User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Odal Rune

Hi Binksternet. I'm willing to compromise a bit. Since Odal (rune) lacks a great deal of content, we can include the CPAC stage edit (the one sentence you included seems fine to me). However, it's not due for the Conservative Political Action Conference page. I really don't want to edit war with you, so can you please self-revert on that page? ‎ Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see you are up to three reverts today at the CPAC article. I disagree with you that the information is WP:UNDUE. The issue is continuing to grow in the media. Our readers expect to see at least something about it. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm not seeing the information growing in the media. Only very poor sources, such as TMZ or The Daily Kos, are reporting on this nonsense. I don't think readers care too much about Twitter conspiracy theories. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Reuters, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Independent "very poor sources." Radio Adept (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

CPAC section blanking

Right before Conservative Political Action Conference became extended-protected, a user somehow managed to sneak in a blanking of the entire section Nazi symbol-like stage shape, saying on the talk page that "there is no consensus for including this material here". It's unlikely there will be consensus for such an inherently politically charged topic, yet the notability is beyond question—it's been covered by The Guardian and Reuters like I already mentioned, but now also by The Independent and The Washington Post. (The user's motives are also suspect, since their talk page is littered with sanctions about political topics.)

I can't revert the blanking myself because of the protection. Would you mind interfering? Radio Adept (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Abortion in the US article

How were MY changes on the article violating NPOV? You've just restored the NPOV violations! Find me where in the body it discusses "increased access to birth control has been statistically linked to reductions in the abortion rate" because I can wait. The fact of the matter is it isn't there, and we on an encyclopedia are supposed to objectively reference two sides in a debate without siding with one personally as editors with our own sources. The article at present effectively says, "There's a debate going on between A and B, A believes this while B believes this. Now here's some evidence for B's side." That's not NPOV, it's just WP:OR bringing in your own sources to bolster a viewpoint in a debate when said viewpoint is not covered elsewhere in the article, which is a violation of the lede. Davefelmer (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources are cited, and very clear about the scientifically valid conclusion.

Increased access to birth control means fewer unintended pregancies. Fewer unintended pregnancies means a reduction in abortions. I don't know what kind of problem you have with these facts; they are totally verifiable.

If a debate is between people who hold a scientifically valid position, and people who don't, we would be mistaken to give the two sides equal footing. They are not equal participants in the debate. The science deniers are necessarily taking the minor position.

You are correct that the lead section supplies some birth control information not found in the article body. The solution to that, of course, is to add the information to the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they are scientifically valid conclusions or not, the fact of the matter is that the information is not covered extensively in the body so is unsuitable for the lead. Your point about scientifically valid views and not are irrelevant here and introduce a level of personalisation to the article that is unencyclopedic. The article isn't a battleground for one view vs the other, it is simply to spell out the seperate viewpoints in a clear and concise encyclopedic manner without letting personal feeling get involved. And there is nowhere else in the article to reasonably include the information, BECAUSE the article isn't about who is right or wrong and the MERITS of either side. Trying to deliberately jam it in somewhere for the sole purpose of then trying to include it in the lead would be improper and subject to reversion. The other editor was right to remove it. Davefelmer (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The words you use don't match Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Which do you mean? Do you mean when I tried to clean up the wording in the other line about the time periods for when both parties adopted their modern stances on the subject? In which case, do you have an alternative preference, and what about the wording do you think was unencyclopedic? I think leaving it worded like the Republican Party only opposed abortion in the late 1900s and early 2000s is confusing and 'in the modern era' would suit much better, but happy to discuss! Davefelmer (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Republican Party

Your partial revert on Republican Party (United States) is completely off base as well. I'm not sure why you followed me to the article nor whether this is a more personal political agenda type of thing or a belief that using a reliable source is sufficient for any information inclusion type of thing, but it isn't an accurate reflection of project rules either way. This is the entire "Education" section of the article:

