User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

please Stop

Every time I make an editing on Wikipedia, you decide to remove it... it’s very annoying cause I’m trying very hard to fill out the holds here on Wikipedia. And for the record I have never done any kind of vandalism. Please stop I don’t know why you are doing this. Sincerely N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.237.88.53 (talk • contribs)

You were blocked as Special:Contributions/93.164.22.202 after a huge amount of disruption, and you were recently rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/213.237.0.0/17, covering your current IP address. I think the rangeblock should be reinstated. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Let The Bad Times Roll, The Offspring

Let The Bad Times Roll - Music Video Live Q&A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYONdydrz40 at 5:33

I am not sure how to insert this as a citation as it claims that YouTube is a banned reference, despite the fact this is an official Q&A hosted on the band's official YouTube. The only other place I can imagine you would find it is on the physical liner notes, so I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do.--2A00:23C6:CF09:6801:F160:E83D:6ACC:348F (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added it with the full YouTube link but for some reason a timestamp doesn't seem to work. Hopefully that's enough to satisfy you.--2A00:23C6:CF09:6801:F160:E83D:6ACC:348F (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Tony Levin

Hi! You reverted my contribution on So_(album), because Tony Levin is not credited for playing a Chapman Stick in the liner notes, which is obviously right (although he obviously did ;) ) However, I don't understand why you talk about "drumstick bass", which I didn't remove at all (it refers to Marotta playing Levin's bass with his drumsticks) ? Regards, David

I think we should stick (sorry) with what the sources say, no matter what can be deduced from listening. If a reliable commentator says Chapman Stick, we can cite that source. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Trumpism

Thank you for responding to my contribution. Sorry for the duplicate message but I received an instruction from Wikilinks after I sent you an email.

I am trying to improve this article by specifically challenging the sources used as being unreliable. These sources go on at length about what people who promote Trumpism think and feel and what they want. As I stated in my comment no one can understand what another person thinks or feels unless they are told, certainly not these Marxist liberal arts professors that are referenced. Fundamentally they are all incorrect and the article is too voluminous for me to waste my time to present competing references that challenge all of the incorrect statement in the article. Accurate references should come from sources who support Trumpism and understand what it is, not from those who oppose it from an outside viewpoint.

Fundamentally I’m stating that the entire article is a pile of dung. I provided an outline of what I know Trumpism is to serve as a starting point to reconstruct the article. I included a portion of President Trump’s inauguration address which is the skeleton of Trumpism and you can see from that perspective that the references used in the article get it entirely wrong.

I’m open to modifying my comment but as I said I’m not going to waste my time challenging the voluminous amount of misinformation contained in the article.

Good references on Trumpism would be authors who understand it:

The Case for Trump by Victor Davis Hanson https://www.amazon.com/Case-Trump-Victor-Davis-Hanson/dp/1541673557/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+case+for+trump&qid=1618927153&s=books&sr=1-1

The Trump Century: How Our President Changed the Course of History Forever by Lou Dobbs https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Century-President-Changed-History/dp/0063029049/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=trump&qid=1618926901&s=books&sr=1-9

Trump: America First: The President Succeeds Against All Odds by Corey R. Lewandowski https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America-President-Succeeds-Against/dp/1546084940/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

America First: Donald Trump's Presidential Speeches by Donald Trump https://www.amazon.com/America-First-Donald-Presidential-Speeches/dp/B08TQ478JG/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

As I commented, does Wikipedia want to be accurate or just serve up Trump hate candy and clueless opinions of how Trump supporters think and feel?

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

I responded at User talk:Deplore This. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to actively deadname SOPHIE in her article

I really don't know where you get off on this. There's a reason why her friends, family, fans, label, management, and herself decided to no longer market her deadname alongside the stylised 'SOPHIE" name. Your articles that you list in the talk page never put her deadname at the forefront of the article, and throughout all "SOPHIE" is the common moniker. 2601:204:CA01:A940:A55F:4BF9:E6DB:8B54 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Madonna album credit lists only Samuel Long, with no Sophie mentioned. And that collaboration was a Big Deal.

