User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 859: Line 859:


::::[[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]], do you feel that there is enough evidence here for you to run a WP:CheckUser in this case? Check for any attempts to avoid detection via [[WP:Proxy]]? [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::::[[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]], do you feel that there is enough evidence here for you to run a WP:CheckUser in this case? Check for any attempts to avoid detection via [[WP:Proxy]]? [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)



:::::Before you continue making baseless accusations rooted entirely with your disagreement with my edits and that of {{User|BrentNewland}}, I will remind you of [[WP:FAITH]], a principle I am still upholding in my interactions with you. What do you think it is more likely, that I am a [[WP:SOCKPUPPET]], or rather, that significant attention exists on this article, which is causing it to receive an increase of contributers of like minds? My _possibly_ incorrect usage of tags, wherever that may be happening, I admit comes from my still gradual learning wikipedia editing rules and conventions since as you noted, I don't edit here enough (though I've slowly picked up more and more editing conventions). My recent edits to [[men's rights movement] were made in the spirit of [[WP:CAREFUL]] and [[WP:SOFIXIT]], and do not reflect unique concerns of just me nor {{User|BrentNewland}}. In fact, if you check the [[men's rights movement]] article you will see many other people have raised similar objections within the talk page.

:::::In terms of my use of wikipedia policies similar to {{User|BrentNewland}}. I will admit to you last night I spent many hours reading over Wikipedia policies so that I could properly use them where appropriate to allow for proper, good faith improvements to this article. If you look at my recent edit history I believe you will see that I have used Wikipedia policies accurately in good faith to promote good NPOV edits. In fact last night I even made a recent contribution to the [[WP:NOR]] article to make it internally consistent with [[WP:CLAIM]] after my recent study of both! Anyways, back on point: while I can't speak for {{User|BrentNewland}}, I believe the overlap of {{User|BrentNewland}} using wording of [[WP:ALLEGED]] (i.e. "expressions of doubt") almost certainly comes from my mention of that policy in previous edits I made before he starting editing the page, and by other users who pointed out similar issues of bias within the talk page. I don't see how the overlap of our agreement of the presence of a Wikipedia policy violation [[WP:ALLEGED]] is proof of anything suspicious or a sign of wrong doing. His use of the term likely comes from him his own independent conclusion (shared by many) that this article is biased. If not, then any specific language probably came from seeing what he saw he me wrote or what others wrote in the talk page before he made edits himself. I don't know, because I am not {{User|BrentNewland}}.

:::::Finally: {{User|Flyer22}} on your use of [[WP:VALID]] it is clear that the source of our disagreement comes from our relative **opinions* and **perceptions** of the relative size, opinions, makeup and character of the "mens movement" relative to the women's movement, to the point where you are happy to treat it as a fringe belief when it is not. Currently this article heavily sources from feminist critiques to create the impression that [[WP:VALID]] compels this article to take a negative or critical stance in tone within the article about the men's movement. I would argue this tone is truly rooted in [[WP:CLAIM]] due to academic disagreements by the parties about how to describe this movement. Sources on the [[men's rights movement]] should be treated the same way sources on pro-sex feminism and anti-sex feminism are -- as ideological positions treated with balance in respect to their use of sources. Currently the article is skewed by its use of sources primarily due to the excessive attention one side of this academic position has given this article over the other. However, appropriate sources do exist (such as from Warren Farrell) to provide a more balanced NPOV of the mens rights movement than is given here, so that it can be accuratetly described "as they say it is" with fair consideration given to critiques without giving them [[WP:UNDUE]] of critiques (which at a minimum should never be more than half of an article, according to the Proportionality guidelines of [[WP:CRIT]] ) [[User:Spudst3r|Spudst3r]] ([[User talk:Spudst3r|talk]]) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


== Editing Mercedes W204 ==
== Editing Mercedes W204 ==

Revision as of 23:03, 10 February 2015

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]

!!UPDATE!!