"In 2012, the Pew Research Center conducted a study of registered voters with a 35–28 Democrat-to-Republican gap. They found that self-described Democrats had an eight-point advantage over Republicans among college graduates and a fourteen-point advantage among all post-graduates polled. Republicans had an eleven-point advantage among white men with college degrees; Democrats had a ten-point advantage among women with degrees. Democrats accounted for 36% of all respondents with an education of high school or less; Republicans accounted for 28%. When isolating just white registered voters polled, Republicans had a six-point advantage overall and a nine-point advantage among those with a high school education or less.[307] Following the 2016 presidential election, exit polls indicated that "Donald Trump attracted a large share of the vote from whites without a college degree, receiving 72 percent of the white non-college male vote and 62 percent of the white non-college female vote." Overall, 52% of voters with college degrees voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while 52% of voters without college degrees voted for Trump.[308]"

Where do you see sufficient information to say that throughout the entire 21st century, "people with less education" are a strong voting bloc for the party, let alone worded like that?? It literally just references two sources from two elections, ad uses language nothing like what's attempted to be inserted into the intro. The intro sources are the height of WP:OR, brought in individually to serve an agenda purpose having not been discussed in the body, on top of being cherry picked for I presume hostile purposes. For instance, the "Demographics" section just above the "Education" section denotes how high income voters tend to vote Republican, but I suspect the editors that have inserted and fought for "people with less education" will be less enthusiastic shall we say about including that piece of information.

And it's the same story with "white men". The article body repeatedly says that men tend to vote Republican, just like the Democratic Party (United States) article shows women tend to vote for them without referring to individual racial breakdowns. Even the source in question introduced into the lead shows that men tend to vote Republican before breaking it down by race, where it's been cherry picked out despite the racial breakdown not discussed again in the article. And like before, I suspect the editors fighting for this would not be so happy to break it down further by gender and reference a majority of white women voting Republican while leaving it as just women of colour on the Democratic party article, or introduce "low income black women" or something as a key voting block for the democratic party article that can be similarly cherry-picked.

In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider and revert your partial revert or give me your support to do it myself because between following me to the article and the rational I appear to be getting, it's not a good look mate. Davefelmer (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behavior, you are in the right place.

If you want to discuss the topic, the article talk page is the best place. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am discussing your reversion on the article but I suppose specifically following me to the article in order to revert my edit would qualify under behavioural queries that I'd like an explanation for. I would be happy to transfer over the content discussion to the article talkpage itself though as we discuss the behavioural elements here, unless you would be happy to go and revert your WP:HOUNDING changes under which circumstances there'd be nothing more to discuss. Davefelmer (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your talk page is on my watchlist because of previous conversations. This morning while sipping coffee I saw this question from Bishonen on your talk page which sparked my interest in what you might be doing to that article and other political articles. I thought your pruning job at the RBG bio was okay, and same with your trim at conservatives. But I did not think your Rush Limbaugh whitewashing was good, nor your abortion changes. And I agreed with Bishonen that your Republican edits weren't good.

It's very common for me to look through the editing history of someone who has shown disruptive biases in editing. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the change back to the long standing version on Rush Limbaugh was not "white-washing", it was removing a WP:UNDUE addition that used one of many general opinion pieces and write ups of him as if it was a consensus view, when the reality is there were and are many views of him ie https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2021/loved-and-loathed-the-death-of-talk-radio-legend-rush-limbaugh/, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rush-limbaugh-a-broadcast-radio-legend and https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/2/17/22287622/rush-limbaugh-dead-conservative-talk-radio-host-was-70-cancer-obituary that contrast or don't reflect the same view of the article in question. Based on WP:DUE, and the absence of explicit references to him in the way the sentence described in the article body, the phrase doesn't deserve standalone recognition over all the other viewpoints and violates project rules so should be removed.

