Jump to content

User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Now 76: new section
Line 644: Line 644:
== Now 76 ==
== Now 76 ==


Please stop removing the trivia about how many number ones are on Now 76. Every NOW article has that trivia so please leave the page alone.
Please stop removing the trivia about how many number ones are on Now 76. Every NOW article has that trivia so please leave the page alone. How many times do I have to tell you. You do it again, I will treat it as vandalism and ask Wikipedia to block you.

Revision as of 09:23, 10 July 2017
Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards

Yes, but can he see this future

Oh dear... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sithuminashanthi ... Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having difficulty helping the DX7 article

Let me start by saying how much I appreciate the efforts of prolific wikipedia contributors such as yourself. Without people like you giving up tons of your spare time there would be no wikipedia, and certainly no DX7 article for me to edit (badly). The DX7 had (rightly or wrongly) a reputation as being difficult to program, and difficult to modulate live. However that is simply an assertion until I back it up with decent references. Any help, guidance, pointers in this matter would be much appreciated. Mcsony (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC) It's not the "user manual". It's an article from an old series of keyboard magazine 1985. It has the line "they've heard it's impossible, or at least very difficult, to program.".... which probably means my citation should have actually called out that it was the old magazine, and included the quote..... any help much appriciated!Mcsony (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Will do my edits in sandbox for now, and resubmit when (if) the refs are tighter.Mcsony (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Keeping me honest...... Mcsony (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/31.54.210.219

I think that this IP may fit the profile that it belong to that long-term abuse called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikidesctruction vandal based on the IP's behavior that vandalizes articles relying on "Now! That's What I Call Music" related articles. Am I right? Raritydash (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. This example nails it. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That example you provided is that the IP is different (which I added to the list), yet has that same behavior. But however I didn't add the IP (the section above) to the list. Would that be OK to do so? Raritydash (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free to add the new IP showing the same behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already added it to the list. Thanks. Raritydash (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Binksternet, thank you old friend so much for the Barnstar! Much appreciated! I know that sometimes I struggle with English (to say nothing o Mandarin!), and I try to get better. Thank you again for your kind words. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Writer writes own page

I guess nothing surprises me anymore, but check this out [1]. He came up on my radar due to uploading a photo which obviously is not a selfie, yet is claimed as own work. Subsequent email points out his wife took the photo. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the page was nominated for deletion but there was no consensus among the many votes. Looks like a marginally notable writer who thought he would be the best person to write his own biography. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up a more general question: Nobel nominations aren't officially released for 40 years, IMS, yet there are a number of articles that claim them. In some cases, a spokesman from an organization that had the ability to nominate leaked them, but there's no way even then to verify, since an organization could go for a twofer, dropping one name, a no-hoper, while actually submitting another.
An unrelated question - what's the best way to track reversions for IP troll suppression? Anything better than just adding a raft of articles to the watch list? Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what skills are employed by this troll. If he uses the same IP all the time then just check on his contributions as often as needed. If he uses multiple IPs, then you would typically watchlist a raft of articles, but there's another option: The range contributions tool. You can also ping me via email for more advice or assistance, if the matter is sensitive. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, The range contributions tool looks kinda useful.
BTW, I put up a couple more possible WikiHoaxes on the relevant talk page; if you get a chance, I'd like some input as to whether they qualify. At least one seems to have made into other sources. Anmccaff (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Constellation revert?

Why did you revert the article to a less correct version? Some of the grammar/punctuation of the version you reverted to is bad, and you reverted past my correction of the "jet stack" link to "Turbo-compound engine", which is the correct article to link to for a description of a "jet stack".--Meve Stills (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meve Stills, my revert was per WP:EVADE, undoing the work of Tim Zukas who has been evading his block with IP addresses. Sorry about rolling over your piped link to Turbo-compound engine – I have restored that part. You are welcome to rework the article using as much or as little of the Zukas grammar changes as you like. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the correction. I am curious though, that if you weren't objecting to Tim Zukas' changes, and suggested that I restore them, then why even revert his changes in the first place? If he's a problem user, but his changes are valid, why revert them? --Meve Stills (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question, and is always part of the push-and-pull of WP:EVADE. Zukas is a problem user who was getting back into action after laying low for a while. Seeing referencing problems with the first few of his changes that I came across, I then reverted a large number of his changes without examining them in detail. That was me assuming bad faith, and economizing on my time. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over-revert