I have charted Scooter as Electronic dance music (EDM) only due to persistent genre warrior from IP hopping Greek genre warrior.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create a case page for this guy, as he came back to genre warrior again last night, disruptively reverting The Prodigy. I have reverted his edit for now. Thanks. JG Malmsimp (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to it. Putting together those kinds of cases is an exhausting process which takes my full attention for several hours. It will happen when I'm ready. There's also another case I have to make, and it's ahead in line. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found unseen IPs from this guy - I have stripped Sash! as EDM only due to persistent genre warrior from IP hopping Greek genre warrior, regardless of whether techno or not. Please create a case page for this vandal now.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 17:36, 29 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]

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]
Then what can I say, many classic songs have these lists which show how popular they are by being recorded by numerous artists, many of them are singles and many are not. For example here's Jame's Browns It's a Man's Man's Man's World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Man%27s_Man%27s_Man%27s_World so please do your thing. Or are you just biased and use this 'rule' to ruin other people's hard work? Uncleangelo (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to help make the encyclopedia better. If you don't like the SONGCOVER limitations then you can work work toward changing them. Me, I respect the consensus that some dedicated people put together about about how to build song articles, and if I had the time and energy I would go through every single song article and remove the song cover list entries which did not meet the guideline. As far as I'm concerned, people who don't know about the guideline, or people who actively work against it, are not "ruining" the encylopedia, but they sure are making more work for those like myself who want to build it in an orderly fashion, with a reassuring amount of consistency in the style of content. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 17 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]

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]

Bink, remember: Illegitimati non carborundum. (Yeah, it's awful Latin, but the idea is correct.) --Yaush (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yaush.
IP guy: so why would an editor from the state of Akershus, Norway, be interested in typing out this long diatribe against me but not interested in using the talk pages at Talk:John Fogerty and Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn? You were edit warring at those articles and were blocked for it, but you evaded the blocks with new IPs. On Wikipedia, that behavior is unacceptable, despite the truth of what you were inserting. I've been blocked, too, and at no time did I evade my block. The system isn't going to give you special rights, to allow you to run rogue just because you are always right. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional pages

Hiya Binkster: Sorting through more Commons deletions, these pages popped out:

  • User:Benzoliverfaye
  • User:John_Reuben_Oliver
  • User_talk:Sumit_Kawate
  • User:Syed Sadam Hussian Shah

I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia AFD processes, but they seem to be self-promotional/promotional in nature and would appreciate your help in doing whatever gets done to these sorts of things. All the images are nominated for deletion. PS no more beach buems in a long time. Amazing that one can now search Google by camera serial number. Who knew? As always, thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You bet! I'm on it. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where to find info on this? There's a new page for the Commando_Jeep which seems to be pure product promotion, and not worth saving.Anmccaff (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added my thoughts to Talk:Commando Jeep. The article needs a thorough trimming. The topic is barely notable, perhaps it even fails WP:GNG. I saw one third party reference describing the topic in depth, but GNG needs two or more in-depth refs. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that fast work! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arb

It's interesting that both you and Elizium suggested that I'm trying to correct a systemic bias issue - I'd disagree. While I think there's potentially systemic bias on this issue to be found elsewhere at WP (compare the relative ease of describing or categorizing people or organizations as antisemitic vs. homophobic, an issue I've worked towards consistency for in the past; or descriptions of the sexual orientation or partners of people), I don't think that's the issue here, and I think that framing implies that Esoglou's position and behavior are a lot more mainstream, on WP or in general, than they actually are.

Not meaning to say that you should change your statement - I just noticed this and didn't think the request page itself was the right place to bring it up, as it seemed a little off-topic to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I expected you to communicate this thought to me. Perhaps I should have made my point be less about systemic bias and more about how you oppose—rightly—local bias at various articles where it arises. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by expected, but I do think one sometimes sees a sort of local bubble develop in particular topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Zabadu (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.You improperly used a warning template on my talk page. Since I am not engaged in an edit-war, and am merely bringing an article in line with similar articles (which is proper Wikipedia editing) and eliminating marginalization (which is also proper), please refrain from improperly using warning templates. Thank you. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring, my friend, against consensus, so you must be warned about it prior to the issue being brought before WP:ANEW. It's heavy-handedness from you that gets a heavy response from me. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frevel

