Jump to content

User talk:Binksternet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 2 December 2014 (→Possible Sock Puppet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For reverting vandalism in articles regarding the Philippines during World War II, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you! It's nice to be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army

Please see Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duets (Frank Sinatra album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Come Fly With Me. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2, 2014

Hi, I've created a page for the Del Fuegos' debut album, The Longest Day yesterday. Can you help me with it? Country Girl 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I just started packing for a nine-day gig out of town. I will get around to your new article in a day or two, when I'm stuck in airport waiting rooms or hotel lobbies. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball International

The change I am trying to make is to reflect the spin-off of the Kimball Electronics subsidiary. Kimball International and Kimball Electronics are now separate companies. The changes are being reverted back with reason that they are 'promotional'. How might I word the changes differently so they will be accepted? The change is simply to reflect that Kimball Electronics is no longer a part of Kimball International. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnichol63 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that Kimball "is a leading manufacturer of design driven, technology savvy, high quality furnishings sold under the Company's family of brands, National Office Furniture, Kimball Office and Kimball Hospitality. Our diverse portfolio provides solutions for the workplace, learning, healing and hospitality environments. Customers can access our products globally through a variety of distribution channels."
In the business world that looks like a normal mission statement. In the rest of the world, it looks like WP:PEACOCK language, with "leading", "savvy", "high quality", etc. The encyclopedia is supposed to be objective, so it should not say "our diverse portfolio" as if Kimball is controlling the text. Please make the appropriate changes sound as neutral as possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Genre changes.

You should've warned me early about using Allmusic, also what you did was false. You accused me of not "sourcing my genres" which I did, then you continued to show me why I couldn't use Allmusic. You are also trying to block me when I've done nothing wrong, which offends me dearly. TheHolyKiwi (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see you blocked. I would much rather see you work with references to determine genre in a manner that fits with the WikiProject Albums guideline. Most people who change genres do so because what they see doesn't fit their own opinion. Me, I have no opinion; I use the references to say what it is. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bio

Fair enough. Please delete what you consider promotional material but I am keen and proud to be recognised as a atheist/humanist and I have been actively so in my own small way for the last ten years. It is with a measure of pride I refer you to my post "My Awakening" on my newly created blog. [[1]]

Thanks for the advice,learning all the time. - Doug Schorr (douglas.schorr@gmail.com)

Every biography on Wikipedia must pass WP:BASIC or at least WP:GNG. One self-published book is not going to satisfy those. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Innerpartysystem

I do apologize for the lack of citation. Here's a link for the citation. https://twitter.com/spacebrotherr/status/529272011840061441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPCobain1994 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) May I add the edit now?[reply]

Editing article about Event Application

Hello I was looking for people who added and edited articles about mobile technologies, and I've found you. I'am new on wikipedia and I want to add article about Event Applications. Everytime I try to do it, I get message that my text contains promotional content. But I don't know where and which fragment are exactly promotional. Could you add the as an experienced wikipedia editor? Or review it for me?

I'll be really grateful. Anna Paluch (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a draft under development at Draft:Event_Application. I will take a look at the sources and see if there's anything I can do to improve it. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs For Swingin' Lovers!

Hello Michael,

I'm not sure where to even begin re posting a reliable source for my revisions to the SWINGIN' LOVERS! page.

I can tell you quickly that with regards to information specific to the Mobile Fidelity SACD, I consulted on this release. The problems with incorrect tapes used in the releases of this album go back to 1962, when Capitol made a set of dubs tampered with echo and eq, and stopped mastering LPs from the original sources (the master for lacquers cut in LA, or an unprocessed copy for lacquers cut in NY). After 1968, the album was only available in fake-stereo in the USA until the initial CD release. The original CD from 1987 used the correct tapes, but the mastering engineer added echo to the digital master. The current disc from Capitol uses the 1962 processed copies, with lots of further signal processing. Scattered individual songs have occasionally been released from the correct tapes unfettered by added echo, but the MoFi SACD is the first time since 1962 the album has been available whole from the correct tapes without added echo. The comment about the artwork is also true, as I was the source for what got used on the disc, and had the scan professionally made.

Re John Palladino, while you cited a source for his engineering, I also know John. The first reference to his engineering of the material I know off-hand is probably in Chuck Granata's book SESSIONS WITH SINATRA.

Re "Memories of You", that first was released on an LP from the Longines Symphonette in 1973, though in fake stereo. There was a British release in 1978, a Japanese release in the 80's, and finally the more commonly available version on THE CAPITOL YEARS 3CD set.

