User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

What?

So when do we have to provide citations for comments made on a Talk page, sir?72.188.178.14 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit you deleted was on a Discussion page, Binksternet, not on a content page. I call bullshit.JackFloridian (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saguache Crescent

Hello! Your submission of Saguache Crescent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing content from Joey Sturgis

There is no official credible source for album credits. Taking images or scans from cd liner notes is illegal. There is no national database because distributors are private companies that aren't required to disclose album details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is no published source to back up the fact then the fact does not belong in the biography. See WP:No original research. Wikipedia says it is not enough that your text is true or correct, it must also be previously published.

You can WP:Cite album liner notes even if you don't scan them. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed the fact that the first reference is a link to all the credits -> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/joey-sturgis-mn0000938432 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great source. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ramped up

Binksternet, the activity at Snowden has ramped up to the point that I think some action is needed. It is a battlefield where even the simplest work is being disrupted. The long standing Lede is being used to retell the story, and a team has formed. No amount of sense from other editors seems to bring about more sensible editing behaviour nor good communication on the talk page. The talk page is all we've got, if that doesn't work, is there some sort of RfC, or...? Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 23:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will look at what's going on. I've been preoccupied with another biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But you have enough time to keep templating my user Talk page with "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Please consider using the article's talk page..."? Let's leave aside the fact I am obviously aware of this advice such that the only remaining explanation is that you are trolling me. Let's also leave aside the fact that you templated me the minute JohnValeron removed what I added and then Petrarchan stepped in to restore exactly what I added down to the last punctuation point (how does it help Petrarchan if when I add material she wants you template ME instead of the guy she's warring with?) For a user to have performed four reverts within 24 hours, he or she would have had to have edited FOUR times, no? I've edited TWICE in 24 hours (note that policy counts "...edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user..." as a single edit for counting purposes). And in these two edits, there is nothing at all in common between these two edits, either in terms of including something or excluding something. In other words, in no sense have I returned even just twice to some preferred version. If you are going to say that I edited twice to move the article to my preferred version, well of course every edit is a move towards a preferred version in the eyes of the editor. It makes no sense to call this ordinary editing edit warring, however.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The template I put on your page required almost no time on my part. I put it there after seeing that you had reverted several times in the last 24 hours at the Snowden article. The template is a reminder for you to keep from breaking the 3RR brightline rule, as you recently learned from your first block. If you have a problem with any future appearance of that template of that sort you can remove it. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating an opportunity to wag your finger and toot your horn like this about getting me blocked was, of course, the whole rationale behind your successful effort to get me blocked by gaming the system. When I pointed out on the policy Talk page that its wording allowed this gaming of yours, you had nothing to say in defence of your behaviour and neither did the blocking admin. As for this instance, I edited TWICE, not "several times," the second time to add material I had never added before to my recollection, and you didn't template me "after seeing" this, you templated me after JohnValeron reverted my addition! What is "required almost no time on my part" supposed to mean? That you simply don't care if your templating of other users is devoid of justification? You can only hit user pages on a drive-by basis because you are too busy to slow down? May I suggest that you start to care? As for "reminding" me, I should think the fact I felt compelled to remove this exact same Template from my Talk page in the recent past is obvious evidence that these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome. Since you refuse to look at that obvious evidence, apparently I must spell it out for you here: these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions? You continue to remain welcome to actually discuss any good faith concerns of yours on my Talk page (ie no drive-by templating).--Brian Dell (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of social sites in Political parties articles

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply in talk page. But still i have a query, if adding social sites in indian political parties is not a concern in wikipedia then in the edit section of External_links a message is displayed "ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed" but no such restriction in the edit section of INC can you please throw some light on it? Although this may seem a trivial thing, but i think it will be useful in protecting from vandalism of indian political parties and politicians articles. Work2win (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will add that message to the INC article, though you could have added it yourself. Be WP:Bold. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply.

I didn't know that i as a autoconfirmed user could add a message there. Even then i believe in consensus in editing articles. Work2win (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to have a critical view on Impalement once I have achieved a major size reduction of it?