Sorry for interrupt you but I found a song that I need somebody who is able to edit that page because I don't know how to do it, the song is named Candle in the wind. The page is completely dirty so that page needs a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frevel8093 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by dirty. Can you give an example or two? Better yet, make an WP:Edit request on the song's talk page, and lots of people will see it, not just me. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An artist... seeking attention

You might find https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85:Artist_Mohsen_Attya that page of interest... I found it - as usual - in the image. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page would be a difficult job for me to fix, because of language difficulties. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood... you may find this other discussion of interest. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting indeed! I wonder how much socking by Russavia will be accepted going forward. There was a period he was socking like crazy on en.wiki and mostly getting blocked by a bunch of people who were looking out for that stuff, but if he socks like that on Commons the friendlier environment there might simply accept a lot of it. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding he has been perma-blocked by the foundation. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy

Hi, I see that you commented previously on the Talk:Theosophy article. There is again a discussion going on there about the inclusion of modern Theosophy in the article. Your insights could be helpful. Cheers.--Trinity9538 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been keeping an eye on the recent conversation but I don't yet have an opinion to share. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annie

You do realize that you're removing the final act of the film by doing that, right? It leaves only half the plot. Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen the film, then you will be better equipped than I to reduce the plot to 700 words and still catch the main points. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it. I just know a film doesn't end while the two main villains are plotting against the protagonist. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. We need someone who saw the film, someone good at being brief. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Over Categories

Hello, you appear to be edit warring over page categories on the Sex-selective abortion page which has a 1RR policy, and you have reverted my changes twice now.[1][2] Furthermore, your edits appear indefensible by removing specific categories. According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." I've decided to go through talk page discussion first to resolve the issue and do not want to go through AN/I over such a minor issue, but you are edit-warring to make indefensible changes that conflict with WP policy on categories. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, got it. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 1RR on abortion related page

Your removal of the Category:abortion debate from the article David M. Fergusson twice in 24 hours appears to be a violation of the 1RR on abortion related pages. [3], [4] Please refrain from edit warring in violation of community sanctions on abortion related pages/topics.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, but my first edit there was a considered removal of a longstanding category I considered wrong. It was not a revert. Thus I made just one revert, the second edit. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding new content does not count as a revert, but removing existing content does count as a revert. Thinking the content is "wrong" is not an excuse for violating 1RR. Please see WP:RV & WP:EW.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's the issue of the preceding edit which you think I'm reverting. Rather than looking at a preceding edit, I came at it from another direction, looking at the listed articles in Category:Abortion debate, and seeing which ones should not be so categorized. I didn't look at the previous edits, in fact, my change was the first I had ever touched the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, I came to your talk page instead of going to ANI, hoping that would peacefully end edit warring etc, but your lack of acknowledgement of any problem whatsoever with your recent editing suggests a more serious problem. You appear to be an established editor so it seems you should already know what counts as a revert. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

	+

Information icon 

	+

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

It doesn't appear this will be resolved through talk page discussion and you are just expanding your edit warring to additional pages, so I think it best to just address this through AN/I. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bjork

Please refer to MOS:DATES for year ranges. Specifically Year "Ranges" Edit was appropriate Thanks. Partyclams (talk)

You and I must be reading the same words differently. See WP:DATERANGE which says we use 2010–14 rather than 2010–2014 for year ranges. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log