And I'm sorry but I don't understand your general angle at all. Just because you have someone's talkpage on your watchlist does not give you the leeway to supervise all of their edits and stalk them across the project undoing whichever ones you see fit. And if you have an issue with one or more of my edits, you can take your queries TO my talkpage and I can respond to you regarding them there. But you have 0 jurisdiction to go cart blanche stalking people, I mean there are literal project rules against this which I presume you know, it's called WP:HOUNDING and I would urge you to read the page. As far as I know, you're not some kind of major administrator, nor are you even a general admin, and considering I have gotten no more than a 1 month topic sanction in my last 6 years on the project, even if you were an admin there would still be no case for needing to supervise me claiming 'disruptive editing'. I mean, you claim you "agree" with Bishonen's comment this morning, but your change wasn't even the same as the one he was talking about! And if you saw him calmly ask me a question regarding the change on my talkpage, you could have just waited for me to answer back in a timely fashion as I did and then weighed in there yourself. Yet you instead went and stalked me to the article and just reverted my change with not even an edit summary, then said you supported his claim that my edit wasn't good when it wasnt even that edit that he was talking about and he had never even said that they werent good but instead had asked a simple question about some of the changes. And you want to talk to me about disruptive editing?

In regards to the Republican Party article itself, I have answered all of your objections in great detail, referencing multiple project rules as the basis for my actions, and am now asking you to revert the changes that you only originally made by WP:HOUNDING me, both to that article and to Rush Limbaugh. If any further objections are raised by a regular editor on one of the particular article afterwards, I will happily take it the article talkpage and hash it out there. But as it stands, your Hounding edits are the only remaining issues with the changes. Davefelmer (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hounding is a serious matter; I would not do that. What I'm doing is following policy by "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I'm not trying to shut you down or get revenge.

Regarding my partial revert, I restored the fact that people with less education are registered more often as Republican. It's an important part of the topic, widely discussed and carefully researched. If you wish to remove any mention of education level from the lead section, start a discussion about that aspect on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS - Music#Lists

Hi Binksternet, i notice you use Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists to delete lists of artists from genre pages, but what applies to record labels that list artist rosters? for example the likes of Ghostly International, or Minus (record label) etc. personally i think these should be pulled, much of this stuff appears promotional rather than notable, is there any guidance on this kind of list usage within a label articles? Acousmana (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE is your weapon for pruning excessive lists. At the very least, WP:LISTPEOPLE should be applied to get rid of entries without Wikipedia biographies.

The same problem is present at lots of label articles.

Similarly, there is no guidance for lists of labels in a genre article, or lists of albums/songs. I think if an artist, label, album or song is important to a genre then the reason why should be described in prose in the article body. And for labels, I think important artists should be mentioned in the article body, describing the timing and the reasons, etc. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful, thanks for the pointers! Acousmana (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Carrothers

Do you have reason to doubt the birth date of Bill Carothers?
Vmavanti (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the reliability of the editor who put in month and day without any reference. I don't doubt the year. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Most birth dates in Wikipedia articles don't have references, especially in jazz articles. What is your doubt based on?
Vmavanti (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I come at it from the other direction. I don't see any confirmation of the man's birthday in Google Books or regular Google search or even social media, so it fails WP:V – a hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rin Tin Tin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

The article Rin Tin Tin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rin Tin Tin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Tupac shakur

Hi, since you run the tupac wikipedia in English, I just wanted to tell you that the Tupac wikipedia in Italian is terribly done and tupac is described as a bad, rapist and violent gangster. Could you go and see it? Vivalaconoscenza (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my Italian language skills are horrible, almost non-existent. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but first they put the musical genres at random, using all music as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivalaconoscenza (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Tupac Amaru Shakur , aka 2Pac and Makaveli ( New York , 16 June 1971 - Las Vegas , 13 September 1996 ), was a rapper , activist and actor US , regarded as one of the best and most influential of all time rapper, [2 ] [3] despite his short musical career and his death when he was only twenty-five years old. [4]

Born as Lesane Parish Crooks (later changed in 1972) in the neighborhood of Harlem , New York , he moved to Los Angeles in 1988. In 1989 he met his future manager and girlfriend (from that period 1989-1990) Leila Steinberg , Leila gave him an audition with the Digital Underground group and was immediately accepted into the group, until 1991 Shakur did not even do a track with Digital Underground but on January 1, 1991 the track "Same Song" was released in which Shakur makes a verse . With the release of his first album 2Pacalypse Now (1991), he became a central figure in the black community, introducing social criticism into the genre at a time when thepolitical rap was dominant in the mainstream. [5] In 1992 he founded the Thug Life group together with Big Syke .