You and I have different viewpoints. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whereby the reader can find answers to questions they have. You think Wikipedia should be a shield of protection against transphobia. The problem with your stance is that Sophie never expressed revulsion at the fact of the birth name; never got publicly angry at Madonna, for example, angry that Madonna credited Samuel Long and not Sophie on the album liner notes. Sophie never got publicly mad at Jeffrey Sfire for using he/him pronouns in 2014 and referring to Sophie as Samuel Long in this 2014 interview, two years after Sophie began using the Sophie moniker. (And Sfire was a very, very close collaborator.) There's no publicly known necessity to protect Sophie from the birth name which she used on all the song credits up to 2012 and on a few more through 2015. You are imagining a problem that is not known to exist. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That is your perspective; the perspective of some others is that WP editors should follow WP policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We will always follow policies and guidelines. The guideline involved says "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name" then don't list that name. The point I'm arguing is that the name was indeed notable. Clearly, I'm following the guideline. Now if the guideline said "never argue for the notability of a deadname" then yes, I would be violating the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, I am not saying that when you make an argument for a certain interpretation of the facts, you are violating a guideline by making that argument. Rather, I am saying that what matters to me is that the guideline be followed as intended, and that your interpretation of the facts is not how Notability on WP actually works (you seem to be confusing it with Verifiability, as far as I can tell). Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

SAG Awards Trivia

Hey Binksternet,

I noticed you removed Trivia section for the SAG Female Actor award. This trivia is easily verified by comparing this Wiki to the Oscars Wiki, and the data in both are cited, so I don't think it falls under the reason you are deleting it. Since I read as long it is easily able to be verified, it doesn't need a proper citation. There are other pages that have similar trivia and I have just added on to it since I realised this page doesn't have it.

Masbond84 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Masbond84

Take a look at the WP:SYNTH guideline. If you cite fact A and cite fact B then place them together to show a connection, the connection is a new element. The new element is a synthesis of two sources, and is a violation of WP:No original research.

Other pages with similar violations should be corrected. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the examples in that page, it is saying that you are going on a conclusion by combining 2 different facts. The quote from the page "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." I am just merely putting the 2 facts and not concluding anything.

There was even a link to the actual Oscar pages that shows that particular fact, which is a citation. So, it is not a violation of the guideline. I look through Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not and it doesn't say what I am doing seems wrong. A lot of pages include data like this. This would only be a violation if I said that based on these data, I assume something else happened. But the info was all about facts like these people didn't win the Oscars. Not about saying why they didn't win the Oscars. This is the same type of trivia like which president serves two terms, or which World cup country didn't qualify for the next World Cup. It's just facts, not conclusion.

Masbond84 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about my removal of the unreferenced trivia section that compared SAG Awards with Academy Awards. The only reference in that article is SAG Awards official website. The SAG website does not talk about Academy Awards. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually linked the Wiki page to the [[[Award for Best Actress]]], which list all the Best actress winners and nominees and they have references for each year on that page. If you want to be particular about it, I will just include the references for each year on here instead. Masbond84 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell what you are proposing. Please don't restore the comparisons between two awards unless you have a reference explicitly making the comparison. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your pruning on the Newgrounds page

While I added some stuff about Helluva Boss on Newgrounds some months ago (my only contribution to the page of yet), I'm totally ok with your recent pruning of that page, because it was definitely in bad shape. There's a bunch of articles I've found on a quick search on Google Scholar about Newgrounds I did this morning, so I might add some of those in for notability purposes. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking around for WP:SECONDARY sources. The article was relying far too much on primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Finding some good scholarly articles out there, which is great to see. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Good morning

Take it easy, J Balvin, those edits I made were not malicious, I only intended to contribute by correcting some errors. Apparently I see that you are one of those very common toxic users these days, you are already too old for those attitudes.