To enforce a community decision, and for violating WP:1RR at multiple pages, as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log,
you have been blocked from editing for two weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the sanction and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked, so I'm pinging Bbb23. I apologize for disrupting the wiki with my removals and reversions of categories at a handful of topics related to abortion. I see now that my appreciation of what constitutes a revert was wrong, that removing anything from an article is a revert. I promise to limit myself to 0RR for six months with regard to categorization of articles under the abortion umbrella. In the past when I've been blocked, I have made promises akin to this one and I have always kept my word.
Just like Jaron Lanier says in the link Yaush posted below, "an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions." Of course, I am not insulated from the results of my actions! But I would like to continue helping to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per this agreement Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Binksternet, two things. First, that's a rather narrow restriction, even though I understand that in this instance that's what caused me to block you. Second, assuming for the moment that I accepted the restriction and unblocked you, what would be the consequence if you violated the restriction? As an aside, I haven't been on-wiki as much as usual lately, so please don't think I'm ignoring you if you post a response and I don't reply right away.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second question: blocking is for protection of the wiki from disruption. If I were seen as incorrigibly disruptive then I should be blocked indefinitely. If I were seen as temporarily disruptive then I should be blocked for a certain length of time. Those are general answers since I have never violated a promise made at an unblock request, so I don't know why you would ask me a question containing conjecture about me breaking such a promise in the future. I feel like I'm a trustworthy participant in the project of building the encyclopedia.
  • First question: Disruptive reversion of the category abortion debate at five abortion-related articles is why I was blocked. My offer is to refrain from any sort of reversion of categorization on all the articles and categories which fall under the abortion topic, so I thought the offer was pretty wide, not narrow. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Binksternet, generally a restriction of this nature has a clear consequence. I'm willing to accept the restriction (I won't quibble on the wide-narrow issue), but I don't like an unspecified length of time depending on the violation. So, I will accept your restriction if you agree that if you violate 0RR during the six months, you will be blocked for one month and that block will also be pursuant to the community sanctions. Let me know if that's acceptable to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree to the conditions. One month community-sanctioned block if I break my promise. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've unblocked you. One last comment. I want you to understand that the block and my subsequent comments were predicated on treating you like anyone else, not based on my personal opinion of your contributions to the project. My personal opinion, as I hope you know, is that you are a valuable, long-time contributor and an asset to Wikipedia. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, that's harsh. Let me reiterate what Yaush said above: don't let them get you down. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer man, this sucks... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO!!!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!!!! I'LL HAVE A BIG RIOT ON MY HANDS!!!!!! JG Malmsimp (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) :( :([reply]
It's the hive mind at work. http://edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism Which is one reason why I don't spend more time at Wikipedia than I do. --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry this happened Bink. Hang in there and enjoy your time in RL. Best regards to ya always. MarnetteD|Talk 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrymanDavies

Hi, Binksternet. I'm sorry to see you've been blocked. I see at User talk:DrymanDavies that you were intending to present evidence of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. I don't know the proper procedure for doing that, but if you want to post your evidence here, I'll be happy to copy it to the SPI page. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still use your user talk page when blocked?Anmccaff (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmccaff: Yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)
Technically, I'm only supposed to use the talk page for the purpose of requesting to be unblocked. Traditionally, there's more leeway than that. Personally, I will take some time off to catch up on a few projects before asking to be unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad to see that's all moot now.Anmccaff (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HarveyCarter uses throwaway accounts, so I think it won't be fruitful to chase this one down. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped, anyway. And I can't see any activity under other names or IPs. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm glad to see you're up and running again. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AR Kane page continued

The "longtime genre warrior" charge aside, I fail to see the necessity of reverting the entire AR Kane page to a past state of incomprehensive and scantily researched blurbs when the recent version (that which you reverted) seemed a significantly more citationally respectable and diligently researched one. Genre abuse does not logically engender the wholesale rejection of a user's additions to a Wikipedia page, and the reversion represents a broad and biased reaction to a specific problem (genre abuse leading to comprehensive reversion of the page in its entirety) rather than a rational response informed by an authentic desire to build up a Wikipedia page as a valid and constructive information resource. In addition, dance pop is surely nothing resembling any critic or writer's comprehensive description of the band, and your choice of it is as biased (and more reductive) than whatever may have been there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.147.207 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sockpuppet case about you, you should be posting only as Kbrito162, not logged out as the anonymous person from Cranford, New Jersey, or the anonymous person who often spends hours at NYU. The A.R. Kane article was mentioned specifically as an example of your abuse of multiple accounts, to get your way in a content dispute. So I don't really sympathize with your complaint, especially since the difference between the article as you last changed it on December 31, and the article four months earlier when others still had a major influence on it, is not so very large. Binksternet (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JAPANESE GENRE WARRIOR STRIKES BACK!!!