Hi, Binksternet! First off, thanks for your previous comments on egregious length of article (those comments have lingered in my mind..). Secondly, the way I personally work is that I need to have the "full overview" of a topic before I can crystallize the topic into those elements I regard as truly essential/representative. That means loads of work that afterwards is deleted (although I do not think that, then, has been a waste). I need time to mull over the full topic, until my brain gradually sorts out the principal sub-topics that I can justify to myself to represent the whole.

I believe that I have reached that matured overview now, and have a plan to make a 60-70% reduction of the article, bringing it down, I guess, into the 80-90k range. But, before beginning that trimming process, it would be nice to know if another editor might, after the reduction, take a look at it. Furthermore, should I delist the article from "Good Article" once I've done so, and instead renominate it? (It's not terribly important to me to get that badge, but it is important to me that a badge awarded on different premises is not transferred to a substantially changed article!! The latter would be a sort of dishonesty, I think..)

Now, whether or not you are willing to look over it, I'll give a brief sketch here of what I am going to retain:

On methods, I will include one vivid description of longitudinal impalement, and one description of transversal impalement. I will also retain a discussion of survival time for longitudinal impalement. That should suffice for the general reader!

On historical topics, I will retain the following:

• Ancient Middle East (because that is where it developed, will probably cut out Egypt, Persia and Rome as marginal, relative to notable Babylonia, (Neo-)Assyrians and Biblical evidence). Reason for retaining? That's where it all "began" (Babylonia for earliest, Neo-Assyrians for fiercest, Biblical for independently extremely notable culturally)!
• Due to his notoriousness, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) has to be retained.
• Foci on just two medieval/early modern societies practicing impalement, Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Ottoman Empire. This fits nicely with the distinction between transversal/longitudinal impalement as well, with predominantly transversal in HRE and predominantly longitudinal in OE.

And that's basically what I wish to retain.

The subtopic of gaunching, i.e, throwing people onto hooks in some way, is more profitably split out as an independent article, which can be be briefly mentioned in Impalement, with link to main article on "gaunching", in the manner already done with bamboo torture.

Lastly, would it break Wikipedia norms to include in "See also" a link to an earlier, more comprehensive version of the same article, only to be accessed for readers truly "obsessed" with the topic???

Ok, it would be nice to hear if you think that such a major size reduction is ideally needed, and furthermore, if my proposed sketch initially strikes you as a good plan! Cheers, Arildnordby (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I have begun size reduction; if you disagree with the necessity of doing so, please say so. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Even your note here is too long! You could have just signed your name under the header. ;^)

Ping me again when you think you are ready for a review. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that!Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix on the Ronan page.

I was going to revert your change because of the lack of talk page discussion until I saw you were obviously a neutral and experienced editor. I have no disagreement with the edit, and suspect that it is better simply because someone like you made it. There was an accusation of synthesis on my original content, which is not true. [1] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic. I do believe my changes were accurate and relevant. I am not qualified to know what the right balance within WP on bold language is, and would love your casual insights. Woody Allen is accused by Ronan of Sexual molestation per a reliable second source, and this is a key part of Ronan's biography. Worth four words or a sentence.

Thanks for your involvement on this issue.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think discussion of this sort is best conducted on the article talk page, or on noticeboards, but not on individual talk pages. I took part in the WP:BLPN discussion about this issue. There is still the matter of context: should the reader be told that Farrow's accusation has not resulted in any legal or civil suit? Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

agreed. I came here to thank you and ask for perspective which you gave. I have been directed against using talk pages for anything except discussing content changes, and I am satisfied with the content discussions. Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan redux

Frankly Bink I see this comment as both sexist and disruptive. Sexist because Petrarchan has been around the horn long enough to take care of herself. Disruptive because you're blindly defending a serial disruptor. Your effort at chivalry gallantry is contrary to the aims of the project.