In conclusion, I will not continue to insist, thank you for wasting my time on something irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Glam y Sleaze (talk • contribs)

Good morning yourself.

I was responding to the edit warring behavior at Girls Girls Girls involving the Peruvian IP Special:Contributions/200.48.64.106 removing the wikilinks to recording studios and instead focusing on wikilinks to the cities of the studios. This is not helpful to the reader. You followed my reversions with your registered username Fan Glam y Sleaze to restore the unhelpful Peruvian changes. This behavior by you is edit warring.

I have no idea where J Balvin comes in to this issue. I don't agree with you about me being toxic; a large part of what I am doing on Wikipedia is correcting the poor work of others. My goal is to greatly improve Wikipedia by making it more of what it is supposed to be, and less of what it is not. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Since they say that to err is human, I understand that the qualifications were not necessary. I really apologize. Let me explain to you my friend, colleague, that in a certain way I also try to contribute in a correct and coherent way some articles that interest me. But I am not very theoretical in practice, perhaps therein lies the problem. I will work a little more to improve my writing. In conclusion, I hope my intentions are understood, I also do my best to provide improvements, cordial greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Glam y Sleaze (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Giubbotto non ortodosso

You have deal with this editor before, I'm wandering if these recent edits are related to that editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's him again. He's incorrigible. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprising, I have open an case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of audio files

Hello!

I noticed you removed quite a few audio files from articles because of lack of contectual significance. Don't you think an FFD would've been better so more people could take part of the discussion?Jonteemil (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Until today I had no idea there was a page for FFD. Yes, it would have been a fine venue to discuss the problem. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

PROMOTE THE ADDITION AND CHANGE OF EDITS IN RELATION TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

Thrash metal was created by Metallica. The artist's statements must be respected. That in the review of "BIker Metal" they clearly explain where the Motorhead style comes from, which has nothing to do with Thrash Metal. Minimally you should acknowledge this mistake and minimally add quotes describing Motorhead and the relationship with Biker Metal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grind History (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

All caps is considered shouting.

Wikipedia articles should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. The artist's statement is a primary source. It is often interesting to the reader but it is not definitive in terms of critical analysis, genre labels, categories, etc. In effect, Wikipedia does not "respect" the artist's statements the way you think it should. Also, Wikipedia articles should not be based on other Wikipedia articles. Ideally, the articles will all correlate and agree with each other, but that would be because they were all accurately summarizing SECONDARY sources.

I have no problem with the Motörhead article discussing biker metal in prose in the article body. It can be done with or without quotes, but the core of it should be from music critics and other SECONDARY sources. My concern was the biker metal genre was too much for the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The top summary does not agree with the precursor part and the style origin order, you Binksternet should respect my edit because this makes me right WP: SYNTH which says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article" So according to this you are generating vandalism to my article that includes quotes, interviews and above all "allmusic" gives me the reason to say that grindcore was born with Scum Napalm death "Indisputably, the band that invented grindcore was Napalm Death, whose 1987 debut album Scum is also perhaps the most representative example of the style." this quote in quotes I took it from "allmusic" because you in one of your editions said that only speaks of a group and not the genre, however when one refers to the pioneer refers to the first group that came to influence the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grind History (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The place for your argument is the talk page of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sony- Shakira

The same Sony record company claimed that Hips don't lie sold 13 million physical and 7 million digital. Is that not a reliable source?. It is a reliable source, it is not a magazine or fan page, it is the Sony USA label

AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The specific article here says 3.5 million physical units and 13 million downloads by 2017. If you want updated numbers you must find a more recent article to support those numbers. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with page