Once again, the New Order vandal has been reverting all my New Order edits, all in the course of 1 afternoon in Tokyo. Although you've been blocked, his vandalism returns true to form. Can you get another administrator to do it since you are blocked? Thanks!! JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Malmsimp: Page URL? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to OccultZone: On Brotherhood and Power, Corruption & Lies GO GET HIM!! THANKS!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone those edits. While one of the article has been edit warred for a while, other one recently had a new edit war. WP:RFPP would be a good idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Binksternet: His 126.205.xx.xx IPs has been recently blocked by another administrator for a period of 1 WHOLE MONTH. starting from February 9.

People With Tinnitus

Now that the list of people with tinnitus has been deleted, a list has been given its own page. Are you going to delete this one now? People with tinnitus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman 99 1999 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single citation

Hi Binkster: I'm not too sure how to say "no citations" in Spanish Wiki, but perhaps you know someone? Please see [5] which popped up - as usual, in image review! Please Ping me with reply I don't spend a lot of time on en:W these days! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Joan

Hi, dear Binksternet! I'm sorry I am writing it here, but I just started editing Wikis today, and only because I saw what was a blatant biased article on Wikipedia - the article on Pope Joan. I have then made some completely unbiased editions there (really neutral, just so it would look less like Catholic propaganda) and all my edits keep getting reversed by the 3 only users who apparently mod that page, which have clear personal biases regarding the Church. I saw that you edited the criticism of the Catholic Church page in Wiki and look like a very reasonable and experient Wiki user, which is what I think is needed in that page. Would you bother taking a look at that? Thank you very much and sorry if I posted this in the wrong place :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.107.196 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on the article. Please do not change the page any more today as you will get blocked for violating WP:3RR. I'm concerned that you are aiming to make the article less that Joan is a fable or legend, and more that Pope Joan is a fact. That position is not supported by the top sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Bink! Back in the late 90's I was talking with two seminarians and mentioned that I had read Donna Cross's book. You would have thought I had lit the blue touch paper (just had to make this link since it is blue) as one of them was sure she had existed and the other was adamant that she hadn't - or if she had she was extraordinarily wicked for having fooled everyone. This thread sparked (there I go again-heehee) my memory so I thought I would share it with ya. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass notification

Is there any sort of template or suchlike for extracting participants in an article? The GM/NCL business is headed toward dispute resolution, and I'd like to get everyone notified without having to plow through all the archives to do so. (I've plowed through all the archives, of course, but for different reasons.)

My apologies for bugging you, but experience has taught me that asking for help on the official pages sometimes brings with it "Help No One Wants" -see the "list of trolleybus systems" page recently, for example, and you are yourself a former participant without too much ax-grinding showing.

Again, welcome back. I was a little unsure how much fuss to make during the block; I can picture a certain sort of admin seeing an outpouring of support in a bad light, and taking it out on the block-ee, and I can also picture a certain kind of block-ee using it as a soapbox. (Neither the case here, certainly not for you, and I see no sign of that for him, but I can see these possibilities leading to a special etiquette.)Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the respect you showed me while I was blocked. Regarding a notional tool for listing all the major contributors at an article, I don't know if one exists. I usually pull names from the article history and from the talk page, manually. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No charge. (Pronounced with a long "H" between "A" and"G.") I was afraid you were going to say that about a notification tool; I can see, come to think of it, why creating an InstSpam system like that might be a little dangerous. Any wikiguru you'd recommend? I'd also like to figure out what the best dispute resolution method for questions of fact would be. Going straight to the most rigorous might actually make sense here.
Come to think of it, I'm going to copy some of this to the article talk page itself.Anmccaff (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an unusual name for a band

Greetings Binkster! Please take a look at this page, which as usual I found looking at images. Seems a bit light on reality, but I'm not the rock and roll expert! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the user space promotion. The first link is a draft article, not mainspace, so it comes in lower in my list of priorities. I'll deal with it soon. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Punk

there is more than one style of doing it. Its been worked out between at least 2 editors. Frankly it Looks better and is uniform.take it to the talk page. What you're changing doesn't look better its worse after you're done. its never been right for years now it is. 2601:C:2081:2B30:E166:8F28:8B75:2ABF (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which two editors? You are abusing multiple IP addresses; a violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And you will note that Mashaunix and myself count as two editors. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It Won't Be Soon Before Long