Please advise what further proof you need, details, questions, etc. Otherwise, I'd appreciate my changes re-instated. The information is correct. You may also e-mail me at meluccim717@optonline.net

Martin

Wikipedia has a hard and fast rule against original research; that is, the normal kind of research expected of an author. The rule prevents somebody using Wikipedia as a first publication method. What Wikipedia requires is that the information be published elsewhere first, published on a reliable source such as a magazine, book or newspaper. So if the information about Palladino and fake stereo has not been written up in an industry magazine or similar, then it the information is not going to be carried by Wikipedia. It does not matter how much expertise you have personally; the information must have been previously published. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VDARE

SPLC can hardly be considered "neutral," yet you accuse another user of not being neutral because they removing SPLC's characterization from the VDARE article's intro. Either SPLC's opinion of VDARE doesn't belong in the intro, or VDARE's response to SPLC's characterization of it is appropriate to achieve NPOV. I'd prefer to include the latter as it succinctly and objectively spells out the dispute between the two without requiring anyone to visit both VDARE and SPLC. It is appropriate to cite to VDARE as a primary source here because they are responding directly to a statement about them from SPLC. This is both permissible and appropriate here according to WP:PS guidelines. 24.217.38.90 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VDARE's response is important because of what? It would be important if it were mentioned in the media. You need a WP:SECONDARY source to show that anybody paid attention. Otherwise it's not important enough to be in the article. Achieving a neutral balance in Wikipedia is not about giving equal time or equal text space to opposing issues, it's about representing the issues in the same relative measure as can be found in the literature. It's quite common that only one side will be mentioned in the media, leaving a sharp imbalance. Wikipedia mirrors that imbalance and calls it neutral. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's inconsistent of you to say that SPLC is Media and then delete VDARE's direct response to SPLC for not being media. It appears that SPLC and VDARE fully acknowledge each other's existence as media. Given that the WP:PRIMARY source on VDARE is in direct response to SPLC's criticism, it is a highly accurate representation of VDARE's own views towards SPLC's views of it, and including it in the article works toward achieving NPOV, verifiability, and NRO. That doesn't mean that VDARE is a non-biased or authoritative source on other things. It also doesn't need to be. As per WP:PS it isn't always necessary to have WP:SECONDARY sources. In this limited context it is highly appropriate to include this WP:BIASED and WP:PRIMARY source. It's brief, an accurate statement of fact, easily understood, and unlikely to be misinterpreted by anyone reading it. I'd say that either we acknowledge that SPLC is a biased source and doesn't belong in the intro, or VDARE's direct response to SPLC characterization also deserves the brief mention as well. 24.217.38.90 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that VDARE's response is worthy all by itself. I also don't agree that SPLC's bias makes them somehow less of an authority. The SPLC is widely respected, used by scholars as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Hi Binkster! Long time no wiggle on our friend's buem, but I have found another one perhaps for review: Jeff Jordan (painter). The one and only external link (reference?) on his page 404's at Rolling Stone. Following through to the fair use page for one of the images linked in the list of artworks goes here where his name doesn't seem to be on the page. My whiskers wiggle on this one, what do you think? I spend way too much time adminning at Commons to be up on the ins and outs of this project too and I don't want to annoy people by overstepping. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about Jordan; there's this wordpress article (which cannot be used) from an apparently expert art observer. So at least the article isn't wrong, but perhaps Jordan is not quite notable enough. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Flame (song)

Can you keep an eye of the page if who adding unsourced genre. 183.171.180.33 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot timeline

Hey – I just had a question. I'm not saying what you've done on Slipknot is incorrect, however I put a lot of work into fixing the band members and the timeline for this article, and I just wanted to know why I wasn't allowed to keep it (even if Alessandro Venturella and Jay Weinberg have to be excluded from the article, for now). As I said on the talk page (before I made the edit in question), I've done the timelines and band members section of a lot of high-profile bands, such as Metallica, Aerosmith and so on, and I spent a lot of time (as I do with all of these articles) working on this one in particular, so I'd like to know whether I can at least restore the timeline.