I request that we make a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute now. Is that something you're interested in? Please lay out all of the evidence of "harassment" and "hounding" you have against me in the forum of your choice, and the community can discuss it. If you refuse to do so then I can only assume you only want to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and perpetuate problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that this doesn't happen. You are both good editors as is Petrarchan. Bink should not be fighting her battles. DrF is correct, it is sexist and reinforces the belief that women are not able to stand up for themselves and need a protector to speak for them. What I would like to see is to have DrF and Petrar come here and discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandy. I would love that. Seriously. Get it all out in the open in the hopes of moving on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: When I say "the forum of [Bink's] choice," that could include my user talk, Bink's user talk, someone else's user talk (with their permission of course), or even a user sub-page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra. In this case my sexism is not assumed, it is the result of observation and calculation. I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused, but I do intend to try and keep her constructive edits, which I value.

As far as the time frame for my "laying out all of the evidence", I have many other concerns not the least of which is my real life job. As well, I have been overdosing on wikidrama lately. Whenever this happens, to keep myself from burning out I return to building relatively uncontroversial articles. Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Three things:

• "DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra." Tell me what you know about her then, instead of keeping it a secret. It's intellectually dishonest to justify your actions by referring to information that you refuse to disclose. You might as well have written, "You're wrong but I can't tell you why." That's just what the federal government does, and it doesn't build trust.
• "Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise." So you will continue to cast aspersions while withholding the basis for doing so indefinitely, eh? Somewhere I saw a policy against that. In any case it's just not nice.
• "I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused." Then join Gandy and ask her to answer to them. Actions speak louder than words. You are simply not acting as if you want to resolve this dispute.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your response hostile and intrusive. Please see my previous post. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? So it's "end of discussion"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you cut off this discussion then you're a numpty. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So true! (if the truth be known, until this moment, DrF, I really did not like you one bit!) why are those words, "we can work it out, we can work it out" in my head over and over...what song is that? Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I really hope you're not WP:GAMING here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This saddens me. My gender has nothing to do with anything. Nor does Binksternet's. I did everything I could to try and continue editing at the Snowden page peacefully, and it only got worse and worse. Including the last day I edited there, trying to add the well documented "Snowden Effect" without Fleischman, who knows nothing of the subject and proved it by his complaints, kicking my shins the whole time. I have been calling out for help on that talk page, and Binksternet stepped in in the way that was needed. That talk page was, and is, taken over by hostile forces in my opinion, who aren't there to build an article, at least no evidence would support that idea, but are there to bother editors who are, and perhaps stop that process. I know that Fleischman did the same at Sam Adams Award, The Day We Fight Back, just like Bdell555 did at Russ Tice. For the most part, these are articles where I was the sole editor and forced to then deal with them. They seemed happy to toy with me endlessly, daily. Their edit histories show that indeed their days were dedicated to articles I worked on since early January. From my POV, this was beyond exhausting. When I called out for help with Bdell555, it was after a week dealing with him at the Tice article. This was when Fleischman stepped in. At that point, the Snowden talk page was completely taken over, and Fleischman was joined by his ALEC buddy, Captioljsmo, then a new guy who now repeats and agrees with his every word at the Snowden page. This is a loosing battle, but with Binksternet on the scene it didn't seem completely desperate to me.

Binksternet was the first person to respond to my early calls for help at Wikipedia years ago, with regard to some spin-doctoring going on at the BP page. He was the only person, after 2 noticeboards about the BP situation, who came and helped and stuck around. (Gandydancer was a huge help too, though knew about it from the BP oil spill page, not the noticeboards). His contributions there were priceless.

People, whether male or female, have different personality types. Wikipedians in general are a little too politically correct and nice to successfully handle the situation we find ourselves in: a talk page and article has been highjacked by people who won't listen to reason, aren't moved by community consensus and who act like complete jerks. I think the two months of repeating myself to Bdell555 along with the help of other volunteers, which brought about no changes whatsoever, proves that. I don't see any hope for that page without Binksternet - or - a larger group of independent editors willing to stick around, do reverts, do research, check their watchlist - every day - at least, with the amount of activity there lately, that's what is required. But that is not happening.

