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 142.55.48.18 (talk) at 08:13, 9 March 2016 (→‎Cevin Key: new section). 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

Happy New Year

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.
I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback

I always felt I could count on what you said to be accurate. I hope you decide to come back. 123.136.112.57 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice again please

Hey Binksternet. Sorry to keep making you my go-to guy but I need some advice. I was patrolling my watchlist and came across some edits by a new registered user adding genre's and recording dates which I reverted and left a message on the users page explaining they need to be sourced. When I got back to my P.C. a while later all my edits relating to this editor had been reverted by user : Mlpearc. He reinstated the unsourced information and left me 3 rather ugly warnings in very quick succession on my talk page, which is in no way assuming good faith. To date the information remains unsourced and while I have asked for an explanation on my and his talk page the only response I have been able to get out of him is "don't feed". I was looking at his talk page and I see this has happened before. Anyone can see I only edit constructively and while my edits are barely passed 7000, my track record is good. Please could you look at these edits and advise me as to what can be done about this. Much appreciated man! Robvanvee 16:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I also asked MusikAnimal what he thinks (being an admin and all) but would still value your input. Robvanvee 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is from Campo Grosso, Brazil. That place has given us other many other IP addresses, all doing the same unsourced musical genre stuff. I applaud your removal of this person's changes. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Binksternet, I appreciate your support! Robvanvee 05:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub section

I wasn't trying to imply that any single commercially available driver was claiming to be the biggest "subwoofer [system]" there is, only that it relies on the overall build, and not a driver itself. If there were good references, I would word it better and add more to suggest that it comes down to mostly basic math and science, not how shiny the cone is or that there is a skull insignia on the amp or something. B137 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going on, the article overall is written in fairly commonspeak compared to other articles, especially in this subject. There are few equations, and it even mentions specific brand name drivers. I think it should make a few more connections to music, as long as it is written so easy to understand (i.e. ~41Hz=E1 bass note, 30Hz=Low B0, organ (double pedal C, officially?) is 16Hz which is C0, considered the bottom of the "lowest" "musical" octave, and handily given as an arbitrary tonal pitch limit). B137 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't comprehend the points you are trying to make. Your words here don't seem to connect to this removal of the section you added. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch I'm Madonna

Hi Binksternet, can you please help me with the above article? A bunch of IPs are tag-teaming to remove the sourced genres from the article, really causing disruption. I have requested for protection to no avail. I have a feeling all of these are socks of same master can you help me in finding the truth and filing a report? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not strong enough to say this song is vaporwave. The source only says "it sounds a little like vaporwave." There are no other sources calling this song vaporwave, except ones that quote Wikipedia, so I don't see vaporwave as the song's genre. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another musician

Greetings! We found Mahdar from someone's uploading of copyvio pictures of him. His bio doesn't seem to have any references! Thanks for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below. The record company publicist has been working on the articles. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KozAz Records

Greetings! This Company is working at the moment and I created wiki page for them at 2014 I guess. All references are real and orginal and Also I work in this Company as PR. I will improve the Article during this Year in Russian Langauge and Persian Langauge and I believe it should be deleted form deletion! Persian Great (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The record company must be discussed in published sources which are not connected to the record company. A major newspaper, an established magazine; those are the kinds of sources you need. If none of these things exist, then the article will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Heart Will Go On

Could you please keep an eye on the page? 115.164.181.134 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50 Big Ones

If you still think I'm wrong, by all means change it back, I'll leave it alone, but I'd a better undo explanation than just wrong, especially when evidence points to the contrary. 2602:30A:C02F:5C50:19C8:A20E:8C29:2C2B (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say 114 mins. AllMusic says 2 hours and 14 mins. I'm going with AllMusic. Binksternet (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like I'm the fool here. My apologies. 2602:30A:C02F:5C50:19C8:A20E:8C29:2C2B (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street musicians

Greetings: Could you look at A Hopeless Motive for notability? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC) PS if you ever want to see all the hopeful bands in North America, a simple visit to Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Album_covers is an eyeopener. There must be thousands of these.[reply]

Wow. Looks like they are taking advantage of WMF's free web hosting service. Wait, what? Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edit.