Hi, last year you made this change, but it also reverted this earlier cited change in the Korean survivors section that wasn't made by Powerboy243. Would you please restore the latter? Thanks. 209.6.229.194 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is more complicated than can be answered by one article in the New York Times, the article written by Choe Sang-hun who doesn't say where he got his numbers. Rather than simply restoring the figures provided by The Voidwalker in your second diff, I will do the same thing I did with the total number of deaths in the atomic bombings: I will take a look at several of the most reliable sources and convey a range of estimated deaths. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, though this elevates Dower over other WP:conflicting sources, which should probably explained in a note. Anyway, reading the citation brings up another issue: the article appears to discuss only the few American military deaths, but "Few know that there were an estimated 11,000 Japanese Americans living in Hiroshima ... An unknown number of Japanese Americans died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but about 3,000 in total survived and returned to the United States after the war." And Dower says "it is probable that at least one thousand American citizens were killed by the Hiroshima bomb." Seems worth mentioning? Thanks, 209.6.229.194 (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

Greetings again: Here is another fully autobiographical page! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. I applied the same treatment as other examples. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream hardcore

Sorry Blinksternet 120.147.37.23 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more of your contributions based on published sources, for instance here where you use Illmind Magazine. That's the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to focus more on adding and revising on reliably sourced information, what doesn't help so much is such unregistered users are interfering with such articles or you got those who use inordinate information for example the subgenres in Hardcore where deceptive or in the Hardvapour article, the stylistic origins are not outright legitimant, the sources in the article too don't add up or have any ground basis of the genre in a particular way or TheMagnificentist who had reverted the Future bass article without adding sources to it's stylistic origins which I had to try to revert back to your edit. The one thing with me, courteous to say, is I try to be sure the article sounds reliable and logical as possible, so I am sorry if some of my edits do not show signs of being presentable. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

I'm not the TexasHistory2017 guy. I can check if it's someone else in the frat. Sounds like someone was being jerks to them though. Aren't wikipedia people supposed to be civil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.22.150 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A rose is a rose by any other name. IP blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to say Widr blocked the IP, not me. Just for 31 hours though. If they come back I'll put a longer block on. Ping me if needed. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Kai-Shek

Hi Binksternet, I found some more information about Chiang Kai-Shek in my research on him and I added to his wikipedia page. The information is sourced from legitimate text and I have shown which source it was retrieved in the edit. I would appreciate if you checked this out instead of instantly reverting it.

I don't think the biography needs such an emphasis on the man's own views, and the stories he told about his childhood. Far better to quote a scholar who has studied the topic objectively. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I might suggest reviewing this section as it does have some contradictory statements. Victor Hugo was not a Saint, and in his page it even says that he had antipathy towards Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen#Religious_veneration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.38.236 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be more convinced by links to scholarly writings about Chiang Kai-Shek than by links to other biographies on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must have misinterpreted what I said as I was unclear. I see what you say about the subjectivity of my edit, and that is not what I was asking about. The link I gave you is something that needs reviewing as the information seems very inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.38.236 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

Could this user be the globally banned User:Russavia? The attitude certainly reminds me of Russ. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I am not so familiar with that case as to be considered an expert in identification. It's an Australian IP but from the East Coast, not the West Coast where Russavia's home is. The guy has used IPs from around the globe, so behavior is the key, not geolocation. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not that familiar with his identifiers either. Perhaps @Nick-D: knows? - BilCat (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "only" familiar with Russavia's trolling, extreme personal abuse and uploads of vast numbers of photos of aircraft onto Commons under dubious copyright claims (if all those people from plane photography websites have really released all those photos into the public domain, and understood what this meant while doing so, I'll eat my hat - I try to avoid using photos he uploaded). That edit is certainly a 'possible', especially in light of the pattern from the IP, but I'm not sure. I'd suggest reporting this at ANI, SPI or similar where editors more familiar with his editing style and frequent ban evasion can review it. From what I've seen of the ban evasion, no weight should be put on the geolocation, etc, as this varies considerably. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nerve-racking edits