I am stunned that the one person who seems willing and able to help is being bashed by all sides. He is now experiencing what I was when he came in and 'saved' me. He, without my asking, reverted incredibly hostile comments from one energetic editor who was dedicated to bothering me, and I am forever grateful. There were many comments I never saw because of him. It is a proven fact that online comments can affect a person, and they certainly do me. I have crossed over into territory here at Wikipedia that has ruined my taste for the place entirely. I know there are editors who not only don't care if I am hurt, but who would like to see that reality, based solely on the content of the articles i've been working on. I wish more people here would lend a hand to help fellow editors who are being bashed, whether they are asked to do it or not. And Binksternet was not. Frankly, from a personal standpoint, this was one of the most touching things that has happened to me in a long while - that someone would go to such lengths to help a stranger (and to help the Pedia) has left me speechless. I have a feeling the rest of the community does know what a gem Binksternet is.

It is sad that in one's normal editing experience here, one can come across people who intend only to protect a certain ideology or special interest, and finds little to no support for overturning this wave. People have stated unambiguously a disdain for whistleblowers, yet are allowed to continue editing pages of people who have been given the label. Wikipedia seems to operate with almost zero common sense. If our number one rule is NPOV, then those who've stated their bias should be barred from fucking with articles and editors working in that area. I bring this up and... *crickets*. Binksternet is the only one who seems to know how to respond to the BS at Wikipedia, and who has offered to help. He gets spit in the face. Nice. I have no hope for this place. petrarchan47tc 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

At least Bink and Gandy are civil most of the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is far from civil, whether you have a smile behind your words or a growl. petrarchan47tc 23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Too wrongs don't make a right. Rise above, bodhisattva aspirant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Saguache Crescent

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Jane Kim. Chisme (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! I had been intending for some time to rework the biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just want things to be clear

In yet another ANI report this evening I was accused of calling you a numpty. I'd like to make it very clear to you and to everyone else that I did no such thing, and would be very unlikely ever to do so. Eric Corbett 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad, because the word is so delightfully quirky. I give you permission to call me numpty in the future if it strikes you as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick look makes me realize the accusation was about targeting Bencherlite, not me. You still have my permission. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you know that if I ever thought you were behaving like a numpty I'd tell you so. But these interminable ANI reports just merge into one for me, so apologies for confusing you with Bencherlite. Eric Corbett 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow

Just a head's up that Bob the goodwin has said something about you that appears to be false here, which I addressed in my follow-up comment here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Well, that's a 48 hour break but I suspect that over the weekend we'll be right back in the same spot and probably putting a similar post on the 3RR noticeboard. I hope I wrong, but from their attitude today ... Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Albright Article Revert Issue

In the Charlie Albright article, it seems that you are reverting every possible edit and addition that is made, upon looking at the history. I am a long-time follower of Charlie Albright and was physically at the concert that the review in the Cortez Journal.

You erased two edits/additions that I created with only the explanation that "prose not suitable for encyclopedia. Albright is not known for being a composer, though he certainly has composed."

It is very clear that the prose is indeed suitable for an encyclopedia, as it is consistent with other quotes from reviews/reception in many other articles. Furthermore, this addition is significant because it not only discusses Albright's technical and emotional ability at the piano, but that he "transcends" that and is on a different level...as well as discusses his compositions being significant and important as well.

...Which leads to the issue of why you seem to revert anyone's addition of "composer" to his title. In your opinion, you claim that he is not known for being a composer, but searches on the internet show that he is just as avid a composer as pianist and is internationally known for such as well (just read the entire review in the Cortez Journal if you do not have the time.)

Please do not needlessly revert entire edits simply with non-descript explanations such as "prose not suitable" but it is consistent with similar articles across Wikipedia. The wording was not biased and was factual from primary sources (newspapers).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwsmith3228 (talk • contribs)

Tell me one composition of Albright's that has gained recognition of its own. The answer: none. If Albright is hired as a composer, if he gets composer credits on a film, for instance, then he will be a composer on Wikipedia. Until then, he is known as a pianist.

I removed your text which I called "purple prose" because it was far too laudatory. Please see the guideline WP:PEACOCK which discusses proper wording. If you can reword the addition such that the praise is dialed way down, then you will have found the proper balance for an encyclopedia.