There is no reason to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jubilantballoons (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 January 2016‎

I left some advice on your talk page. Willondon (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; according to the reverts you have made on Epoch Times. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Marvin 2009 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smart solution!

Smart solution!: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus is a Goth band primarily, not a Post-punk band

The talk page already has consensus that Bauhaus is a Goth band, it is Mezigue who constantly changes the page without giving proper references. Reference #29 on the Bauhaus page refers to Rolling Stone Magazine's assertion that Bauhaus is a Goth band. You made an improper reverting of my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, Binksternet. You recently undid my edits on sound level meter and microphone. Let me assure you that the intention of the edits were not to promote any particular brand.

The sound level meter page is significantly lacking a description of the fundamentals of how a sound level meter works, and rather disjointedly jumps quickly into technical jargon. While these basics will certainly seem trivial to a expert such as you, we must not lose sight of the point of Wikipedia; to inform, and even the layman. You will notice that the text is free of any reference to brands. In order to demonstrate the concept of the conversion of air pressure to electrical signal through the diaphragm, I included a diagram. I might add that the diagram took a lot of time, thought and effort on my part. I used the only sound level meter I have at my disposal in the image.

On the microphone page there is a comparison of the frequency response of a Shure SM58 and one other mic. Directly below is the section on measurement microphones. It is certainly of interest to all to see the difference in the frequency response of a measurement microphone to a performance mic. Again I put a lot of effort in making the graph to the same scale as the existing graphs, and again I used the only data I have at my disposal. Side Note: I have five SM58 microphones of varying ages between 30 and 5 years old and the frequency response on all of them is remarkably comparable despite a few of the diaphragm sponges being almost completely disintegrated from use.

I have redone the edits and removed branding. If you have any suggestion how I can achieve the above without using pictures of branded instruments, please talk to me. Acousticator (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your text is useful at the sound level meter article, however unreferenced it may be. The image, though, is promotional in that it places an NTi meter at the top. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCORPIONS: Tokyo Tapes (1978 live album)

Hello Binksternet!

I'm a fan and collector of this rock band. I have complete audience recordings of both these shows in my collection. Actually no one ever bothered to analyze or publicate the detailed information on the released recordings from this live album before. Even the official sources. Recently I analysed all officially released stuff from these shows and compared them to complete audience recordings from my collection. So this information is an exclusive and was researched by me. I decided to add this information to the album page on wiki. So the 'reliable source' for this information is two audience recordings from my collection and my ears.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmi80 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I like your expertise, but Wikipedia has a hard policy of WP:No original research. Your investigation into this matter should be published elsewhere before Wikipedia can tell about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Embryonic Anomaly, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Sputnikmusic is user submitted information. NOT a reliable source. See WP:SOURCE Second Skin (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check the Talk Page of Gorillaz

Please see the talkpage to see my reason why my edit should not be reverted. Thank you. Jubilantballoons (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. You are a great collaborator and a great Wikipedian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word counter

Hey Bink, do you perhaps know where to find the word counter for articles? I'm interested to see how many words has Ride the Lightning.--Retrohead (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tool listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck. That tool reports the page having 2644 words of "readable prose", not counting the infobox, lists, or any sound/image file captions. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person is heading toward having their own Long-Term Abuse page. How tiresome to clean up after him or her. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re their edits at List of deaths in rock and roll: The person concerned has edited that article a lot - and, in my view, most (in fact, almost all) of their edits there are positive and helpful. (I know there are separate problems around the referencing and content of that article, but that's a different and broader issue.) For instance, this edit - which you reverted - was, in itself, correct and unproblematic. I have not reverted many of their edits on that article. But, I'm also aware that once someone is identified as a vandal, there is a view that all their edits should be reverted on sight. The problem in this case is that the person concerned has never made any comment on their edits, either in edit summaries or talk pages, which makes their behaviour more difficult than usual to address. Personally, I'd be inclined towards letting their edits at List of deaths in rock and roll go (except where they are wrong, of course), but I can understand a different approach being taken. What is your view? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common for an editor to have good edits in one area but problematic edits in another. A topic ban would be typically be imposed for the problem area, so that the positive area can be continued, but this editor uses multiple IPs, so the only thing that can stop the disruption is a rangeblock. Unfortunately, a rangeblock stops all editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erased Let's Get to It The Videos.