Hey Blinksternet, I would just like to inform you that some destruptive edits by Mohamed ali Rida can you please revert or help with some of these changes if you have the chance, Thanks. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's no userpage, their last change was on the list of electronic music genres. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a big problem with that article is that people have been listing things that don't have Wikipedia articles. I think the list should be pared down to only Wikipedia articles, not sections of articles or sub-sub-genres that don't have articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I was thinking if it where best if the sections of articles with sourced material where placed into a wikipedia article with a specific genre rather than an article added into the list of genres, hopefully it would cause less confusion or a muddle up, I have too learnt overtime about adding sourced information which has helped me comprehend that certain changes need to be soursed and resourseful, what I'm still trying to get my head around is the Hardvapour article and it's stylistic origins which makes me think that it's unclear or muddled from my angle. Anything you'd like to commend? 120.147.37.23 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a strong opinion about the hardvapour article. It looks like it needs a bit of touching up, but most of the stuff seems okay. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbra Streisand

why do delete the page？ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music or Goddess of Pop in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing the pattern you established in May 2015 which got you blocked? (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skkywill/Archive.) You will get blocked again if you keep it up. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memories...Do Not Open

Thanks for you revert of the user on Memories...Do Not Open. I can't revert any further today as I will have gone over three reverts. I'm really not sure what to do, as they are being quite persistent and any reports of them to ANV would probably be disregarded as it's not "vandalism". Ss112 14:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on the new account as the behavior seems familiar, for instance this similar edit from a sock account. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Mark Dice entry as "Conspiracy Theorist" Instead of "Media Critic"

He has requested this to be changed and even got co-founder of Wikipedia Jimbo_Wales to change the page which was over ruled due to "Unreliable sources". Mark is mentioning this on his twitter account https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/857720810399612928 and threatening to sue. This change maybe be due to user basis or discriminatory practice to political social views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.207.57 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really concerned about Dice. Your "threatening" post here is probably crossing the line into a forbidden legal threat for its intended chilling effect. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this comment threatening to you, especially a legal threat? He is stating a fact. Mark Dice posted that on his twitter page. Jimbo Wales did in fact make the change per the history. Which two sources did you find unreliable? Were the sources put in by Jimbo Wales? Please don't block me or threaten to block me for asking questions. I am doing it per your request on your Talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmoore2004 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself why is someone telling me that Mark Dice is threatening to sue? If you act as an agent of Dice by relaying a threat made by Dice then you are part of the threat.
The place to talk about the larger issue is at Talk:Mark Dice, not my talk page. Only post here if you have a problem with my personal behavior. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are relaying facts to a change that you have reverted. I am not trying to get personal nor do I have a problem with your personal behavior, only attempting to help you understand that factual statements do not appear to be a threat to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmoore2004 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of Vadalizing Wikipedia

Let's get something straight, I'm not vandalizing anything. I'm trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Aurelius2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius2018 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people who don't intend to vandalize Wikipedia with their contributions, but end up being disruptive in some way, or violating Wikipedia guidelines in some manner. For instance, your early work at the Genius article was blanked out because you violated copyright rules. You used unreliable sources for your article The Vigilant Christian, so it was deleted. To me, it looks like you have violated WP:MULTIPLE by using your registered account along with lots of IPs from Pompano Beach/Delray Beach, Florida, and Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, to engage in edit warring over content, for instance at Vinyl (TV series) where you keep restoring unreferenced material about who appeared on the show. And I've reverted a bunch of these awkward insertions of yours that interrupt reading flow. You were so persistent about the latter that you got the "Overjoyed" article protected against you.
So all of this disruptive work counts against your constructive work, and forces the question of whether your positive contributions are worth the trouble it takes for other people to patrol your negative contributions. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden's manager official album sales statement for 2017.

I'd like to inform that R. Smallwood - manager of Iron Maiden group in the special interview for prestigious "Music Week" UK magazine, stated Maiden has sold "100 mln copies of albums" to date (first day of May'17). To read "Big Interview" must log in for free trail. Statement of the impresario we can find at the end of article.

http://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/the-big-interview-phantom-management-s-rod-smallwood-and-dave-shack/068326

Read this one please and make a change on official band'a Wiki bio.

Cheers! Up The Irons!

I would rather see a neutral third party make a statement about sales. The band's manager would not be considered neutral. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave auditory effect

Hi you recently reviewed a contribution and removed it.

Could you explain what part of my contribution was not supported by the references provided. The two published books I own and have read are detailed on this technology and the book has its own list of references.

The video of members of EUCACH presenting to the Members of the European Parliament are individuals directly effected by this technology. They are not diagnosed with dillusional disorder, their briefing was to highlight to law makers the unethical use of covert technology against citzens.

If you can be more specific on what part of my contribution was not supported by the references I can improve it thanks.