In 1993 he released his second album Strictly 4 My NIGGAZ album with social and Gangsta tracks which brought Shakur to international success, in fact he made several tours around 1993-1994 around Europe , in the same year he was accused by one of his fans " Ahyanna Jackson "for rape and sexual abuse and will meet rapper The Notorious BI G. in a hotel room in California. In 1994 his first group album (with Thug Life , his second official group) " Thug Life Volume 1 " will be released which will be the album with which 2Pac began to enter the figure of the gangster and the "boss playa", in same year bbe relationships with many famous stars like Madonna ,Left Eye and also with the Italian-American actress Nadia Cassini On the night of November 30, 1994 while he was at the Quad Studios who was to record a verse for a friend of Notorious BIG (Lil Jon) he will be wounded with 5 shots in different parts of the body including the head and from there Shakur will become more moody, very depressed and trust his companions less as he believed he was one of The Notorious BIG henchmen and that his friend Stretch (member of Thug Life ), but in reality the one who organized that attack was Haitian Jack, former partner of Tupac. In 1995 he will be sentenced to 4 years for sexual abuse and his third album Me Against the World will be released(recorded in 1993-1994) in which Shakur vents his frustration more and in this album Shakur spoke more than all his other albums about his intimacy and his weakness. [6] During the time he was in prison he married Keyishia Morris but divorced her after 3 months, and after the divorce during his last term in prison he had an affair with Desiree Smith. In prison after he decided to disband Thug Life with his cousin Yaki Kadafi he decided to create the Outlawz . On October 12, 1995 Shakur will be released from prison thanks to Suge Knight CEO of Death Row Recordspaying him $ 1.4 million for bail in exchange, Shakur had to sign a contract with Death Row Records and Interscope Entertainmen to make 3 albums with them. As soon as he arrived at Death Row Records he immediately concentrated on making music in fact in November 1995 the first single with Death Row Records "California Love" will be released which became Tupac's most famous single.

In that [7] In 1996 he released his fourth and fifth double album " All Eyez On Me " which became the best-selling Hip-Hop record and also one of the best-selling records in the United States. In the single " How Do U Want It (sensual single that is part of the double album" All Eyez On Me ") they added the famous diss track" Hit'Em Up "in which Shakur declares war on the East Coast and accuses rapper The Notorious BIG who "fucked" his wife Faith Evans . In June 1996 he had an affair with Michel 'and thanks to Quincy Jones Shakur founded his distribution label " Makaveli Records " which was to be a company label of Death Row Records and of "Death Row East" which was to replace Interscope Entertainment , several rappers and artists signed or were about to sign with the Makaveli Records as "[Boot Camp Clik]", " Big Daddy Kane ", " Outlawz" , " Greg Nice" , " Craig Mack " and " Lil 'Kim ", " Run-DMC ", " Jennifer Lopez " and " Nadia Cassini And during the period of June and July he will record with the New York group " Boot Camp Clik " the double album " One Nation " which was used to calm the feud between West Coast and East Coast , but unfortunately the album remained unreleased. In July 1996 Shakur works together with Outlawz for the album " Makaveli The Don Killuminati: the 7 day theory " which is an album full of dissing. On September 6th Shakur will record his latest music video " Toss It Up " and will record his 3 latest tracks "Hell 4 A Hustler", "All Out" and "Ready 2 Rumble" (for theSuge Knight , Outlawz , Nadia Cassini , Kidada Jones , Craig Mack and Run-DMC to watch Tyson's match against Seldon and to play at "Club 662", fifteen minutes before the match Shakur had a fight with Orlando Anderson (his killer) and beat him up along with his entire crew and missed Tyson's bout. As soon as he returned to his room to change Kidada Jones asked him what happened and Shakur told him everything and Jones stopped him from going to Club 662 but Shakur went there anyway, while he was in a BMWwith Knight stopped at the traffic lights between the "Koval" and the "Flamingo" a hand came out of the window of a white Cadillac and 12 shots went off, 3 reached Shakur and one reached Knight's head, the last words of Shakur were "Fuck You!" (Fuck you) who told a policeman who asked him who shot him. Tupac was revived 3 times but there was nothing to be done and on September 13, 1996 Shakur died after 6 days of agony following the shooting in Las Vegas. In November 1996 his sixth album Makaveli The Don Killuminati: the 7 day theory was released." I translated the page introduction to you, they wrote all these things without a source and many are either irrelevant or some are not even true, Instead of describing the struggles and its revolutionary character, they have dwelled on these things and do not even want anyone to modify them with serious sources or ban them.