I would like to know if you will do a page to Let's Get To... The Videos, or if I can include the same information about this release in the page Let's get to it, since you erased everything and the video album stayed without information...--88marcus (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are talking about. Can you show me the erasure that I performed? I can't figure out where to look. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music

Please leave the article for Now That's What I Call Music! discography alone. It is not vandalism, you are the one vandalising it. You did the same thing on Now That's What I Call Music! 92 (UK series) by removing Now 93 from the chronology. It is not too soon to put up notability of Now 93. The album is due out in 5 weeks with the tracklist due in 3 weeks so please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.207.128 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

So why not list all the future compilations? Let's put 2017 in there, and 2018, and 2019.

I wouldn't go that far. Now that's over exaggerating. The point is, as soon as a new album has been announced like Now 93 has, then I believe it should go in the chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.227.33 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself that there is no tracklist available yet. Too soon! Wikipedia is built on WP:Reliable sources, not on unreferenced future events. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the editing history, I believe this IP is User:Hadji87, who often hides behind various IP addresses while editing various NOW albums and UK chart-related articles. He usually wants to be the first to post something, and does so without sources (although actual sources usually aren't far behind). ---StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see the connection. Good catch! Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Destiny Leo (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just something

Hi Binksternet! As you gave me the welcome in 2015 and because I don't know no other one here, I would like to ask you something. I'm looking for Administrators here. Not sure if you are one of them or not hahaha; Anyway, where can I find them? Just to check a problem. Bye! --Manuchansu (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is! --Manuchansu (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this user has created some troubles in Spanish Wiki, and casually, I discovered he has created some puppets here too. I do not know why are being used puppets here, because it is supossed he has had no problems with his main account. It is a good question "why". Well, he has been using puppets in es:wiki, first for edit wars with other users, and then to avoid blockages. Both are here, Duquedearanjuez and Bradoman. He has stated in the Spanish Wiki that after three blocks in some weeks and all the problems he has created, he wanted to [re]start again. Goodwill and actions. Well, for beginning, he could have already notified that he has several puppets here, too. And that he has been using all of them. I say this because he has been translating some articles from en:wiki to es:wiki (and possibly reverse), and some of this articles I'm not quite sure about its neutrality. And because he has used the puppets to do just that, to impose his ideological stance in articles. I just wanted to report this situation, and to avoid the same problems here [again]..--Manuchansu (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will investigate this problem. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alvin and the Chipmunks (among other related articles), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own research first, before you start edit warring to keep inaccurate data in articles. Scr★pIronIV 19:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hey Bink. What to do about this guy? Hell bent on changing those genres regardless of the warnings, which by now are starting to become pointless. Any advice? Robvanvee 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 200 IP is the same location as the previous 190 IP: Special:Contributions/190.14.248.30. So the genre-warring behavior is a continuation by the same person. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Is it worth reporting to an admin? If so, who is approachable with this sort of thing? Robvanvee 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much worth would be the reporting of this to an admin. Proving a long-term disruptive past would take me a long time. I don't have a lot of time right now. I think we are simply reverting this guy when he shows up. If he violates 3RR then we can get a block going, and that will ease future requests. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Much appreciated man. Robvanvee 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House Music - The "Dub" issue returns...

I remember this cropping up before with andrewbf, but the IP addreses do not appear to be related to him in this case. Dub music has been inserted twice in recent days to the stylistic origins section of the house music page, and I do not think the sources measure up. In fact, I do not recall there being any recognised form of music called "dub" when house began, although I believe there might have been some early efforts that some now catagorize as such. I would be grateful if you would take a look at the house music history page when time permits.

All good wishes,

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I've noticed this problem. In this edit, the London IP added dub to the origin of house music, citing a Routledge book. Previous to that, the article said dub was blended into house music starting in 1992. The book cite says that house music "absorbed" the sounds and techniques of dub, but the book does not place this development chronologically. So the book does not say that dub was part of the origin of house. Instead it says that "today" house contains elements of dub. The London-based IP is wrong in this instance. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for your speedy work. I have posted notes on the second IP address's Talk Page to appraise him/her of the relevant facts.