P 86.155.255.164 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to discuss the material you are trying to insert then the best place for that is on the talk page of the article. Join me at Talk:Microwave auditory effect#Satellites used for covert harassment. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
One of the best. - TheMagnificentist 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're too kind. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Piper

That was a clear and obvious mistake on my behalf - if somebody had pinged me earlier I'd have removed it without delay. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious to me! I thought the threat to the page was assessed higher than usual, the threat being Iloveartrock's IP socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were also new sleeper socks that had been created to avoid the pending changes, although I think semi-protection would have still caught most of the trouble. Even if the proliferation of sleepers was too much to play indef block whackamole for a short period, I've never seen a situation where that holds for more than 48 hours at the absolute maximum. The canonical example I have used is this insane edit war on Danish pastry, of all things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Block evasion

Hi, I'm new to this. I've noticed you're rolling back a number of edits made by 86.173.191.67. Who I assume, from the editing history, has been identified as a previously blocked user. Does this mean that all their previous edits are now invalid? Thanks for your time in answering my question. MassiveEartha (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "invalid" is a matter of judgement. The person involved, Jagged 85, was blocked for long-term disruption, misrepresentation of sources, undue emphasis on minor aspects, and synthesis of multiple sources to create a new conclusion. Any one of his block-evading edits can be reverted per WP:EVADE, but if you see some that are improvements, then go ahead and keep or restore them. There are lots of IP addresses involved from a wide range of geographical areas; I'm working on documenting the recent ones here. If you want more of the backstory you can ask Indrian or look at User talk:Indrian where I bring up much the same concern as yours. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted a large restoration of Jagged85 claims to List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world by User:Cupotea4me. I plan to keep an eye on this user, and if they continue in this vein, it may be worth requesting a checkuser.Dialectric (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, obvious sock, with ten quick throwaway edits to achieve autoconfirmed status. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edition in "The Greatest Love of All"

Sorry, I just wanted to put references that validated my information on the page "The Greatest Love of All". Recently, I put an updated chart of Geroge Benson's single charts, all referenced with reliable sources. I would like to ask not to remove this table from the page because the information is true and you can check all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipe Beckhauser (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that you were using unreliable Discogs and 45cat as sources. Looks like you found better sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other edition in "The Greatest Love of All"

Hello Binksternet! I would like to know your opinion on another subject that I would like to add in the article "The Greatest Love of All". It's about a duet of Benson's song with Luciano Pavarotti. The information is referenced and I would like to know if you approve or not this addition. The addition in the article would be this:

George Benson & Luciano Pavarotti

On May 29, 2001,[1] the Italian operatic tenor Luciano Pavarotti performed the concert "Pavarotti & Friends" in his hometown of Modena, Italy.[1] To raise money for refugees from Afghanistan under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,[1] this concert called "Pavarotti & Friends for Afghanistan"Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). featured guest artists, one of them being his friend George Benson.[1] The song performed in duet by the two was Benson's song "The Greatest Love of All",Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). sung in parts by Benson in English and elsewhere by Pavarotti in Italian. This complete concert "Pavarotti & Friends for Afghanistan" raised $ 3.3 million for its cause,[2] and was recorded and released in CD in 2001.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The song was credited with the original title "The Greatest Love of All" recorded by Benson.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Curiously, the name George Benson is the first name that appears on the cover of the album between the participating artists, below "Pavarotti & Friends".Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

References

  1. ^ a b c d Billboard. "Pavarotti & Friends Sing For Refugees (30/05/2001)". Retrieved May 24, 2017.
  2. ^ BBC NEWS. "Pavarotti and Bono sing for Iraq (08/04/2003)". Retrieved May 24, 2017.
That last sentence should be taken out as it is a violation of WP:No original research. Otherwise, your suggested text is okay for the most part, and would be better if you trimmed the redundancy by focusing solely on the Afghanistan part, not on Pavarotti's tour. Also, dates are not wikilinked in English-language Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll remove the last sentence and publish it in the article, if you find something wrong or unnecessary you can edit it. I also added more charts of the song that I found, all true and referenced. Thank you.

