similar topic at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#RfC: Should the members of a defunct group continue to be listed under the heading "Past members"? The list seems excessive, and this discussion addresses how an infobox is a place for key facts. My feeling is that any pushback to a mass delete of all the non-notables in that parameter will lead to an RfC. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose, and why? Are you looking for a split between "past members" who left the group before the final showing, and the members of the band who stayed until the last moment? If so, I'm all for it. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Um...no. Never mind. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)