(Etheldavis (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The Golden Echo

Hey, I want to talk about the page 'The Golden Echo' (album by Kimbra) that you edited earlier today. I got your point about 'pop' being the only genre describing the whole album. Everyone has always changed the genres as they liked for that album so I only wanted to put genres coming from reliable sources for once... Anyway after thinking about it I got to agree with you and I'm sorry for undoing your change in the first place. Now, I'm here because I need your opinion on some questions : First, do you think it is really relevant to keep 'pop' when there is already 'art pop'. I mean, since 'art pop' is a subgenre of 'pop', isn't an 'art pop' album also a 'pop' album implicitly ? Second, do you think it could be a good idea to put some of the genres mentioned in the infobox such as 'indie pop', 'indie rock', 'alternative R&B', are they reliable ?[1] Thanks for your time. ThibaultGerm (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

1.^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-golden-echo-mw0002690746

My take on the genre parameter in the infobox is that it should be about the album as a whole, based on reliable sources. I do not think that the album infobox genre should be a collection of individual song genres, nor should it list musical influences or style elements as if they were the overall genre of the album. All of the style elements and musical influences can be developed in prose in the article body, but the infobox should be purely derived from sources who are talking about the overall genre of the album. Regarding The Golden Echo specifically, the genre of art pop does not appear so often in the sources that we can tell the reader the album is solely art pop. For instance, the AllMusic link you provided says nothing about art pop. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exciting!

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ongepotchket (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI courtesy notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, you were mentioned at WP:ANI#Alleged_BLP_vios_on_Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers. This is just a courtesy notice. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016
Arts+Feminism logo
 Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016,
for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Circa73 (talk)

Apologies

I'm terribly sorry about the disruptive editing and the Instrument destruction page edits, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing and I still don't know how a lot of stuff works, including citing sources.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.114.151 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @104.33.114.151: Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.114.151 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Binksternet

I am sorry for the editing on music related pages. I will use citations to prove my edits in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alomar012 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not alter my comments

Header says it all. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post disruptive stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psicadelik Thoughts

here you are wrong, because it cite those genres (the title on the second one says "B.o.B gets funky in this album" how can it be more clear) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Maraschi (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the adjective "funky" is not the same as saying the music is in the funk genre. Just like saying "the band was rocking out" doesn't determine the music as being in the rock genre. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Reverted my Edit

Hey, Binksternet, you seem to have reverted my edit on Techno for 'no reliable sources'. By doing so, you replaced what I said with an unreliable source. I'm going to remove the unreliable source and not replace what is said, but please let me know if it doesn't seem sensible to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.89.68 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of publications that say techno started in Detroit. Just now I provided a few. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You neglect to realize that the majority of these are specifically referring to 'Detroit Techno', a subgenre of Techno. Kraftwerk, and other Europeans in the Techno scene, have existed since the 70s. These articles cite the earliest instances of Detriot Techno to be from the mid 80s. LandonJPowell (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk training

Hey Binksternet. Just wanted to inform you that clerk training group work has begun. There's two cases open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015/Group_work#QEDK, Binksternet, and Mkdw. It would seem participants are able to choose which cases are selected for the group work. I've selected the first two cases. I wasn't sure if you wanted to select the last remaining three with QEDK, or simply work on the ones I select. In case 2 there is follow up. In any case, since this is group work, it'd be great to have you there. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation! I was waiting until I had the proper time and space for intense focus, as sockpuppet cases require. I often edit Wikipedia during times when I am not able to focus intensely, which means I'm doing easy things such as reverting lots of vandalism and removing low quality material. This last couple of weeks gave me precious little space for intense focus, but, as things have relaxed in RL, I'm going over to SPI right now to take part in the group training. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP 187.153.108.166