The View

Hi there. It appears there's a dispute over the Carly Fiorina "feud" on The View (U.S. TV series). If I could get assistance in resolving this, that would be great. Thank you so much and have a great weekend! DantODB (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing block evasion by User:DMGUSA. It would be interesting to discuss the issue but discussion is not indicated when working with sockpuppets. Thanks for making me aware of this! Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime! DantODB (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DantODB, you are free to make a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DMGUSA, if you think it will help clarify the case. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Sorry, I don't understand why my edit is considered "unsourced". Contact me when you can, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwnick2 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bmwnick2, you used a Paris travelogue as your source rather than a music reviewer or journalist who covers music topics. We have a list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources where you can see some good suggestions. As alwsya, a source that refers to a genre then never discusses it in depth is not going to be as authoritative as a source that refers to a genre and backs it up with analysis. Binksternet (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopper

Do you by chance know a LTA case where an IP editor (see this example here) hops addresses to add categories unsupported by the text? I observe him/her constantly at obscure blues musician articles engaging in this activity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know think that person has a case dedicated to them. Let's start a list of involved IPs. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Broken Bow Records is a frequently visited page. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the IP I added to the list, this kind of disruption goes back to at least 2012.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another common/frequent article is at LifeTalk Radio and associations. After the weekend I will go through my logs, should be easy enough with my canned revert message for this type of activity.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for TheGracefulSlick and Loriendrew – which name do you prefer for the proposed LTA case page? Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Country music category vandal from Tennessee or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tennessee music category vandal? Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first, as this person hits up artists from other locations and countries. Also added some more IPs.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Loriendew; I have seen this person edit artists, labels, etc. that are not exclusive to Tennessee.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, both a' yuz. I started the page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Country music category vandal from Tennessee, but of course it's all of our responsibility to maintain it. Feel free to add more descriptive text to help with identification, but the usual caution is that we try not to instruct the vandal on how to avoid giving himself away. This person, however, appears to have no interest in Wikipedia's inner workings, and very little interest in article talk pages, so the danger is nil. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee music category vandal

Not sure

Not sure how to leave you a message, but I changed the War (band) article because...well...the musicians have changed. Not sure how to provide a citation for that. Please let me know what I need to do. 108.206.239.152 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is here to summarize for the reader the things that have been published about a topic. If it hasn't been published, then it should not be in Wikipedia. So if the membership of War has changed, the band needs to make an announcement. If they haven't made an announcement, then it is not yet time to change the band article. It's not enough to point to some gig flyers which show that a new saxophone player covered one or more gigs – the band has to tell the world that this person is officialy the new sax player of the band, and the old guy is no longer in the band. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lloyd Andrews Hamilton.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lloyd Andrews Hamilton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous or studio?

Me again with another question. I have been trying to sort articles with their appropriate labels (studio, live, etc.) but came across Born Again where I was reverted for classifying it as studio work. What is your opinion on this? I have seen many albums released posthumously, including Pearl, An American Prayer, and Out Among the Stars, but they are still called studio albums. In fact, I do not think I have seen another album article -- other than the following Biggie album in the chronology -- to be called a "posthumous album" in the infobox because Wikipedia does not actually have that as an option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a musical artist is no longer living doesn't have any bearing on what "type" of album we decide it is for the purpose of the infobox. Only items from the list at Template:Infobox_album#Type can be used in the infobox. so posthumous cannot stay there. I would say it's either a "studio" album or "other".
Let's open up this discussion. See Talk:Born Again (The Notorious B.I.G. album) where I wrote down some thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Band pictures

Hi again: Please have a look at User:Sdweatherman/sandbox from about 3 years ago, and see if you think there's notability? If not, please let me know (ping!) and I'll work on the photos. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellin Beltz, it's a non-notable band. I blanked the user page because it was a fake article replacing a previously deleted one. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fassbender

(I am putting this comment here as well as on the Michael Fassbender talk page because I wasn't sure if you would be notified of it there) Thanks for your response Binksternet, but I bb23 didn't mention the quality of the sources so I feel their rationale for why the relationships should not be included is different. I used ABC News because I was under the impression it was a trustworthy source, but there is a GQ interview of Fassbender where he talks about his relationship with Beharie. I would edit to include that but I got a scary notice that I am on notice for being part of an 'edit war'. Here's the GQ article: http://www.gq.com/story/michael-fassbender-gq-june-2012-interview. I'm not sure if there's as good a source for Kravitz, but I will look. Butterynutjob (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News is usually a fine source but the article in your link is pretty trashy, using a gossip style format. The GQ interview is fine. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attacking my attempts to contribute?

You have twice deleted my considerable rewrites of what were initially poorly written, weak pages. I find this extremely aggressive and violent on your part and wonder why you are doing it? Its clear you have little or no knowledge of the content, certainly no scholarship; why are you being so viciously tyrannical? Do you privately hate the topic and wish to see it remain shallow and inaccurate? You presumptively attack someone you don't know, someone who is trying to do good, make the world a little brighter place; I feel the victim of some cruddy little internet terrorist, one more cowardly anonymous agent of mean regression and darkness.