Plus, I was a little bit confused by the message you left on my talk page (again, I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I didn't know what it was), however if all you were saying was that I shouldn't have added "Jay and Vman", then I understand. Anyway, could you please let me know about the timeline? I'd just like to be able to keep the timeline so that all of my work didn't go to waste. Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was saying you should not have added Weinberg and venturella. Weinberg has not been positively identified in the media as being a member of the band. Venturella has been identified by his left hand tattoo as appearing in one video, but like Weinberg he is not named as a band member in the media. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I wanted to know. Glad we've cleared that up - sorry if I've caused any stress or anything. I'm still sort of relatively new to this whole thing, especially compared to you and what you've managed to achieve. I mostly just do the band members section and timelines for these sort of articles (I'm pretty good with timelines now), among other stuff, and this is another opportunity I saw, so sorry if I initially screwed up. Thanks for helping me out. 4TheWynne (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Venturella has been confirmed by Corey and has been named many times in the media. Also you gave no explanation why you had deleted everything I had done for the page in the past few days. You clearly did not read it to see that everything was full referenced and my information was correct. Donnie had been working for the band in 2014 because the first studio sessions for the album were in March 2014 and the referenced article had a clear quote from Jim and Mick stating that Donnie helped out on some of the studio sessions with the first being in March 2014 so why did you revert this? (User talk:TypeONegative13) — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venturella has only been confirmed as appearing in the video. That leaves open the question of whether Venturella played on the song, whether he played on the album at all, and whether Venturella is in the band. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double Barrel and Israelites

Regarding your 30 August 2014 removal of the paragraph comparing "Double Barrel" and "Israelites" in the Wikipedia "Double Barrel" article, you stated that "Whitburn makes none of these comparisons." The pages from Whitburn address only the last point, that both Dave And Ansil Collins and Desmond Dekker & The Aces were one-hit wonders. The many other remarkable comparisons in that paragraph arise from comparing characteristics and chart performances of the two hits and the two acts. The now-removed paragraph merely summarized those comparisons for all to see. I appeal for that paragraph to be restored to the place where it formerly existed in the "Double Barrel" article.107.185.145.26 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy page WP:No original research? You made this series of edits, telling the reader that the two songs have "cold intros", an uncommon term which you did not explain, and that "both Dekker and Barker had recorded for Dodd." You created the whole paragraph, editing under several IP addresses. The cited source you supplied (after a fact tag was applied to your paragraph by someone else) was Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2002, a book which simply includes the song in a list, making no comparisons between it and "Israelites". That's why I removed your whole paragraph. Comparisons between the two songs are absent from all the literature I could find. Wikipedia has no place telling the reader things that have not been previously published. You cannot use Wikipedia as a place to publish your analysis. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another BLP to look at, please?

Hiya Bink! In the course of photo deletions, this gent popped out Acharya Surinder Sharma Shastri, which besides being very short on substance, has links that 404 (including his own webpage), Visiting the website of the facilities he claims to have built on the biography page - his name is not mentioned. See: Hindu Heritage Centre and [2]. I couldn't find the document he claims to edit/create and suspect this is some form of personal page especially since his name appears nowhere on the canadahinduheritage site which runs the Hindu Heritage Centre. I came to these two pages because of copyvio pictures deleted, and the uploader's subsequent claims of "own work." One of the photos was a commercial air photo with overprinting, and the other was the infamous Facebook 720x720 ... so we'll see how far he gets with UNDEL. People like this make my nose wiggle; they're so obviously self-promoting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go look at this guy. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Belly Dance: American Belly Dance Edit

Hi Binksternet,

I would kindly ask that you please stop reverting my edits to the belly dance page. This page is VERY inaccurate and I would like to update it. There is some good/relevant info on there, however, it is in need of updating. I am a professional belly dancer and I do teach belly dance as well. It makes sense that someone that it trained on the topic write about it. Also, it makes sense that the people on the page not be nameless faceless objects. For instance, Rubina has her name on her photo and so she should. If your photo is used it should be cited just as you would cite information as it is visual information. Websites with inaccurate information about belly dance make it very difficult for professionals and skews the point of view of the public that would strive to gain better understanding of this beautiful art form. I hope you are against the spread of inaccuracy and misinformation that makes it difficult for other to understand this art form.

I seen that you reverted it for self promotion. Which is why I removed the link in the paragraph itself. However, I am a professional American Cabaret dancer. I do own my photo's. Since the page talks about belly dance and all the different types and styles it makes sense to also have a photo of an American Cabaret dancer which is not yet represented. This is why I added my photo. It is an accurate photo of a real American Cabaret belly dancer that I own. I am not "self promoting" as it is not like I wrote any where on there to hire me or come to my classes. I simple posted accurate info and a photo of a real American Cabaret belly dancer. Linking my name to my bio is just letting those interested in learning more about the dancer in the photo do so.

I am going to update this again. Please leave it be.