Hello, I'm looking for help with my page. I'm a musician and recently tried to create a user page with facts about me, such as AmberLynn Browning, Singer Songwriter and Guitarist. It was deleted "speedily" even nafter I made an effort to edit out my entire bio and website. Leaving just name and occupation. I'm not trying to promote, just simply need help with a factual page about my career. I see others in my field many who I know, with these Wikipedia pages. Recently a knowledge panel appeared about me, then sadly disappeared after much work to curate it. I see you're a fellow musician and also with an impressive career. Iwas reading Faith Hill Wikipedia page and saw your edits. So as a Country Singer myself I was advised to be distinguishable through Wiki and don't know how to do this. Is there a way I could have you make a page for me? Or some guidance...I would be much obliged and very grateful. I'm all over the web on many platforms, just need some help, desperately. Thankyou kindly, AmberLynn AmberLynn Browning (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement for notability which you can read at WP:MUSICBIO. If you want to have a Wikipedia biography about your music career, you must have a charted single or album, or have multiple in-depth articles written about you in major media such as Country Music News and Billboard magazine. It's not enough that you have a presence on social media. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Owen. wasn't a rhythm guitarist

Hello, please stop changing Jack Owen's "title" on Cannibal Corpse as rhythm guitar. He did just as many guitar solos as Bob Rusay on those first two albums. He did more solos than pat O'Brien on live cannibalism. so stop labeling it as lead or rhythm and just say guitar. it makes people think differently when you say rhythm guitar for jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himom45$ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically, Himom45$, I agree with you. I don't think we should be saying lead and rhythm with this band. The two roles are blended in Cannibal Corpse.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published sources. What do they say about Jack Owen?

• Metal Blade says he is the "second guitarist".
• Loudwire says second guitarist.
• Blabbermouth says guitar.
• Guitar World says guitarist.
• AllMusic says guitarist.
• Exclaim says guitarist.

To me, it looks like all the energy people have spent worrying about lead versus rhythm guitar is wasted. The band has two guitarists, and they both do whatever it takes. When talking about their music in interviews, the various guitarists acknowledge that some of their work is rhythm and some is lead. So there's this whole rhythm versus lead thing going on in the bandmembers and timeline section... Maybe we should just remove all the rhythm and lead and make it just guitar. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

yes maybe we should just leave it as only guitarist. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himom45$ (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop

What are you doing? Now that I finally use a reliable source coming from sony and Waka waka's own website, decides to delete it when those songs have sold out enough.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

List of People With Tinnitus

Instead of finding sources or references for those on this list, you deleted them. Your edit was reversed, with references and sources were added for those that could be found and the rest were deleted. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to delete Jo Whiley from the list, because Daily Mail is not reputable, feels like it was done in retaliation. There are plenty of other sources to prove Jo Whiley has tinnitus and simply deleting her inclusion on the list was not necessary. Why not simply replace the source? Radman 99 1999 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not retaliation, just following the hard policy of WP:BLP by removing a deprecated source: Daily Mail. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It's not personal. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why not find a new source to replace the less reputable one? Editing this article that I created after not touching it for the last six years is interesting considering my earlier post just today. Especially since you got the original article deleted and merged back onto the tinnitus page, which was deleted shortly thereafter. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of my Wikipedia activity, measured by the sheer quantity of edits, is the removal of other people's work for various reasons including poor quality and violations of policies. It helps keep the encyclopedia trim and respectable. Which means I am not trying to list as many people as possible at the tinnitus page, to make the list complete. I don't usually consider it my responsibility to hunt down better support for other people's faulty citations. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The list has been not been added a whole lot from when the original page was created six years ago. It is not overly complicated as far as finding valid sources either, but you can call the ones you removed "Poor quality" and "faulty" instead of finding proper sources. That's your prerogative. Will you be compelled to remove more names from the list you deem unworthy in the future? Or will you maybe just try to get the list deleted again? We can try to get it relisted on the bloated Tinnitus article again. I am interested to see what you will do. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Danish nuisance

You probably noticed Special:Contributions/192.38.149.31, Special:Contributions/192.38.149.229 and long term abuse on that Danish range. --Muhandes (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks for figuring out which version to revert back to. So many IPs, so much disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Enough with the threats

You need to fuk off telling people they will be banned