Really, why do you seek to destroy the honest work of someone you don't know?

This is my first time to participate in Wikipedia. Its foreign territory for me, fat full with strange coding. I'm figuring things out as I go, naively thinking I'm traveling in friendly country, and BAM! I get violently ambushed. You have made my first Wikipedia attempt a miserable experience. Are Wikipedia and its editors really just a mendacious, false presumption that serves political bias and puerile power games rather than substance and truth. Shame on you.

If this is the base, respectless way Wikipedia works - dominated by petty editors who counter quality content, then I will walk away and leave Wikipedia to its trite and cliched coverage of complex topics.

What vindictive nature drives you to destroy hours of sincere scholarly work?!

signed with my real name Oliver McRae, Ph.D. retired professor 1999 recipient of a federal (Clinton Administration) teaching excellence award

Oliver mcrae (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying in more detail at User talk:Oliver mcrae, but you should discuss your intended changes at Talk:Gap creationism as I suggested earlier. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass. - TheMagnificentist 17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Axis Powers

Your recent edit removed large swaths of text that were not related to the banned user you referred to. I partial restored the edit leaving out the banned users disruptions as best I could. Things that were poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you revised your 8.8 kb revert to 4.6 kb after 15 minutes of investigation. Thanks for sorting through all the HarveyCarter disruption – I had intended to do the same myself but was distracted. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly went through them. The ones that looked like POV pushing, using questionable sources, I removed. Is this person still actively circumventing their block? I'll keep an eye out. OyMosby (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HarveyCarter is still very active, using some sock accounts but mostly IP addresses geolocating to Bury St Edmund east of London or Gravesend on the Thames Estuary. He loves Stalin, hates all the British PMs, strives to blame the UK for Germany's war crimes, and he has this strange fascination with actors who run into legal or moral trouble, especially child actors who go off the rails as adults, or actors who have been accused of homosexuality. Anybody with heart disease or cancer, he makes certain it's prominent. He's obsessive and poisonous. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no drought of sick individuals. I came across an editor that holds bigoted views of certain Balkan ethnic​ groups and and is infatuated with another one, and edits Wikipedia based on such bigotry. How they are allowed to get away with this is astounding. Likely due to their decade of seniority. Person has slowed down with their edits in that area of articles. I noticed that it is very easy for vandels and POV pushers to continue such acts due to IP avenues and the lack of enough admins to crack down on these abusers. Seems some gave up. I appreciate people like you that continue dealing with the troublemakers. Keep up the good fight. OyMosby (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

doctored photo?

Hi Binksternet,

How do you know it is doctored? Do you have proof? If so, I'll remove it and replace it.

Thanks

Canberra901 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canberra901 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I've been looking all over the intertubes for a comparison of this photo with its component parts from other photos, but I cannot find it. What I remember about the photo being doctored was from a book I read decades ago. The original photo had fewer paratroops in the sky, and no explosion at left in the background. The closest thing I found was a Reddit user saying the same thing I'm saying. Until I can find the old book I think you're okay to keep the image in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Note that the explosion to the left is in focus, and the balance of the elements at that distance are not. Additionally, it is a ground explosion, not a water explosion - despite it being over water. As there is any question at all, I would not include it. Scr★pIronIV 15:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The photo does look odd - the smoke from the plane looks like it's been painted in, and it seems surprising for the Germans to have dropped paratroopers over a wooded area near the sea. It's also unlikely that they would have been bombing ships while the paratroopers were dropped given the risks of friendly fire. More seriously, the image should be omitted as there's no evidence at present that it's actually available under a Wikimedia-friendly licence - the credit is "From collection of Wiki-Ed's great uncle, probably traded" which isn't really good enough. Was this a personal photo by a soldier, a clipping from a newspaper, a postcard, etc? Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a widely seen image, published in many places, probably augmented/doctored soon after the Battle of Crete, possibly for a contemporary newspaper story. It wouldn't surprise me to find it had been made into postcards. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check it again.