I reworked the whole biography last December because it had been developed by Jdanieloh who does nothing but write about Albright and upload photos of Albright, some of which have been deleted because of no permission. Jdanieloh had made the biography into a hagiography. I tried to make it more encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, user:binksternet, for your input. I suppose that using your reasoning, nobody on YouTube is a true "composer." If you go on iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby, or anywhere else online and see his CD "Vivace," you will see that he is a credited composer on that album. Furthermore, check his YouTube channel (http://youtube.com/pianomanca) and you will see that he has tens of thousands of views on many of his self-composed pieces. If that is not a "composer," I do not know what is.

I have trimmed my previous addition from the Cortez Journal as per your request and resubmitted it with the above information.

POV pushing

So, you don't see what I'm talking about at all? Dan56 edits jazz and R&B articles for GA and FA, but he only edits classic rock and metal articles to add negative critical commentary and genre war. He does not improve these articles beyond making sure that there is disparaging critical commentary included. What if I found a critic who hated hip-hop, then I went around to articles about hip-hop music and added negative commentary from said critic? What if I also kept all of those articles on my watchlist even though I was not editing or improving them just so that I could monitor if any of the negative stuff is removed, at which point I cry wolf and call whoever removed it a bully and accuse them of attempting to whitewash the material. For someone as skilled as you are at picking out tells and patterns I'm really surprised that you don't see this. I could point you to 6-8 articles that Dan has done this at this year. Now he's complaining that I removed a bit from Christgau that claimed that Rubber Soul is a better concept album than Pepper; I've never even heard anyone refer to RS as a concept album, but Dan insists that it needs to be included because Christgau said it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and sort through everybody's edit histories, nor am I going to try and figure out how well the various articles reflect the sources. My few comments about this issue have been general, not specific. I think that with Dan56 training his notional beam of negativity at various articles, other editors such as yourself will be more motivated to work the material into them to form a well-rounded reference. Our readers ultimately benefit. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Bink. Its not a bad thing to add balanced or negative comments, but to add ridiculous negative stuff only to articles about music that you do not like is inappropriate POV pushing. Are you really stating on the record that you think its a good thing for an editor to add negative commentary to articles about music that they do not like because they do not like it? Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just take 15 minutes to glance at these talk pages: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, Talk:...And Justice for All (album), and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks.

I do not accept your assessment of the situation as fact, because I have not and choose not to investigate it myself. Nor do I think it is useful to complain about negative reviews if such reviews are indeed reliably sourced. The situation you say you are in, one in which another editor purposely puts negative material into articles, is a question of balance, a management of the sources. The negative material should be relevant, sufficiently high quality and represented in proper balance with regard to the general literature on the topic. If you think Dan56 should stop doing what you say he's doing, start an RFCU against him, accusing him of violating NPOV, the section about undue weight. Such an argument is difficult to carry forward if it is not extreme.

I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it your position that we should include the quote of Christgau calling Rubber Soul a better concept album than Pepper just because it can be reliable sourced? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Christgau is wa-a-ay out in the weeds here. Rubber Soul is not said to be a concept album by anybody else. Even Sgt Pepper has people saying it is not a concept album. So the comment by Christgau is not appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I of course agree that Christgau is "wa-a-ay out in the weeds", but I would extend that to almost any topic related to rock music, especially music that is at all heavy. That's part of the issue with Dan, who has gone around and pushed Christagu's massively biased opinions on numerous rock topics. Christgau is a self-avowed jazz enthusiast who said that Hendrix was "a terrible Uncle Tom" after Monterey. He also expresses dislike for metal and Dan pushes his ignorant views on metal articles. Thanks for agreeing on that point at least, but I'm a little surprised that you are okay with an editor aggressively pushing bias in the guise of balance on articles that he shows no interest in beyond that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I found Alexander Rivkin's bio while searching something else and was wondering - with those references and etc., does the subject look notable to you? It looks to be more self-promotion but after I was shot down for saying that a man who uses his Wikipedia notice about some flower pots he rearranged to play himself up to local kids simply isn't notable for getting one press release into the New York Times, I no longer trust my Notable/Non-notable filter. What say you about this one? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Same cleanup, found another show-biz orphan Mahasti. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(friendly stalker) If I may speak out here, the Rivkin article is a free Wikipedia advertisement if I ever saw one. I note that the editor that put the article in was a sock. The refs are far from acceptable. Thanks for bringing this up Ellin. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's helpful to limit the time frame of Google searches so that Wikipedia's own influence is minimized. Doing so shows that Mahasti was listed in 1999 in the book World Music on page 360, along with her sister Hadeyeh. The 2003 version of Encyclopedia Iranica lists Mahasti and her sister. The 1991 Virgin Directory of World Music describes Mahasti as being overtaken in fame by her sister. All of these are brief mentions in passing, not dedicated coverage. It's likely that dedicated coverage could be found in Persian language sources.