Cantinflas

You can explain me what is this edit? --Eightbenny (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a correction of your mistake. You added a category that was not supported by article text. You have been edit-warring about it, too. You will be blocked if this continues. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Who was block me?, and in Wikipedia is prohibited add categories if in categories doesn't text about?, wow, what a level of editing, champ!. --Eightbenny (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Give Yourself a Try

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. Thank you.

Hi there! Please do not removed sourced content from Give Yourself a Try. Specifically, you have chosen to ignore this source, which deems it a fizzing indie rock song, and this source, which calls it a "a remarkably lo-fi return from a band who rarely do things by half-measures". If you continue to remove sourced content and engage in WP:OR, I will unfortunately be forced to contact an administrator. Thank you! Giacobbe ^talk 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

All of this should be at Talk:Give Yourself a Try.

The lo-fi bit is not explicit enough to set the song's genre. NME is saying the song is more lo-fi than the band's usual stuff, which is not the same as saying it is a lo-fi song.

I am not seeing "fizzing indie rock song" in the Independent article, but that could be because I'm not a subscriber. When I search Google for "fizzing indie rock song" I get "Mortal Sport Argonaut" by Pet Shimmers as described here. Nothing comes up for "Give Yourself a Try", which makes me wonder.

At any rate, the song's genre should be set by multiple sources agreeing, not by one source saying one thing and another source saying another thing. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're using Chrome, just disable Javascript for the page, which allows you to bypass the paywall and read the article. In terms of lo-fi, it is not sourced as a genre, which is why it is not included in the infobox. As NME does not specifically call it a "lo-fi song", it's not listed as a "genre". While it is not my place to interpret what the author was trying to convey, WP's own lo-fi music page describes it as "a music or production quality in which elements usually regarded as imperfections of a recording or performance are audible, sometimes as a deliberate aesthetic choice". I wouldn't even consider it a genre, anyways. Either way, I don't understand the point of removing content from a reliable source? Additionally, I have made a mention of it at the talk page. Giacobbe ^talk 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

The article Rin Tin Tin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rin Tin Tin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent review! Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

British VS English

Hello, I need to continue the edit discussion we began yesterday over the Pulp and indie music where British was changed to English, before you changed it all back to British again, and I briefly changed about half back to English, and then you reverted those back to British. Obviously with the disruptions of yesterday left behind, we can work together to sort this issue out. You are a US editor. Our conventions this side of the great lake, and I do feel strongly about this, is that the Brits are all different peoples, but British clumps them under one umbrella. If you take for example the pre-existing music acts, Fatboy Slim is English. The Proclaimers are Scottish. Tom Jones is Welsh. And so on. We can't change those to British and the same should apply over yesterday's edits. I am not making changes until I see your response. Thx. David Pahroharho (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll go ahead and change them. Thanks. David Pahroharho (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

David Pahroharho, my stance is that we should not be deciding this stuff by using logic or reasoning or our own internal barometer; we should be looking at the media and following their lead. Which is why I reverted the Estelle = English stuff, because most of the media describe Estelle as British.[1] "Clumping" is perfectly acceptable to me if the media does it. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well ok that's one way of looking at it, but then why call Proclaimers Scottish? David Pahroharho (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow the media style and you'll be good. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, that's another sock and has been blocked as such. Pahunkat (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Live '84

Hello. I restored the label ref to Live '84, as it provides a catalog number (which was already in the article) and credits. If you still think this is unncessary, we can certainly discuss it. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The album is its own reference for information that can be found on the album cover or on the media inside. It's possible to use Template:Cite AV media to let people know you're looking at the original work. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