Thanks! ~~CutePixieDancer~~

Yes, I reverted your additions because of the self-promotion I saw in putting a photograph of yourself at the top of the page. Another reason I reverted, a reason I did not state, was that your changes to the article text were made without referencing a reliable source. Wikipedia is built on the things that are published in reliable sources, not the things that individual editors think are true. If you can WP:CITE a source for your text alteration it would help me understand where you got your information. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bink : I completely understand your concern and I completely understand the need for citation. However, It is extremely difficult and in many cases impossible to cite sources on this topic. Belly dance is not a collegiate study. It is a folk dance created before the advantage of modern written history. It has been passed down from family to family, mother to daughter, etc. This is why no one can agree on an origin of the dance or even a cohesive lineage for that matter. I can tell you that the information I changed was based on the instruction and mentorship I have received over the past 10 years from many dancers and seminars. One of note being Shira, a well known wealth of knowledge of belly dance who has studied it for decades and even traveling back to the countries of origin to "get the story straight" as it were. She is a highly respected source of information in the belly dance world. Some of the knowledge I shared is also based on the teachings of Faten Munger. An amazing, internationally renowned, Egyptian instructor who has been in the business for well over 40 years. These are just a few people of my list of contributors to the information I have acquired over my decade of information accumulation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePixieDancer (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong measures, certainly. I would not mind seeing her return to the article after she checks out some of the books I listed at Talk:Belly dance#Published sources, and if she decides not to promote herself as a cabaret act. Her assertion that there is very little written about the subject is incorrect, of course. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified this a bit. User:AdoniaBellyDance has been indeffed for username violation...and if she is accepting of not edit-warring then I'm willing to unblock CutePixieDancer as I've stated on her talk page. I see now that she didn't intend to sock but that was the net worth of it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Thank you for unblocking me. However, I give up. If you read all of those books you would know that they are full of contradictions. I was not promoting myself at all after Bink pointed out that it was not allowed in my first post. I removed the "self promo" and reposted. Furthermore, I would never promote myself as a "cabaret act" as I am not a burlesque dancer and don't take my clothes off. Yes, there is a difference between a "cabaret act" and an "American Cabaret belly dancer". I never said "that there is very little written about the subject". Actually, there is a LOT of information written on the topic of belly dance. A lot of it is written by belly dancers like me! What I did say is that "Belly dance is not a collegiate study" and that "It is extremely difficult and in many cases impossible to cite sources on this topic.". This is true. You can NOT get a degree in belly dance. The books on belly dance are very interesting but many are full of opinion and not fact. For nearly every bit of history you find on belly dance you can equally find another author that says the opposite. There are no conclusive studies that say...belly dance started on X day (or even decade for that matter)... belly dance shows happen using X formula... etc. For crying out loud no one can even agree on what country in which it originated. It is an ancient art form, not a science. As for the puppeting, that was not "the net worth of it". It was my understanding that the previous account did not exist and it didn't exist because of the name I chose and not for any reason concerning my post. Shortly thereafter Bink removed what I had posted. By the time that happened I had already created a different account to rectify the name issue. I read his objections in the history and reposted what I thought was acceptable. Apparently it was not so Bink and I were discussing it when Beraen blocked me without figuring out what was actually going on first. So there you have it. It was a few small innocent changes by a well meaning professional in the topic being discussed. That you two who obviously have no knowledge of (the art form) but have a bunch of unnecessary (online) power and were happy to abuse it. Would it not be easier to have this discussion on my talk page before attacking me. You could see I was new to wikipedia. All you had to do was ask why I made the changes and informed me that I did it in a way that was unsatisfactory and I would have kindly fixed the error. Easy peasy!!! Instead you decided to gang up and attack the well meaning newb to the site and then start accusing me of things that I had no intention of. Now I have no interest in continuing with this site and you just wasted hours of my time and yours for no good reason and no progress has been made. Congrats! You win! I will never return. Now I know why wikipedia is so inaccurate and why no one respects it!

P.S. As for the photo. I will be happy to have it removed. I wouldn't want my image associated with such obvious ignorance!

Quaudiophiliac, November 2014

Hello. I am a bit bemused by your revision of my recent edits to the Wikipedia page for Quaudiophiliac. The page currently states that Quaudiophiliac was Zappa's "first foray into surround sound formatted music." This is demonstrably untrue. As stated in my edit, Zappa released two albums in quadraphonic in the 1970s. I even provided an external reference as evidence, as well as a link to another Wikipedia page that also supports the statement (DiscReet Records, Zappa's quadraphonic record label). I fail to understand how a statement of fact supported by evidence can be considered "less than neutral". Neb-Maat-Re (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you! Glad I'm doing something correctly. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Question. Is there a way to compare edit patterns across users automatically?