Actually, it says we're supposed to have it that way outside of prose and when the name is quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B13C:992C:CD20:6830:BD0F:98FF (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cal 505

Campingfreak3599 has been created in last year, later Bowling is life. Has recently focused on various pop/rock artists.123.136.112.197 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bowling is life is a real person, not part of the Cal 505 sock farm. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Hiya again: Please look at Jon_Colwell to see if the page is notable or self-promotional? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted for deletion at the AfD, because the person's fame is minor and local. If a piece in a local paper was sufficient, tons of us would have Wikipedia biographies. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to message I received

I received the following message:

"User talk:107.77.218.198 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia May 2017[edit] Stop icon Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Jerry Perenchio. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)"

I don't know who you are, but I haven't vandalized any Wikipedia pages. I don't know who "Jerry Perenchio" either, for that matter. Moreover, although I don't know much about the Internet, I believe that an IP address like "107.77.218.198" is (I don't know the terminology) fluid or changeable or variable, rather than belonging to any one person.

— Clifford Crouch, Wikipedia user

If you didn't perform this edit, that is, if someone else performed it using your same IP address, then don't worry about the warning message. It was intended for the person that made the edit, and nobody else. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Whataboutism.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
DeadEyeSmile (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Endorsements

I received the following message from you: "Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)". Now, what I wrote was not vandalism, anything I added had proper citations. I admit that I do see your point with some people who were removed, as a result, I left them off. But I do believe that some of these people were truly giving their endorsement, yet you deleted them as "vandalism". As for having multiple IP addresses, I've noticed that if I haven't made edits for awhile (I've done edits since 2012) and when I come back, the user number I am given is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.197.51 (talk)

Sorry for the harsh message, which is some boilerplate warning text I should not have used on you. Your IP address made me think you were someone else. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology. I did not intend to vandalize the page, but I also do not feel what I wrote was vandalism. For example, Jeff Green retweeted a Twitter message from another user saying that you should vote for Trump, Corey Harrison appeared at a rally with his father (Rick Harrison, who is listed), Erin Crocker wrote supportive tweets of Trump and Roger Crockett and Bruce Williams were the driver and owner of a race car sponsored by the Trump campaign (meaning they accepted money from them, which would seem to endorse the candidate in my opinion). I will admit that I see congratulatory tweets as something that should not qualify a person for listing. 172.76.197.51 (talk) 1:47, 29 June 2017 (EST)
Campaign contributions are not endorsements. Endorsements are public statements of support for the candidate in the election. Binksternet (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess that would make Green (who literally said on Twitter to vote for Trump), Harrison (who spoke at a rally) and Crocker (stating support for the candidate) eligible on the list. Of course, a contribution is something that shows support for a candidate, and if it is known, it would be public (otherwise it would not be known). 172.76.197.51 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2017 (EST)
There is no consensus to add financial contributions as political endorsements (see Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated?) so please don't add those unless someone starts a new request for comment, and it has a new outcome. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why should Green, Harrison and Crocker not be listed on here? 172.76.197.51 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2017 (EST)
What's your source for Green? His twitter feed doesn't show him saying vote for Trump. On election day, he retweeted Diane Green saying that everybody should vote (and pray). That's not enough for Diane Green let alone Jeff Green to be listed as endorsing Trump. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On October 25, 2016, Green retweeted the following: "stand for life of the unborn. vote @realDonaldTrump". [User:172.76.197.51|172.76.197.51 ]] (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2017 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.197.51 (talk)
I don't see a retweet as an endorsement. Green should make his own message. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a rule or just your opinion? 172.76.197.51 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2017 (EST)
My opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are You An Administrator?

I am simply asking this out of curiosity? I am having a tough time on the Nazareth (band) article. I am trying to add in the infobox for that article that Nazareth's albums were released on Warner Bros. Records and A&M Records. I even shared on the talk page for the band that this is son and even shared a couple of links to Discogs to prove this, but this user, named FlightTime says that Discogs, or as he called it DiscoDogs, says that it isn't reliable and then, he links me to a discussion where the point of whether IMDB or Discogs is reliable or not, which I feel doesn't get anywhere. Is there a way to show this user that the information that Discogs has is reliable? It does have information of record releases from all over the world and what labels that they were released on in the respective countries that they were released. I even shared with him that I have vinyl albums by the band on those aforementioned labels, but it doesn't do any good. Can you help? Thanks if you can. Frschoonover (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Frschoonover: Binksternet is not an administrator, and neither am I, but we've both been around the block our fair share of times. The gist of the linked discussion is that the content on Discogs (along with that on IMDb) is generated by user contributions and not necessarily verified or backed up by other reliable sources, therefore Discogs, while frequently useful, cannot be considered a reliable source. Indeed, while I don't know if anyone's tried to pull anything similar with Discogs, in the case of IMDb I've seen editors try to use IMDb material as justification for having a Wikipedia article on actor X, when it was transparently obvious that said editor was the person who added the info on X to IMDb in the first place. If you want to add this info to the article, it would be far better to use, say, Billboard or other music news outlets for your sourcing. Hope this helps. --Finngall talk 23:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to show that the information in the article is reliable, or that Discogs is reliable? The first is the more relevant here, and can be supported by other sources. Trying to show that Discogs is reliable is, I think, near impossible and certainly against established WP precedent. Fortunately you don't need to, if you can source this from elsewhere too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frschoonover, Discogs is rated unreliable per WP:USERG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, because Discogs allows users to change the information. I agree with Finngall and Andy Dingley that you would best focus on other publications about the band, especially magazines from the music trade, or books which discuss the band.
By the way, here's the tool to find out whether I am an administrator on Wikipedia. The tool returns the name Bishonen who is alphabetically the first administrator following my username. If I had been an admin, my username would be shown as the search result. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Whataboutism

