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 80.212.111.41 (talk) at 10:19, 13 January 2015 (→‎Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Sad vandalism by Binky). 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

Bias against IP user

Stop icon Hello again, it appears that you are biased against me as I am an IP user. Would you be blanking my edits if they were by a registered user? I think not. Is this then, not a case that is tantamount to Username chauvinism? You have falsely charged that I have "vandalized" and have produced a long history of "abuse" on the nuclear winter page, yet you failed to show how my edits are abusive or vandalism, instead you've simply pontificated that they are. My edits, as you well know, are indeed well referenced as the record shows and they are also very relevant, contrary to your own POV. So I will be undoing your knee-jerk blanking, unless you make the case that my edits are indeed a case of abusive vandalism on the talk page of the article. Where you should have posted your views to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased against you as an IP user but it is true that I have identified a pattern of long-term abuse coming from your range of IPs in Ireland. Your abuse is of the nature of bringing disputed details into the topic of nuclear winter, and disputed details into the topic of climate engineering. In that effort you have been opposed by Pelarmian, William M. Connolley and JonRichfield. What I'm seeing is behavioral. I'm not going to argue whether you are right and everybody else is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall all of those, but in any case, isn't that just an appeal to the mob followed by a vague innuendo reminiscent of the group-think in a number of societies? Really show just 1 example of actual "abuse", in fact ask any one of the editors you listed and I'd be surprised if they agreed that I "abused" them, or the article. Secondly and far in excess, more importantly, are any of the details I've been adding scientifically disputed? No! Every single one of them is backed up. So the term "disputed details" you use is just down right laughable. What is really true is that I've identified a pattern of hounding by you and others, arrogant grandstanding and that wikipedia as a whole is a group-think maelstrom opposed to the scientific method, with folks like you calling the citation and summary of peer-reviewed articles as "abuse". That's the pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that 'group-think' include all registered users? I'm an IP, and I also have a problem with your edits. Accusing others of 'arrogant grandstanding' won't help.
Please can you explain why you think your edits should be made to the article, on Talk:Firestorm. Just make a new section there, and talk about it. Then we can all discuss it. If most people agree, we can add it to the article. Thanks, Igor the bunny (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what this is all about, and as I am otherwise occupied, please don't bother to enlighten me, but as far as the argument in Climate engineering is concerned, 92.251.172.194 has one point of view concerning a few terms that s/he wishes to include, and that the other correspondents, including myself, agreed are inappropriate to the topic and would be harmful to the quality of the article to boot. We pointed this out in terms of opinion, logic and example and independently and in various terms came to the same conclusions and made largely similar points. By this time I think we might be absolved of complicity in any conspiracy and forgiven growing impatience with the by this time considerable volume of wasted work that we all could have expended far more constructively on other matters. After all, when argument hasn't worked and repetition hasn't worked, in a forum of this type, I think one is justified in going with a majority of competent parties who agree that a matter is not germane to the issue and is undesirable as well, even when we all are out of step with one dissenter,even if he were right. JonRichfield (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OH, and I already have complained to 92dot about persistently not using a handle; it is inconsiderate at best and might readily arouse suspicions of bad intent. JonRichfield (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Irish IPs that have intersected in the articles Firestorm, Nuclear winter, Impact winter, Climate engineering, Solar radiation management, Anti-greenhouse effect, Kuwaiti oil fires, Duck and cover, Neutron bomb, Asteroid impact avoidance, Chelyabinsk meteor, Hiroshima Maidens, Bombing of Tokyo, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, etc