(as a sock-puppet and troll catching tool, for instance.)Anmccaff (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I'm not an admin. Binksternet (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit. Is there a way to request higher-quality quasisocks? On a totally unrelated topic, I was wondering if you are naturally near any of the central bay area libraries. I am trying to find someone who can easily and cheaply source some newspaper articles for the "Streetcar Conspiracy" page. I'm just out of striking range at the moment.Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat near UC Berkeley's fine set of libraries, but to use them I would have to pay daily parking fees and their annual fee for the privilege of being called an "alumni" and having access to the libraries. (It costs $60, and you need not have been a student there.) Though I am quite busy in the next few days, I expect to have some free time in December. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in about the same boat; in December I'll have time and access to the San Jose area's fine set of libraries -hey, stop laughing, have you seen Cupertino's and the boring parts of SJS's? - but right now I can only research local newspapers at a prohibitive cost in time, money, or both. This seems to me to be a real problem with Wiki; controversial articles are sourced by availability and access, not by quality. Thanks for the info on Berkeley; I suspect the pay-over-time life membership would be usefull to a lot of researchers.Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's the Bink Winkie Bugle Boy of Company B! Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Congrats on the Bugle award, Binkster. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I am so glad that another editor realizes what a problem that sockpuppeteer causes! It was making me feel discouraged, because I felt like I was casting pennies into a dry well. If you need any help with the long-term abuse page, please let me know. Thank you so much! --Candy156sweet (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! The trouble you went through starting way back in April–July 2007 is very plain to see to someone who is looking through all the sockpuppeteers editing history. You've been a real trouper, hanging in there when the going was tough. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential RFA

Have you thought about becoming an admin? I've frequently seen you fight vandalism and other disruptions like genre warriors, and your investigations on Legolas2186 were quite thorough. You seem to also be active enough, have plenty of contributions, and work well within the community. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have thought about running for admin; in fact I did so unsuccessfully in March 2013. I find that the lack of admin tools slows me down but it does not stop me from contributing down in the trenches where it matters. I participate here in a rolling-up-the-sleeves manner that has perhaps more leeway than an administrator (who might be constrained by the concern of being de-sysopped.)
My energetic anti-vandal style of contribution does not fit with everybody's wishes; there are still some folks here who would vote against another RFA with my name at the top. Every such vote counts as two votes because in order to pass, the typical RFA needs at least a 2:1 ratio of positive to negative votes—usually more than that. If a future RFA of mine is to be successful, it will have to have a lot more positive votes than the last one. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If you decide to run again, I don't think you'd have as many worries with regard to "gone _____ without blocks" (something I noticed held you down there). You'd also be able to get socks blocked sooner if successful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality not quantity

I think what is occurring on the article Deftones may be you trying to remove "nu metal" from the Infobox. Maybe you should be arguing for the removal of that genre from the Infobox of the article Mudvayne since it is inconsistently sourced there. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Person from Eugene, you have it backwards: I'm arguing for the inclusion of nu metal at Deftones. You don't want me to come over to Mudvayne because I will likely agree with Sergecross about keeping nu metal. I think the genre of nu metal has a bad reputation among fans of bands, but nevertheless it is/was a widely used term for a bunch of bands. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Beef (in Objections to Evolution; Moral objections/Human as Animal)

Binksternet -- you've apparently not read or not focused on the issue being addressed, that there the section within Objections to Evolution lacks any such objection. So the question is how to address that lack .... and my proposal was to put in a lede sentence summarizing the section/subsection titles and hang citation needed on that. Allowed weeks for input after that, and now am implementing what input consensus that was there.

I think it's incumbent on any other edits to now respect prior TALK and go a bit slow, and would hope for discussion leading to improvement of article rather than what feels like instant reverts without any consideration behind them... Just saying I've tried to do the TALK process and am not feeling the love back.

Look forward to any help you can give to fixing the objection section without an objection concern.

Markbassett (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed summary sentence was opaque and incoherent. Who here is preaching about going slow? You're the one edit-warring your new paragraph into the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
B - any feeling of opaque should lead to addition, preferably after Talk. I am the one preaching about going slow. I put an explanation of the concern and proposed a draft was up for weeks Talk consensus/edits before posting, and I suggest that rapid erasure was unnecessary ... pushing back on instant or backwards motion is part of the going slow deal. The whole article is there to draw better inputs and the world will not end if you or someone else are a day or more before finding some better wording and cites. Just wiki stuff man, all a work trying to progress. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A newly composed paragraph that you feel must be tagged with "citation needed" is a paragraph that should not appear in mainspace. Its composition must be improved and referenced first. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent addition of unsourced changes on David Guetta by IP

Hello.