True--but did this edit go against policy? Or is it simply your preference that it not be there? Would you have reverted if it was sourced to Goldmine, etc.? The "retail" part is simply how SST has designed its site. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just thought it was promotional because the album was offered for sale. The policy page WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not for promotion. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I'm not going to change it again, for many reasons. I think, especially in an online encyclopedia, that it's useful to link to the label; it's true that for many independents, those links are to "Buy Me!" pages... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control

Did you mean to revert back to the IP's version of the lead, or was that some kind of edit conflict? - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant to restore cited text introduced by the IP, as well as text I composed myself. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please participate at the talk page, then - we are trying to reach consensus on that disputed sentence of the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you just did! Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why MrOllie has deleted these edits. I assume good faith, but it does not hold up from any rational, scientific or encyclopaedic point of view that the second sentence of the article is this: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". I have explained this in the talk page consistently. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If I Were Brittania I'd Waive the Rules

Pretty amazing--I went through all the Google hits, 13 pages of it, and NOTHING, nothing was written about this that the internet archived or indexed. For a pretty bad album it's actually not terrible--but I bet I'm the only person in a decade who's listened to it. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my. I guess that means I have to listen to it. But what am I doing otherwise? Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the album on YouTube uploaded by a fan. Great stuff! The lyrics and singing are secondary to the crack band, who prove themselves agile with regard to changing time signatures. They know how to rock the pocket. Some fun early proto-metal chugging is in there, and a song with Queen's John Deacon–style electric guitar. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I had it on vinyl ages ago--got it on sale, back when I had no money at all. And why it was on sale seemed clear: it's a bit esoteric for all but a certain intersection of metalheads and progrock fans. Listening to it again last night I realized yeah, it's not bad. That one review on AllMusic said that "Black Velvet Stallion" is nice but you'll be asleep by the time the fun starts; I disagree. But sources, man--I'd love to improve that article a bit. Any ideas? Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Without the track listing immediately at hand I first thought that they were saying "black velvet galleon" which would have been even more phantasmagoric.

Lemme give it some thought. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I just realized why I never understood "Anne Neggen" until yesterday: when I had that album I didn't really speak (or think) English). In Dutch "Anne" is two syllables... :-) Drmies (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aha! Wordplay along the lines of Again and Again and Again and Again. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

With a few more sentences in that tiny stub, I expanded it by 300%. Not much more can be done. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits?

I’m not evading a block, I don’t know anything about a block, that’s why I created an account. SilkSonic (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I explained it at User talk:SilkSonic#Wikipedia blocking policy. You need to appeal the block set by NinjaRobotPirate on the previous Texas IP address, Special:Contributions/65.36.59.228. Otherwise, you are evading a block, and all of your edits are subject to reversion per WP:EVADE. That's why I keep removing your stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Swastika vs Hakenkreuz

The Nazi symbol is the Hakenkreuz not the Swastika. You erroneously called the Swastika an English word which it is not, neither are. Swastika is a Sanskrit word meaning well being. Swa=good astik= state of. The Nazi Germans never use the word Swastika, they specifically called it the Hakenkreuz. Haken=Hooked, Kreuz=cross. Use the appropriate historical terms when referring to the symbol. Rancid Boar (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. This is English Wikipedia, and the English word is swastika. It doesn't matter what the German word is. The symbol is the same no matter what the language. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Underworld Unleashed

You may find this article, its history, and its main contributors of interest. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that article. I started a sockpuppet case page on the person. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the best way to deal with recalcitrant editors?

Hi

About two weeks ago, I encountered Usagidot (talk · contribs), who was editing several articles to push the view that the comfort women were willing prostitutes, and I saw you also got slightly involved. Now he's back, and he won't listen to my arguments. You seem to have a lot of experience with these things, while I do not, so I thought I'd ask you: Do I take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard, the neutral point of view noticeboard, Edit warring and 3RR, straight to vandalism or do I do something else? Knuthove (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The guy is not here to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs according to his own viewpoint. Since his existence is at cross-purposes with the encyclopedia, he can be reported to WP:ANI and blocked. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for putting a warning on his talk page. I will take it to ANI if he doesn't stop now. Knuthove (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet 　Hi, I think I told Knuthove that former comfort women sued Japan in 1991, and I HAVE the complaint. Moon Ok-ju asked $110,000 for her unpaid balances. I have real evidece, but he doesn't have any. The important thing is that his translate is completely wrong. Do you support uncertain information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet 　I forgot to tell you this, there are job posts for back then in Korean and Japanese. I told it to Knuthove of course, However, he denies those facts, because he doesn't understand except English. Let me know if you have any evidence or if you need any evidence. You'll know who correct is. And please do not forget, that page explains what 'Ianfu' means. Translate is not correct.