Binksternet, what can be done regarding this IP? It is persistent and although blocked for 31 hours it will resume the same activity once it expires, maybe with a new IP again. —IB [ Poke ] 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely that the person will re-appear on another IP address. We have at least one very active and disruptive long-term editor in Mexico who is interested in music articles. If there is only one such editor, then he moves around a lot, editing mostly from the Mexico City area and the nearby state of Querétaro, but also from Cancun and the Yucatan coast as in the above IP. This one editor would be evading a block as User:Andrewbf. However, if we have two such editors, then the Yucatan guy cannot be considered as evading a block, because Andrewbf was demonstrably connected to Querétaro and Mexico City. You would have to sort through years of contributions by IP editors from Mexico and compare them to Andrewbf to make your case. Note that one New York City IP was connected to Andrewbf in the sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive.
If you fail to connect the Cancun/Yucatan IPs to the Andrewbf case (I have not been able to do so) then you'll have to amass a list of Cancun/Yucatan IPs that have behaved the same way, and note which ones have been blocked (to show the level of disruption.) If you are able to show a long-term pattern of disruption and blocks, then you can create a long-term abuse case page much like this one.
Here are some Cancun IPs I ran into during the past year:
Good luck with this investigation. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, per WP:LTA, at least one indefinite block is usually the requirement to start a long-term abuse case. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected SP activity

Hi Binks, just for info, I suspect the sock that has today and over the past couple of days been posting at the World War II T/P has turned it's attention to Bombing of Dresden in World War II T/P. I just rolled back a carbon copy of claims made over at the WW2 T/P about Britain's involvement in starting city bombing. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Deletion of relevant covers of Caravan (1936 song)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin genres...

Hello

I see your interested in the genres 'issues' with LZ. I'm watching these articles also. I would like to get a debate going on some of these differences of opinion that, like your recent revert, keep cropping up. Nuro msg me 06:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just post something on Talk:Led Zeppelin or other appropriate talk page. Note that my own opinion is not what drives my work here in genres. Rather, published descriptions of a musical artist and their music are what drives me. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on such WP:Reliable sources, so any discussion of genre should be a discussion of how best to represent the various published sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OH for sure, not suggesting my personal opinion is a factor, but I feel some of the albums have not been appropriately 'genre'd' so to speak. I'm doing my research to support any options still, and I will put up a notice on the LZ page itself, instead of each album. Nuro msg me 08:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post WW II air combat losses

Because the section deleted was the North Vietnamese claim of 14 F-105s shot down on one day of December 1966, it should be obvious on its face that it's absurd. Such a loss would have ended the US bombing campaign of the north. According to the Center for Naval Analysis' compilation of all US in-flight losses in SE Asia, the USAF lost 83 planes in flight that month throughout all of Indochina, to all causes on combat missions. The most aircraft lost on one day was four on two occasions (Dec. 2 and 8). One F-105 was known lost to MiGs (Dec 14) and one possibly (Dec 8). According to ACIG.org's database for US and Vietnamese air-air claims, the most the NVAF claimed in one day that month was three (Dec. 2). The total claims by NVAF pilots that month was 10, including seven F-105s. http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=243&Itemid=47. Therefore, my revision was totally valid and reflects documented objectivity. Over to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.111.15 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Deletion of relevant covers of Caravan (1936 song), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

IP troll

Hi could you remove the PA seen here [2] that was made by the persistent IP hopper? I tried to remove it but the IP added it again [3] as seen here. Thanks. Caden cool 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that guy is a pain. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to intimidate me from making edits that agree with the facts about Gothic bands

You are not a moderator, all you do is edit the same as me, except you do it alot more. Three people disagreeing with me has nothing to do with the references I put up, plus on the Talk page of Bauhaus_(band) as I mentioned before has consensus that Bauhaus is a Goth band, no one except you three have been pushing the idea that Bauhaus is a post-punk band and yet your only "consensus" is your constant reverts and not looking at the Talk page to discuss there before making any edits. Stop trying to rewrite history and read up on the Gothic subculture from NME and other legit publications (like the BBC, Guardian newspaper, etc) that were around when Bauhaus started as a band and not companies that were made years later after Gothic bands like Bauhaus broke up like Allmusic who have no firsthand experience with the band and make their opinions of it second hand.67.83.143.151 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take part in the discussions underway at Talk:Siouxsie and the Banshees? Why don't you start a discussion at Talk:Bauhaus (band). You'll get a lot better response from other editors if you list a bunch of sources to see what they say about whether a band is more goth than post-punk. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I received an inaccurate critic from you of my edit that my edit was an opinion and not representing the source

My references are well documented and come from a highly reputable sources unlike the other contraceptive sources that some user has over generalized the North Carolina study and ignored the fact that contraceptive journals could potentially profit from publishing articles critical of CPC regardless of the article's validity. The data presented below is quantitative and directly taken from the source and not out of context.