I am contacting you to inform you that you may need to intervene at David Guetta givne that the other editor remains persistent in making undiscussed changes. I'm trying to avoid a 3RR violation, so I only made two reverts prior to discussion.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:417:9794:4F8B:F349 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic vandalism disguised under good faith

Hello Michael, thank you for undoing the edits made to pages such as Michael Wilton, Chris DeGarmo and Eddie Jackson (musician). One of these edits were marked as "good faith" edit by you, but if you look at the revision history, you'll see that it's a form of (very subtle) systematic vandalism that started on November 6th and has been performed by various IP and MAC addresses (some of them have been blocked before and since then). --Eddyspeeder (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mom calls me Michael; you can call me Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.
Regarding the systematic vandalism, you are welcome. That is, thank you for thanking me. The "good faith" tag is not my intention. Instead, it is part of the WP:Twinkle reverting system. If I just hit the red "rollback vandal" link then the edit is reverted with no note telling people why I performed that action. If instead I hit the "rollback AGF" link then I am offered the chance to communicate to others by way of edit summary. I prefer to leave a few bread crumbs behind so that folks can figure out why I am running around making lots of reversions.
I will continue to keep an eye out for that vandal. I see you have been very vigilant along those lines, so thank you for that. 👍 Like
Binksternet (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Binkster, thanks for clearing those things up (your name & the reverting system)! :-) Super that you will keep track of the edits! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering Deleted Text

Hi, How do I get back into my sandbox my contributions to 'Chirp' that you deleted a few weeks ago? I have a copy of what I originally submitted, but there were a few amendments made later by other editors that perhaps should be retained. I intend to submit it as a separate article, as agreed, but I also need to expand it here and there according to suggestions made. D1ofBerks (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by editing

Instead of simply removing information, why not first take a minute or two to see whether it is true? Miley is clearly dating Patrick Schwarzenegger. http://www.people.com/article/miley-cyrus-birthday-patrick-schwarzenegger . The problem is compounded by the fact that you rudely and abrasively accuse noobs who add accurate information--particularly in the realm of song genfres--of debasing the encyclopedia. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet appropriately per WP:BLP policy removed the unreferenced info marking the edit as good faith in the edit summary and left the appropriate politely worded information message on the user's page about the need for references on biographical information. Most of us who watch these articles do not spend our lives watching the dating histories of celebrities and see enough gossip and fake into to not trust assertions. It is expected that info of this type, when added, will have the required references. The person adding the info is responsible for sourcing the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Binkster had to devote his life to analyzing Miley's dating history (though he is welcome and even encouraged to lend his skills to this important area of study). I merely encouraged him to use Google. Verifying this fact took me 7.5 seconds. Steeletrap (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Gardel's birthplace

Hi barnstar

I suggest you investigate into Gardel's background before saying that I was biased. I added all the relevant references, I included links to Gardel's different ID. Even if you think that what I wrote isn't neutral, you ought to look at wikipedia in Spanish's entry for Gardel. [1]It's much more complete and it includes BOTH birth theories, which are BOTH relevant and documented. Neither theory is perfect, but they are equally widely accepted as possible. I think it would be fair to imitate wikipedia in Spanish article on Gardel's history. In fact all the entry is much more complete than this one. If you want I can translate it and modify it accordingly.

Both French AND Uruguayan theories should be respected because they've been investigated into for several years by different people and are mutually acknowledged by supporters of either theory.

Librosdediamante (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Gardel
Sorry, but no. The most respected scholars say Gardel was born in Toulouse. The Uruguayan story is for tourism, not accuracy. If my Spanish was any better I would go to the Spanish Wikipedia page and correct it. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box