There's two sources on Genre field are first one is questionable source, and second one is Rolling Stone where says about one of major sellers. Has any reliable sources for other genres? 115.164.84.76 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is not "questionable"; it's Aaron Sagers describing the album as "a slickly produced pure pop-rock, modern disco album". Are you looking for more genres? The instructions for the Template:Infobox album instruct us to use genres sparingly in the genre field of the infobox, to stay general. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Mountenay

Please explain your specific reasons for supposing that the page for the public figure Denise Mountenay should be deleted. Your strong and abrupt reaction to make such an assertion leaves me to wonder if you have a bias against the subject or the person who is depicted in the article. Articles are usually flagged for reasons an article is needing modification to meet Wikipedia standards rather than such a harsh response as to immediately mark a page for deletion without any attempt to work with the article author (namely me). Please explain yourself sir. I wouldn't want to believe that there are people who simply oppose the creation of pages they just don't like, etc. I hope that is not the case in your situation and that you will work with me rather than against me to resolve your concerns. Bushost (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bushost, my impression from looking at the article and its sources is that Binkster may have a point. It's not clear Denise Mountenay meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, which I hope you will take the time to look over at WP:NOTABILITY. It's not a matter of biases; I am, myself, pro-life. Regardless, any further discussion about whether the article should be deleted should take place at the article talk page, not here. And I strongly advise not leading off your part of that discussion with personal attacks on Binkster or anyone else; we discuss the merits of editing proposals, not the politics or morals of those making the proposals. --Yaush (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yaush is right. The article's notability is on the table, not the question of whether I am biased. If you were able to prove me biased it would not save your article from deletion. What you need to do is show us in-depth WP:SECONDARY sources which talk about Mountenay independently of her own voice. Binksternet (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for your awards room

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I know that you have received this one a few times before but you deserve a couple hundred more. Your work tracking the "Hong Kong socks" alone means you derserve this. But, Let It Be Known to All and Sundry" that your keeping WikiP articles clean is much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Z147
Thank you!
Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

Re: your recent "trim". Would you regard this as an WP:RS? It has five pages worth, i.e. about 50. Truly amazed that you even swept away this, that gave the album its title. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A table of search results is not really a strong source for satisfying WP:SONGCOVER which asks that the cover version be notable by itself. The search results page shows that the cover versions exist, but little more than that.
You might be interested in starting an RfC about easing the restrictions of SONGCOVER since that appears to be the point of friction. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still reeling. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) .. just seems a little heavy handed[reply]
I understand. Lots of people feel like a song article should include every cover version that has ever been done, and this strategy is followed so often that many of our song articles have dozens of non-notable covers listed. The SONGCOVER limitation is seen as quite severe by the people who follow the strategy of all-inclusiveness. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously think that three "Other versions released as singles" are a fair representation of the musical legacy of this song? I am amazed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs?

Regarding a message left on my (temporary) talk page, I was informed by you that I am apparently "vandal warring". Changing the leads to suit the facts is not "vandalizing", it is correct - all of the people whose articles I changed were born in Britain to at least one British parent, making them British; if they had applied for American citizenship then this would be noted. I could not find any evidence of this, so changed the lead accordingly. I came back to add sources, only to find a rather sharp, abusive message for me with no explanation. Just being a moderator does not make you automatically correct and you should not simply jump to conclusions and throw around baseless accusations; an explanation would have been appreciated. Don't worry, I will not be contributing to Wikipedia again. 81.132.64.200 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that at the biography Beryl Davis, another IP editor from the UK made the exact same edit you did. That's why I assumed you were using multiple IP addresses. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wright brothers

Revdel applied, email sent to oversight, and block applied. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling evidence for Esoglou's article misbehavior