These centers may disseminate information pertaining to the increased mental health problems after abortion in post-abortive women compared to non-post abortive mothers as scientifically documented in a study on the emotional wellbeing of 877,181 women, 163,831 of those who had abortions [1]. Some articles have alleged that some CPCs have also been known to disseminate false medical information, usually about the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion.[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Priscilla Coleman (2011). "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009". The British Journal of Psychology. 199: 180–186. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230. PMID 21881096.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference star was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Bryant AG, Levi EE; Levi (July 2012). "Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina". Contraception. 86 (6): 752–6. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.001. PMID 22770790.
  4. ^ Rowlands S (2011). "Misinformation on abortion". Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 16 (4): 233–40. doi:10.3109/13625187.2011.570883. PMID 21557713.
The problem here is that your source says nothing about what CPCs are doing—nothing at all. You have to provide a source connecting the practices of CPCs to this study, or to a similar study. Anything else is a violation of the WP:SYNTH guideline. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the misinformation article is over generalizing from an article about North Carolina to all CPC's and from non-neutral Journals such as contraceptive that could profit in supporting Planned Parenthood being one of the leading providers of abortion and contraceptives. my source validates the statement made in the wiki regarding CPC's alleged mental health problems in post-abortive women. Clearly a true statement although some information may have been exaggerated by some centers. My edit says two facts 1) CPC distribute information related to the mental health risk of abortion (that is already referenced in wiki, yes?) and 2) that there truly are published risks to the mental health of post-abortive women (that I properly cited). I am giving an objective view of the otherwise subjective and possibly biased view that all mental health risks related to abortion is misinformation... THE TRUTH IS that there is a risk but some risks may have been over-exaggerated by some centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tifischer (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still violating WP:SYNTH as the BJP article does not mention CPCs. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moon River Edit

Hi Binksternet,

I recently was going through the Moon River page and noticed that a version by Andrea Bocelli had been left out of the 'Recordings' section. I added it in, feeling that he was a notable artist, but understand that it was removed by you (along with a number of other cover versions) because perhaps they were not notable enough.

Moon River is by far my favorite song, and I found the 'Recordings' section to be incredibly helpful when I found myself yearning to listen to different versions by notable artists. I understand that there are many cover versions of the song, but I feel that prominent and world-renowned artists such as Andrea Bocelli and others that you removed are a noteworthy addition to the article (especially considering Clay Aiken, somebody much less well-known/renowned had his cover included). I created an account solely with the purpose of adding Andrea Bocelli's version into the page because I thought it was a version that other fans of the song should be aware of and be able to listen to.

I think it would be a shame for the content that you removed to be left out of the sight of fans - it prevents them from stumbling upon the tremendous body of artists that have paid their respects to the song with a cover. I differ to you because of your seniority and experience on Wikipedia, but I certainly believe that reverting to the old edit with these cover versions included is worth considering. Please advise.

Jcsea483 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jcsea483. The guideline I was following is WP:SONGCOVER which sets a high bar for mentioning covers of songs. Unremarkable album cuts are not important enough, nor are B-side, bonus tracks and most live performances.
If you think that Bocelli's version is important to the topic, then you should find a few WP:Reliable sources that talk about Bocelli's version in the context of the song itself, rather than in the context of Bocelli's music. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cevin Key

But it was sourced, the man himself mentions it in the video, and his name is clearly on the credits of dub reggae records. Also I got the same warning for Devo, despite being able to provide sources for post-punk, so that it's now in the article, as it should be. And should have been all along, once it was, I have no idea why it was removed. Don't threaten and bully me. 142.55.48.18 (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=709126247"