As you know, there has been a heated debate about succession due to redistricting involving house representatives and I want talk to someone reasonable about this. Right now as it stands, there is a new rule that came up this year that succession is not to be included in the infobox. However, it only seems to have been applied to Michael Grimm and Charles Rangel while the rest were left alone. Note that succession in the infobox is the way it has always been for years without question since the start of Wikipedia. The fact that so many articles were unchanged leads me to believe that the general consensus hasn't changed. The problem is the infobox, when referring to Rangel, was changed to "redistricted" while while every other house member who went through redistricting, is shown as being succeeded by someone else just fine. For example: Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks, Peter T. King, Steve Israel, and Nydia Velázquez. I have pointed out this issue on many discussion pages that it confuses readers and is inconsistent, but seems to be always ignored. Surely you can see the problem with this, right? TL565 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to fix all those other biographies with misleading progression boxes. Redistricting should reset the succession. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is so much redistricting, it makes you wonder if there is any need to mention anyone preceding or succeeding in the infobox at all. There would be so many articles on U.S. Representatives past and present it would be impossible to count them all. I think there needs to be a major discussion about this because this would change something that has been in place for so many years and would effect likely thousands of articles. I also think there is plenty of argument to say that succession does still apply due to the district number staying the same. If it is ultimately decided that the infoboxes should change, it needs to be enforced on every article. That is going to be hard to do. I just hope it isn't going to be applied to a few articles and not the rest. Inconsistency is not what Wikipedia needs. TL565 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should not shy away from fixing articles because of the large scope of the problem. I don't see anything particularly compelling about the district number as compared to the district geography and demographics. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Do the articles actually need fixing in the first place? I don't see the issue with succession after redistricting. Most readers know that districts are listed by number, not physical geography. Since the district number never changes, it is not false or misleading to say one succeeded another in that district after redistricting. Answer this, if this is such an issue, why is it just being noticed now after so many years? I really do think suddenly changing this will cause a lot more problems than before. TL565 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assign a higher value to the practice of ignoring a problem, if that practice is long established. No matter how old the problem is I think we should fix it. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

I rather think some Laugh-In writers have decided to join in the discussions about Congressperson succession where the two districts have naught to do with each other <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the editors who have offered their thoughts at Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, I don't demean those who differ from me in their opinions. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Recovering Deleted Text (2)

Hi (again!), How do I get back into my sandbox my contributions to 'Chirp' that you deleted a few weeks ago? I have a copy of what I originally submitted, but there were a few amendments made later by other editors that perhaps should be retained. I intend to submit it as a separate article, as agreed, but I also need to expand it here and there according to suggestions made. D1ofBerks (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to sift through the page history of Chirp. Everything is still there in the history; nothing has been hidden or deleted. You can also investigate the page history of your own sandbox, but you were the only contributor there. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

You said this "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Carson, North Dakota, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)" to me yes I did change Jimmy Fallon's page but that was o prove to teacher that wikipedia is a great website. Everything on Carson is true how would you know if it is right? Have you ever been there? I have I used to live there and I visit there alot! So I would like you to please tell me what was incorrect about Carson's page. Thank you TSlag32 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)TSlag32[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove something is a violation of WP:POINT.
The wording you added was promotional, puffing up a local business. Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newly arrived Japanese revisionist editors

That new editor does not merely object to how the article is written. That editor is a Japanese revisionist, the sort of person who tries to Right Great Wrongs by starting with a huge falsehood. That editor is here to show that Japan was Asia's best friend from 1937 to 1945—a ridiculous notion. That editor is WP:NOTHERE; same with her meatpuppet friend. Neither one of them is going to have a long successful Wikipedia career. Nationalist Japanese right-wing revisionists are worse than the plague. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, I'm growing concerned about this particular editor as well. It seems clear to me he has an agenda at cross purposes with the purposes of Wikipedia. From his user page, I suspect meat puppetry is taking place as well. I appreciate you helping to keep an eye on him. --Yaush (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The most problematic new editor is a woman, by the way. There's a lot of offsite coordination going on, with this new opinion article written by a female member of the Google+ group Voices of Japanese, the opinion text including a URL pointing to the problematic new user named LoveJapanChika. The Google+ group is filled with comments which fit the profile of right-wing Japanese nationalist revisionism, for instance, one person named Skales Sibbons says "Japan freed Asian countries during the war and suffered persecution afterwards."[4] What nonsense! A group moderator named Chikako JTU (meaning Chikako of Japan Translation USA) wrote on November 16 that "Skales and I have found a valid legal defense NPOV argument for Iwane. We have formally presented it on the Talk page of this Wiki article",[5] referring to Talk:Iwane Matsui, a discussion page which was edited on November 16 by NipponSun7 and LoveJapanChika. The opinion piece was commented upon by Chikako JTU who said, "Mariko Ikeda has published the first in a series on anti-Japanese online propaganda. Her investigative report is about VOJ's own Skales and Chika and the forces of darkness they've been fighting..." on Wikipedia.[6] So we know that LoveJapanChika and NipponSun7 are coordinating their POV attack by way of offsite interaction. If some admin doesn't block these two very soon, the case must be brought to WP:ANI. These two are WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, and they plan to bring in more of the same. The WP:BATTLEGROUND effort ought to be stopped as soon as possible. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vigilance, Binksternet. I haven't had time to look at the articles or the Wikiproject, but just checking out your links, as well as the very frank calls on User talk:LoveJapanChika for people to "help and bring their friends" is enough for an indef block of that user per WP:NOTHERE. Done. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you very much, Bish. You did the right thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up--though you probably have seen this already--but this series of posts by Chikako JTU and this edit on LoveChikaJapan's talk page both imply she's planning a lawsuit against Wikipedia. This, of course, touches on WP:NLT, but should it be reported at this stage? Michitaro (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had seen both of those comments. The NLT solution is to block the editor but LoveJapanChika is already blocked. There is nothing to do at this time. I'm not worried about whatever legal case she is cooking up; it would be thrown out of court for having no basis. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence page