(92.251.237.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 2 January 2015

Compiling this list made me realize that I have interacted with this person before, for example on Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Lookout Mountain Air Force Station. That's one of the effects of using changing IPs—it's difficult to keep track of who is who. I tend to think that is what some of the IP editors want. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, based on over five years of experience, is that roughly 10% of edits made by IP editors are productive. Thanks for all those millions of edits! On the other hand, roughly 90% of IP edits are unproductive. Can you imagine the work it takes to clean up tens of millions of unproductive edits? And that is a low estimate. Wow. What a mess!
If you want to be a productive editor here, simply create and edit through an account, so that your edits are collected all in one place, and other editors can discuss things with you. That's my personal opinion, not Wikipedia policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It amazes me that WP hasn't changed that policy yet. After a few years of editing, it is pretty hard not to be biased against IP editors. Things would be better all around if they would just pick a pseudonym and go with the flow. But for those who don't, and are dynamic, they need to expect a little extra scrutiny and pushback, since they don't have any easily checked history to help understand whether they are usually sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the discussion by and about this IP editor, I have a comment. This IP thinks that Wikipedia is a deeply corrupt place, persecuting IP editors. Therefore this IP editor is ready to be a martyr, fighting against the system, never appreciated. (Either that, or the IP may be a usage of a disruptive editor, but we have all made a suicide pact based on [[WP:AGF|assume good faith. Oh. Wait a minute. Some people say AGF isn't a suicide pact.) The IP certainly isn't likely to improve attitudes of experienced editors with respect to IPs by raging. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of really only Cullen's addition, for which I thank you, all I'm seeing here is filibustering, followed by an open acknowledgment of blanket bias and prejudice against IP users. Meanwhile there has been an abject failure to show even the slightest thread of evidence for Binksternet's allegations - that I have engaged in "long term abuse" of articles and that I have vandalized articles. Moreover I do have a dynamic IP and also edit from work so I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure that all of those addresses were me, but I have edited on all of those articles. Secondly, I simply don't want to use an account as I prefer not having to remember another username and password combination, that's it. I'd also be more than willing to confirm if any particular edit was by me or not. That's never been up for dispute.
But to get back on topic. Apart from the most recent biased antagonism and needless edit warring by Binksternet under discussion here Talk:Firestorm. One other short and sweet previous encounter I had, that really exemplifies the hounding antagonism and nonsense Binksternet likes to engage in against IP users, is here on the Talk:Lookout_Mountain_Air_Force_Station#Photographer_George_Yoshitake article he brought up. He reverted my edits with the summary that "No source says that George Yoshitake was involved with LMAFS". So I replied: You claim "no source states George was a member" when indeed he was and indeed there are numerous sources". Binksternet never responded to this, and instead, my edit was once again removed, this last time, there wasn't even a reason/edit summary given specifically explaining why it was blanked again. So binksternet clearly shows a pattern of refusing to read and does not engage in trying to build consensus but instead doggedly blanks edits without first becoming familiar with the topic and assessing the edit on its merits. To top it all off, he then claims that I've abused & vandalized wikipedia for having ever included these well referenced edits. Which really does surpass the WP:hound line. Simply become a productive IP user for a while, I guarantee you, you'll see what I mean.
Lastly, Robert McClenon, spare me the caricature and allegation of "rage", I am simply defending my edits. If I charged all your edits as an example of "long term abuse" and vandalism, something tells me you'd challenge that claim too.
92.251.172.194 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never even heard of him. I only know the annoying Greek genre warrior, and the Japanese New Order vandal. THANKS AGAIN. JG Malmsimp (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task for you?

Hi Binksternet! As you're one of the most prolific Wiki editors i know of I thought i'd present you with a task. the wikipage for Jack White (musician) is incomplete. Under the Discography section it only list his solo albums in the grid format, it makes no mention of his work with White Stripes, Raconteurs or Dead Weather. Thought this might be something for you to tackle and might interest you as an audio engineer! Have a good 2015! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalDylan (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No promises! Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Binksternet,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you, and best wishes backatcha! Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greek genre warrior

Can you set up a case page of the Greek genre warrior - you know, the one who puts TECHNO onto everything. Thank you and Happy New Year.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR

I might do that, especially if I see heavy action from that person. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There IS heavy action going on him. He's always on Scooter I have put up a warning that if he continues to remove trance again, it will be back up, and any unsourced genres will then be removed. We'll just keep asking for protection. Thanks. JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroomhead

Hi – I went to a lot of work fixing the timeline before implementing it on the main page, so if you're going to remove it without warning and say that "we have a dedicated article for band members, and the timeline appears there", could you please change the timeline there to the one that I added and you removed? Thanks – 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will! Thanks for your good work. Graphic timelines make me crazy; I'm glad you are willing to maintain them. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Binks! Much appreciated. Regards, 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M

Hello, contributor

I have seen your contributions and I must say I am impressed. I am new to editing and my work is centered on the 60s psychedelic music scene. So far, I have gather reliable information on musicians that lacked any meaningful acknowledgement to their contribution to the genre. I hope to start uploading articles regarding artists people have overlooked or are unaware of. I am well aware Wikipedia has tutorials on how to do so. However, if I may kindly ask, could you give me a tutorial that could help me understand better? It would be greatly appreciated.

Peace to you and thanks for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know where to begin. Certainly you will find it easier to write an article if you copy and paste a similar article into your proposed new article space, following which you can cut, chop and modify the model article so that it becomes suitable for your proposed article. You can experiment to your heart's content in your own sandbox space, which is at User:TheGracefulSlick/Sandbox. After you are done working in your personal sandbox to get the article ready for the world, you can move it to main space. Or you can ask me or someone else to help you move it. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi there, I am involved in a controversy at the Elizabeth Warren article. I have argued that coverage of a campaign controversy does not comply with WP guidelines on weight. It currently has the same number of article lines as Warren's entire career section. However this is disputed by another editor who says that using "Calibri font size 11 with 1-in. margins", it is much shorter. What with such limited computer skills, I have no idea about what this editor is talking about - all that I know is what I see on the article page. Could you please advise me or make a note on the article talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an argument of one, as many other window sizes and fonts may be present. I will jump in over there when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like other editors helped the article achieve more neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

Please stop your unconstructive behaviour. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop starting editwars. First your excuse is that I did not cite references. After I cited references you claim that my contributions are in bad English and should therefor be deleted. You are not bringing in any arguments and are just reverting. Please help improving the article instead. If you continue I will ask a moderator to intervere. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making unconstructive changes to the article, with a multitude of problems. If I identify all of the problems it will take me an hour. It's much more efficient for me and for all the other people opposing your work to simply revert all of it. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SleepCovo once again

Seemingly oblivious to his lack of support for violating the instructions for infobox officeholder at Rangel and Grimm once again. Same editor is using a non-RS source to label slews of politicians as "Jewish" (see WP:RSN). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the name of the Congressman or Congresswoman who now represents the district to the articles as well as the word (redistricted) so that editors and readers are aware that redistricting has occurred and is now being represented by a different person. SleepCovo (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is useless to readers, as was decided at the template discussion, it remains useless no matter how many times you add it. At this point it is clear that you are carefully following my edits, and that you are blatantly edit warring on both BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

System of a Down

Hi my name is Raptorking18. I recently changed a couple of pages of System Of A Down, made some more information on there, yet you have took it off like it wasn't true while clearly a couple of their albums is Nu-metal. They are a nu-metal band according to their albums. Just wanted you to know about your mistake about the pages I edited. Thanks for listening. Also don't know how to talk to people here, first time talking to someone here, I'm new. Raptorking18, 18:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Raptorking18. I saw this addition of yours, adding "Nu Metal" to the genre parameter of the infobox, and I reverted it because there was no WP:Consensus for it. The nu metal genre has been discussed repeatedly at Talk:System of a Down and there is general agreement that so many genres apply to this band that only certain ones, the main ones, should be in the infobox. To that end, you can see a hidden note when you open up the editing window, the note saying, "Please do not add or remove any genre from this list without consensus. DO NOT ADD NU METAL!!" I don't know how much clearer it can get than a note like that.
Ten hours after your edit, an anonymous editor came in and added nu metal along with alt rock to the infobox. I hope that wasn't you, because if you are using multiple accounts to push the same desired text then you can be blocked, per WP:Multiple.
Otherwise I am sympathetic to your position. I'm the one who started the discussion at Talk:System of a Down#Nu metal revisited, where I propose that nu metal be added to the infobox. However, I was not successful in changing the existing consensus. You have to respect the established consensus. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Raptorking18. I don't have a second Wikipedia account, I only use this one. I didn't see the note, but i felt that I was adding true info on the page since their albums are nu-metal. I will ask permission to add the info back to the page, so can I add the info back on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorking18 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't add the genre of nu metal. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Fogerty