Hi Bink - I'm pinging the clerks and admins here to check if this is proper, but if they agree, would you consider splitting with me the task of looking through Esoglou's edits in the topic area and compiling diffs/explanations? I imagine the diffs you'd present in your section and the ones I will be presenting will overlap a lot, and time is short, so we could save ourselves some work by agreeing to break up articles/timeframes/whatever. @Dougweller: @Euryalus: @Lankiveil: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.
Split by timeframe?
Together, the diffs should show WP:NOTHERE and demonstrate how he uses persistent re-opening of unfruitful arguments to drive away others. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then maybe we aren't looking for the same things. I was going to show a small sample of misrepresentation of sources and insertion of POV language, although I suppose those do contribute to NOTHERE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess we are working at different ends, which is useful anyway. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting close to 1,000 words, so whatever I add will have to be quite succinct. Esoglou has violated the limit with his long list of evidence (over 2,000 words) and response to you (more than 600 words). Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, We've granted a word limit extension to a couple of people, so feel free to post a note here or at the Evidence talkpage if you'd like to go up to 2000 words. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually never mind, I noted it on the Evidence talkpage myself. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheesh, I should go cook myself something nice now. Anything obvious I've missed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything you've missed, but I consider myself much less able to determine all the things Esoglou has done wrong. You're the key to this case; the one with the most knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing history of archived articles.

Is this possible? And how would I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Do you mean deleted Wikipedia articles? You would have to be an administrator. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nahh, archived stuff. The archives show the last edit; what about the previous ones?Anmccaff (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what you are asking for, but here is a list of the last 500 versions of the article about the GM streetcar conspiracy. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing, but for the talk pages?Anmccaff (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right! So the talk page archives can be viewed one-at-a-time at the following three links:

Or you can look through the last 500 edits to the talk page here. That gets back to October 2011. The next older 500 talk page edits are here, which gets all the way back to January 2004 and the first talk page entry. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. You are a gentleman and a scholar and a judge of fine music.Anmccaff (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email from you

I received an email today stating you had left me a message. I went to my page, no message. Could you please let me know if you sent a message, or if you made an edit to my talk page? I don't want to continue this fight, if that's what it's all about. Zabadu (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I removed a comment by the San Diego hoaxer from your user page. That probably triggered an email to you, because of the way you have set up your user preferences. If you want to stop getting emailed like that you can go to your Special:Preferences and uncheck the bottom box.
I am not continuing any fight with you. I apologized to you at ANI and I am still sorry I assumed you were the hoaxer from San Diego. Best wishes, Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, and thank you.Zabadu (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another striving artist

Hiya Binkster, check out this one Mertim Gokalp; slightly light on references, found as usual from odd image uploads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk)

I will look when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our mutual friend

Hi Binskternet. This guy might be worth keeping an eye on. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forewarned! Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help for a discussion

Hello, I've started a discussion regarding the genres of Bull of Heaven. I thought that as a skilled editor, you would be able to help (and I'm intending to model the discussion after one you started on Iggy Pop.) Also, where can I also post this message to invite other editors for contribution to the discussion (other than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Project is the best place, I think, as there is no Experimental Music Project. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Forleh is definitely trying to own the article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are Forfeh and Lagopodous the same person? If so, somebody's gonna get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible. They don't edit at the same time and Lagopodous account was created only after Forleh's bulk of genres were removed by an IP. 75.166.140.139 may also belong to one of them (or to both) While Forfeh has occasionally edited unrelated articles, all three users mainly edit on Bull of Heaven-related topics. And indeed, Forleh and Lagopodous look exactly like the same person in terms of their writings. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JFK Conspiracy Theory

Why did you ignore the second source? It is a scanned government document released after the JFK Assassination Record Info Act of 1992, which supports Conolly's claim of Jack Lawrence's presence at the scene/suspect status. This scanned FBI document[1] also mentions that Lawrence was questioned, and supports Conolly's claims of Lawrence's employment at the Dallas dealership and personal associations.

The more specific information comes from two published books that offer the details presented in Conolly's video: High Treason, a 1993 non-fiction by Robert J. Groden, who presented the first network showing of the Zapruder film; and Crossfire by Jim Marrs, a 1989 New York Times non-fiction bestseller.