Knuthove You need to show me compelling evidence if you say you are right. But I haven't seen it. I said I HAVE complaint when they sued Japan in 1991. Also, I shared real comfort women pictures. We really need to sort things out. Where's your evidence?

I took it to ANI, and Usagidot is now blocked. Thanks again for your help Binksternet! Knuthove (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Past Masters

Hi Binksternet - Teahouse volunteer and major Beatles fan here. I was viewing the edit history of an IP poster who posted some nonsense, and saw a long string of edits to Beatles songs where the Past Masters template was added and then reverted by you. When the original Beatles albums were released in the UK, they were different than the ones released in the US. The difference was the singles and B sides, which make up Past Masters. If you wanted to have all the Beatles music on CD, you had to have Past Masters or you were missing a large number of their best songs. Here's an interesting article about the collection. [[2]] Since the collection is much more than a greatest hits collection, from a historical perspective, I would probably have left the template there. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I sympathize with the fact that Past Masters is more than the usual compilation, but I still don't think we need a footer navbox to represent membership in that collection. For instance, the song "Hey Jude" still has four footer navboxes after I removed Past Masters and Julian Lennon, and each one of them hangs together with a coherent theme. You can riffle through the UK best-selling singles by year, or you can peruse all the singles released by the Beatles. On the other hand, the theme of the Past Masters collection is tenuous: "these marvelous songs were never put together as a group so we put them together as a group." I'm not convinced we will ever need this template. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RfPP ECP requests in error

Hey. While there's no real harm, I have noted on multiple occasions at RfPP that you've been requesting WP:ECP in error when a mere semi would do. Just a bit puzzling to me, is all. Regards, El_C 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I had been thinking semi was only for IPs, but it includes newly registered users. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Structuring

I would have appreciated if you had contacted me once more before reporting me as some sort of vandal. And though it should go without saying, I am not one.

It would have been helpful if you had provide further clarification before claiming such. The impression was that the Sputnik sourcing, which I attempted to and believed to be resolved, was the primary issue regarding close paraphrasing on that particular article. Upon inspecting the list you wrote on the article's talk, now it is clear there is much more to do. Reflecting on some of my previous edits, I may have closely paraphrased in certain instances. I suppose I often expect the pages to develop and their prose be reworded further as time goes on, which is usually what happens. But more often then not it turns out that I am essentially the only one editing something besides the genre boxes on certain articles. I will work to go back and further restructure the wording of the article and any others like it. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're not a vandal. But I reported your copyright violations because they are a giant problem, and I wanted you to stop. You appeared to be unconcerned about the issue, fixing only one instance of it. It will be good to see you going through your previous contributions and completely rewording them, or quoting the source with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As I previously explained, Sputnik was the only one you cited. In retrospect, perhaps preceding it with "For example ..." would have provided the scope of the issue. That said, it actually was not the only sentence I restructured. Either way, reflexively citing me as a vandal when you are well aware I am not just to draw attention because you inaccurately presumed I am unconcerned is quite disconcerting. Rather than making a sweeping judgment based on an opaque, five-word edit summary, you could have simply tried to gain insight with further communication. Regardless, it will take some time to perform those rewording edits we have both now mentioned. I will most likely look to WP:CLD from here. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CLD? No. The problem is still standing, the issue is still on the table. It's not time to close the discussion and move on. Closure will come with the removal of all existing copyright violations, and especially with the adoption of a new style of writing encyclopedic prose. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite aware of all of that, as I have already acknowledged the scope of the issue and clearly articulated that I plan on addressing it at least twice now. My mistake, I intended to include a Wikilink to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which I will looking to more closely as a guide going forward. Disregard that last link, it was late at the time. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it! Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reverting edits on Terry Crews.

LolaRulz (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)