Regarding Rivkin, the article is a blatant advertisement. The guy has been mentioned in passing in Elle and Los Angeles Magazine but his notability is not high enough to meet WP:BASIC. I'm gonna nominate the thing for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When is a conflagration not a conflagration

You recently made the same edit to 19th Operations Group and XXI Bomber Command. I have no idea how strong the wind was (there is no reference), and firestorm doesn't help, but your edit leaves both articles with a sentence that says a conflagration is called a conflagration. It would be helpful if you edited the sentence in the articles--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the note! I must have been moving too quickly through the various articles which were saying that Tokyo was a firestorm. The reference is "Exploratory Analysis of Firestorms" published by Stanford Research Institute in May 1965. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a discussion here in which you might like to participate. Radiopathy •talk• 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clapton = God

Concerning your removal of my Eric Clapton edit, citing bias, I must state that in addition to a plethora of magazine/newspaper/Internet articles/interviews, I've found numerous other Wiki articles that refer to him as such (eg, "Honorific nicknames in popular music"). Therefore, I find it only fitting to include it in his list of aliases. This edit isn't intended as a troll, nor petty vandalism, but as acknowledgement towards his extraordinary ability and the names people bestow upon him in respect and admiration as a result. Just because some people may not agree with the "Honest Abe" moniker, does that not mean Abraham Lincoln can be listed as such on his entry? Not everyone necessarily sees Michael Jackson as the King of Pop, but that doesn't stop Wiki from listing him as such. Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You had me at "troll". Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Way to keep an open mind. All I'm saying is, you guys at Wikipedia are pretty anal about consistency and proof and whatnot; yet I present to you an entry that doesn't jive with the other corresponding information on PLENTY of other entries, and I'm the one dismissed as a troll. Integrity: not your strong suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody calls Clapton "God" alone, using "God" by itself as a nickname. Nobody puts up a newspaper headline saying "God Slays Wembley" or whatnot, when reviewing a Clapton performance. Rather, the term "God" is used in combination with Clapton's surname. This is discussed sufficiently in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. But whatever, you guys really aren't worth the time anymore. There's a whole world outside, with reasonable people. You just have fun with your little crusade to be the best darn Internet moderator that you can be. That'll show 'em. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

I found that another not particularly active user [2] made comment on the last Alexander Rivkin discussion. Their editing appearance and name would seem to fit into the sort of behavior exhibited by the person who resurrected Rivkin, see particularly en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MusicLover650. I don't know where to point this out, so please point me in right direction, or ?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That one from 2009 is stale and inactive; no administrator will agree to block the account. Sparkzilla99 will have to start up with new disruption before a block can be considered.

The account which created the first Rivkin bio is Watermeloniris. I can tell because of a talk page message about the first Afd. Sparkzilla99 was probably a sock of Watermeloniris. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My best efforts will be directed at the Core Contest during the next few days, doing a sort of peer review of 14 articles in my role as co-judge. If there's any wind in my sails after that, I will look your Monk article. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding Thargor Orlando thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You are quite an inspiration

If everything you say on your user page is correct you are quite the Wikipedian. Thank you so much I'm so glad to know you. And I appreciate all you've done for Wikipedia. Thanks! Your friend Rainbowofpeace or as my friends call me Angel.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Yes, everything on my user page is correct.

Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

HarveyCarter socks

Hi. Just thought I'd run this by you. I know the edit summary here is the exact opposite of the edit summary here, but nevertheless I have reason to believe it is the same editor. He has a history of inconsistency, and often makes "reasonable" edits as well as / before making outlandish ones. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspicious, too, but I have not yet found a smoking gun edit of his. I'll keep an eye out, but this IP will soon be discarded for another if he's HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)