Brinkster-net: Pls stop edit-warring over inclusion of John Fogerty-material at relevant entries - your love of quarrel should not affect Wikepedia-users' access to info. Deleting references to the fact that copyright-violating material exists is not mandated to protect such material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.36.157 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:V which demands that information offered in the encyclopedia must be verifiable. Take a look at WP:Reliable sources which says we should be citing published sources for our information. Take a look at WP:No original research which says that everything said in Wikipedia must have been already published elsewhere. Take a look at WP:UNDUE which says that unimportant information should not be presented as if it is important. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you've taken private 'ownership' of John Fogerty's entries, but pls stop vandalizing legitimate info added. First you delete references (claiming a set-list from Glastonbury is "copyrighted" and cannot be ref'd to), then delete the info itself claiming additions are "unsourced". That's just being plain obstructive. Plus your subjective opinion of what's not "important" doesn't apply, as Fogerty's headlining at Glastonbury 2007 self-evidently is important.88.88.36.157 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binky, you are sorely mistaken, and should refrain from edit warring. Use your time for something better than being disruptive on WP. You obviously have to much time on yer hands and use it for bullying. Get a life.80.212.4.12 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have apparently failed to explain WP:CONSENSUS to you. That's fine: you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. You know, I like your Strauss-Kahn addition, using good sourcing, but this bit about bootlegs is your weak area. You need to find a source that says that Fogerty's music can be found on bootlegs, or else it's not important. That's the only kind of source which will sway opinions at that article. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Binky, you're a tiny-minded bully who uses your abundant spare time to ensure relevant info is blocked from WP, stalking contributors. In the guise of various spurious claims and ad hominems at contributors, you delete facts from WP. Re Dominique Strauss-Kahn relevant info was added and well sourced, and you deleted it in order to attack the contributor. That's not public service. You're a fact-hater, it seems, attacking contributors to ensure facts are denied inclusion on WP. Your behaviour is deplorable. You edit-war, and then accuse others of what you yourself are doing in edit-warring. Then use your privileges as editor to block entries. That's pukable behaviour and I feel sorry for the people who have to deal with you in person, if that's yr personality - which it most likely is. I have no more time for you. I've tried to add facts to WP, and you deny them under multiple pretexts. I won't waste more time on your little private wars: the facts remain, no matter if you successfully block them from WP. You're a disgrace to WP. Hope somebody sees your behaviour and strikes you down. Bye-bye, fake editor with hate of facts and love of quarrel. You're a sad excuse for an editor. 80.212.111.41 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GG notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Edit war notice

To send me an edit war notice after 1 edit, with explanation in the edit summary, is not something I appreciate. The whole thing will go now to ANI. See you there. Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring User:Binksternet. You are invited to comment there. Kraxler (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jonestown Massacre

How is that vandalism? BJM are not only a neo-psychedelia band. Sure that is a genre of theirs, but generally speaking they are a rock band. Even if I'm wrong, it's not vandalism. You sir are jumping to conclusions. BJM is a rock band first and foremost, and their other genres are more detailed descriptions of their sound, which is what the infobox is for. Furthermore, the article for Jefferson Airplane calls them a rock band, even though their primary genre is psychedelic rock.

Also, about My Bloody Valentine - it's ridiculous to actually include the term gothic rock in their infobox genres - just because their first EP was somewhat included in that genre, doesn't mean that the term summarizes them properly at all. Are we honestly supposed to include every single genre a band ever touched upon in the infobox? Really? Because I thought the infobox was about summary. I think you are really stupid.