Thank you for your work on Whataboutism.

Since then, I've greatly expanded the page. Before [2]. After [3].

I've also added to the top of the article talk page, the number of attempts made by certain individuals to have the information disappeared, either through deletion attempts or merge attempts.

Hopefully, now that the page represents a greater corpus of research, such attempts will decrease and or fail in the future.

What do you think of the article, after my research and expansion efforts ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, let me settle back in after some days on the road, and I will look at the work you've done. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no problem, thank you. Currently getting a helpful copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors by the friendly GeneralizationsAreBad, with good suggestions on the talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I would shift the video from the top right to the external links section. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The video is already linked in the external links section. If you can come up with another relevant free-use video file or free-use licensed picture to add to the article, that would be great! Sagecandor (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to have an image or video link in the upper right corner. I'm not suggesting to replace the current link. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, but let me know if you come across other free-use-licensed media related to the topic? And also additional sources? Sagecandor (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, what do you think of this example idea at top right ? Thoughts ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I would add Trump to the bottom of the list of prominent usages. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look better now like this? Sagecandor (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crawling in the Dark

Following a complaint at RfPP, I'm suggesting to discuss the genre of the above and, if possible, come to some consensus. I'm not familiar with any of this, content-wise, but I noted that one complaint seems to be that the source does not specifically refer to this single as post-grunge. As far as the wording of the source is concerned, that complaint seems justified. I've left the article so that when (if ever) the temporary remedy is lifted, the possibly flawed "status quo" version will show. Hopefully a new consensus can be reached instead, with possibly as little effort as a better source. Regards, Samsara 11:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, you are most likely referring to this RFPP from a Russian IP editor. The problem he's reporting comes from two long-term abuse cases, perhaps related, though I am not yet sure. The first case edits primarily from North Carolina IPs, especially the cities of Goldsboro, Rocky Mount and Lexington. (See my workpage and this rangeblock log.) The second location is Waterbury, Connecticut, using IPs such as Special:Contributions/2601:19A:4000:47BE:2C07:626F:6731:9A54 starting with 2601:19A.
I doubt that a reasoned discussion on the talk page will settle the genre warring, but it certainly cannot hurt. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiedwelly

Hi. I have opened an SPI report. Feel free to comment. Destiny Leo (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of a block evading IP

There have been far too many occasions today where you have reverted an IP which has been block evading for some time with regards to the adding of a pointless category (20the Century Comedians) that, in some cases, is both misleading and plain wrong. It's come to my notice as it's my subject area and rather than go back and push "thank" that amount of times in response, I'll doff my hat here, instead. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious edit

I noticed an edit today which seemed suspicious, so I took a couple minutes to run some diffs and traced it back to this - they essentially restored a year-old revision without explanation. I noted that you reverted that old edit here. Given your edit summary on that last one, I thought you may want to take a look into this new activity. The same IP has made other similar edits today. --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! That is indeed the work of the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category ruckus

Regarding [4], I'm not going to object, realizing WP:DENY is valid, but do you really feel it's worth the trouble to recategorize everything? - Bri (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the socking person has made a great many faulty categorizations. If someone were willing to pick through all the thousands of them then it would be a fine thing to save any categories that are useful. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Bri (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to delete the categories created by this person may be seen here where it's clear he recreated a deleted category three times, using sock accounts. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now 76

Please stop removing the trivia about how many number ones are on Now 76. Every NOW article has that trivia so please leave the page alone. How many times do I have to tell you. You do it again, I will treat it as vandalism and ask Wikipedia to block you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=789895000"