What exactly do you dispute about my edit? There were two components: 1) Making the types of incompetence sub-sections 2) Making them grammatical.

Do you dispute that (for example) the term "Language Difficulty Incompetence" is ungrammatical? If you do not like my synonyms, why not add your own instead of leaving the grammatical errors. Steeletrap (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the vanchor templates which help the essay to work. You don't have consensus to change the essay. Binksternet (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit war... on Slipknot

Hi again – sorry to bother you, but you told this guy to go to the talk page and stop edit warring. You restored my edits to Slipknot before the page was protected, and the moment the protection went down, you know what happened? He's gone and reverted my edits again. I tried talking about this on his talk page about three weeks ago, but he basically said that I was ruining his edits, that mine were wrong, and that I was unnecessarily taking out things that he deemed necessary. He never really give a proper explanation as to why he was reverting my edits. Again, I don't mean to bother you, but this guy just won't quit, and whilst I am trying to learn how to do an RfC as you said, as well as try and be cool and calm about this, I don't see how it will stop him. I don't think he understands that other people can actually edit the page.

I'm not trying to dob this guy in or anything, but you know the system better than me – and this guy is edit warring, and won't go to the talk page. Could you please help me? I'm just trying to do what's best for the article. Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You both are of the opinion that you are doing what's best for the article. With a style-based dispute like this, nobody is right. However, the status quo should be maintained in the absence of a new consensus to change the style. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Binks. 4TheWynne (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edits on Complex Systems

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the revert for an edit with no sources. Did you happen to notice that the section I edited, that section also has no sources? Did you bother to revert those edits, too? In other words: The entire section, if not the whole article, is a pile of horsehockey. But you revert me, well done, Wikipedian. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.122.51 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like more of that article should be thrown in the bit bucket. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? Revert me but not your fellow editors? What's the matter sport, you enjoy reverting anonymous editors, but other editors, who also post with no sources, you think it is ok to let them stay? Hypocrite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.122.51 (talk • contribs)
The problem is that lots of Wikipedia was written in past years by people who were just shooting from the hip, like you did yesterday. In recent years the bar has risen, and the policy of WP:No original research is enforced more vigorously. Ideally, all that older text has been filtered through the lenses of subsequent editors who would have changed or deleted poorly written stuff. So the idea is that the surviving text has the blessing of everybody interested in the topic. Of course this idealism of mine doesn't hold up everywhere; at complex systems the initial contributor's flawed text has remained largely undisturbed. Yesterday I removed a paragraph that looked like it was not based on the literature. If you see more of this kind of stuff, feel free to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sock Puppet

Hi Binks: I don't know what you all over here on WP consider a sock, but the behavior of this one user's contributions strongly suggest a lot of experience with wiki which wouldn't be expected in an account so new. I saw his new account because he removed information from registered sex offender Doyle_Doss's page. Any help you can render as always ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will check into this. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is new territory for me; I tried to strike the right balance at the Doss biography by referring to the Megan's Law website which certainly lists him. Regarding whether B.U.H. is a sockpuppet or merely an experienced editor starting a new account, I cannot see the harm, but I will keep an eye out. I am pretty sure his intersection with Doss was merely part of being a recent changes patroller, since he shows a string of edits reverting very recent additions which he thought were problematic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotter than July

Hi Bink, thanks for your recent edit on Hotter than July I was gonna do some cutesy thing like here's a plate of cookies for you but I don't know how to do it; so if I find out I owe you that plate of cookies OK? (: Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=636370599"