205.250.210.135 (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about genres here. The point is that you have been changing genres in a disruptive fashion for a long time, using various IP addresses from western Canada. I'm seeing the same genre-warring behavior from 24.84.58.239 and 199.247.185.30, the first one in Vancouver just like you, the second one up in White Horse for an after-Christmas visit. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drama board

I think I stated that as succinctly as possible. Happy New Year Bink! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya done good. :)
Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House Music - Recent Changes

Hello! I would be grateful when you have time if you would take a look at the house music page. Many changes have been made recently, and although some seem to actually correspond more closely to the source material, others have been rather confusing (changes to subgenres). I have made a few changes in the wake of the revisions, including reinserting a piece of lost information, and reverting the "cultural origins" box section to its correct order, but I would appreciate it if you would pass an eye over the article and make any changes needed in your view.

Best wishes,

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I like your trimming job, it's a good start. The main problem with the article is that too many people active over there aren't really using the published literature as their reference. Rather, they are shooting from the hip, writing the truth as they understand it. What the article needs is a thoroughgoing refurb, with all the best literature well represented, and all the odd local views removed or reduced in weight. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. As a house music fan since the late-1980s, I simply try to ensure that the accurate facts about early house are not lost in the new revisions!

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Kennedy30

Hi. I noticed you left this message. I started a new sockpuppet case, but I'm not sure if it's filed correctly. I don't see it here. It's been six years since I last filed a sock case and I may have messed things up. Can you check to see if it was done correctly? Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 06:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never mind. It's there now. Sorry to bother you. APK whisper in my ear 06:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for filing the case; it helps to keep all of the socks accounted. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Got You Babe

Hi Binksternet, I've noticed you've removed the entire list of artists, TV shows and movies which covered or featured Sonny and Cher's hit. May I ask is there a way to keep the list on the page in any other form? Maybe only the referenced ones or structured in other way. For the Sonny and Cher fans it is significant to have the list there as it shows the song's impact on popular culture, and besides many other artists singles havve such chapters. thank you for the time. --Uncleangelo (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions at WP:SONGCOVER. It doesn't look like we are supposed to host an exhaustive list of every cover, does it? The other pages which have exhaustive lists should be trimmed of them. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed sure, but not deleted. It should contain at least the list of other music artists who have recorded the song. Otherwise it is not OK to delete all the information other editors have gathered, as that should be considered as vandalism. --Uncleangelo (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says the following:
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
  • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
This tells me that you will need to find which versions of "I Got You Babe" were singles, which ones charted or got millions of online hits, and which ones are discussed in sources which are generally talking about the song "I Got You Babe". If the source is talking about the artist then apparently it's not sufficient for WP:SONGCOVER.
The songs that will drop out of the list will be most or all of them, such as the Tiny Tim album version which did not chart.
There are plenty of editors who feel that SONGCOVER is too limiting. You might want to start a WP:RFC to get it loosened up. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mastodon style section

I don't know why you're so intent on reverting my edits when they follow the same pattern of objective material that's so prevalent in the article. I shouldn't have to provide a citation for something like "Crack the Skye is a prog album". Gimme a break.--75.87.65.195 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell the reader what your sources are then you'll be meeting the requirement of WP:Verifiability. I look forward to discussing this. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically point out what needed a citation instead of just outright deleting it because you didn't like it. Because it seems like you want literally every sentence to have a citation on it.--75.87.65.195 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to see a paragraph of description followed by two or three references, such that everything said in the paragraph is supported by something in the references.
Regarding your first addition, you said the band's early work included "technical death metal", which I cannot see in the sources. It's even a stretch to say they played death metal, let alone technical.
Your second edit left this part out, which is an improvement. However, you said their early work had "harsh vocals", the album Blood Mountain mixed harsh and clean, while subsequent albums were clean. How about if you attribute this stuff to somebody's published analysis, maybe this piece by Robert Pasbani. Because AllMusic says nothing about it, and neither do a lot of other sources. And here's a source for the fact that the 2014 album was the first with all clean vocals, but it also says that the prog element is diminished, with more of a pop rock "sheen" on it. So it supports the shift in vocals but it does not support your assertion that prog is still important.
Some more sources for you:
Best wishes... Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=642291378"