So there are two government sources and two published NYT nonfiction bestsellers. I don't understand why the video is "not important": it contains interviews with people who were actually there (and as an eternal skeptic I was constantly fact checking the salient proof and key players while watching). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.136.7 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/pizzo_frank/pizzo_frank.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
You appear to be using the Conolly video as a reference, but I don't think the video qualifies as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why didn't you just delete the last paragraph that uses his specific theory? There is nothing wrong with the two official sources, and the other two sources (Crossfire and High Treason) are already referenced multiple times on the page.

read this

Hello, do you know of instruments? something like guitars or bass ?? well I want to discuss the issue on the instruments used Sting especially the bass. I think two things happen here, or you've never seen a sting play live several times and know nothing about the bass, you will see each under this accredited in that section has been used frequently by sting, for example in the music video for "Demolition Man" appears using Fender Telecaster Bass, Fender even have a model in his honor, i have photos of sting using a Steinberger L-2 Bass. the Fender Precision Bass has always been used by Sting from his years with The Police until today there are in fact a story about it and if you see a video of Sting playing bass'll know which is that in most of the videos. Sting can be seen playing an Ibanez Musician in the original video to "Message in a Bottle." His image Also Appears in several Ibanez catalogs from the period. the Spector NS-2 was used in the synchronicity concert and other events. I reported this because Sting and Adam Clayton are the musicians that have inspired me to play bass, and offer a particularly about the instruments he has played and is on bass and guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a published account of the instruments used by Sting. Your own observations are not enough, per WP:NOR, which says that information on Wikipedia must be previously published. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, look at these articles where results confirmed in Section Users and watch some videos of sting playing, I'll give you some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) this articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Telecaster_Bass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Precision_Bass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibanez_Musician_Bass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not be obsessive or idolizes to Sting

these sources are used in on these bass models, perhaps put this section makes some wrong ?? learn about instruments and you can distinguish the uses, know nothing about it and can not distinguish or know where bass is where the use is no problem of wikipedia, check out the articles on other musicians who play and see Instrumnt provided the information on their instruments as it is normal in Wikipeadia, do not be obsessive and perfectionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that an IP user has started a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard regarding you. If you already knew that please ignore this message. Thanks.--Chamith (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's a draft, but

Some parts of this could be used as examples on the peacock page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does wiki have a Hagiography page? Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh heh...
Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Sex Type Thing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --FourthLineGoon (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended

Dear Binksternet, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the thanks regarding Train Vuia, I know you're a great crusader for neutrality & proper refs so I really appreciate your endorsement of my take on this. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back atcha! Thanks for your vigilance. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism article

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Feminism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording I used is more neutral than that used in the article itself. It's the same as the wording forced on the Men's Rights Movements. See talk page here. Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse the views of any group. The intro to the Feminism article is clearly written in a manner that presents the viewpoint of Feminism as fact, and does not have the neutrality necessary. BrentNewland (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that your wording was more neutral. The reliable sources do not go through the tortured wording you used. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the wording I used was "tortured" could be construed as a personal insult or attack. Please be more careful with your wording in the future.

I see you have reverted my clarification tags. Please address this in the Feminism article talk page. BrentNewland (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tortured" might have been better expressed as "tortuous". No personal attack intended. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, regarding the Spudst3r (talk · contribs) and BrentNewland (talk · contribs) accounts, I think that you and EvergreenFir should get a WP:CheckUser to look into that. I am certain that if it's not a WP:Sockpuppet matter, it is a WP:Meatpuppet matter.
Furthermore, BrentNewland's edit here and statement here are imprecise with regard to how to apply those templates. What I mean by that is the following:
Template:Who states: Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.
Template:Whom states: Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance.
WP:Weasel words states: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.
And WP:CITELEAD states: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to have an administrator check my account. They will see that I have nothing to do with the other account referenced. As far as your other remarks, those should really be on the Feminism talk page, where discussion regarding edits to that article takes place. BrentNewland (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BrentNewland (talk · contribs), if you expect me to believe that you, a relatively dormant Wikipedia account that started editing Wikipedia again today only after the relatively dormant Spudst3r account started editing Wikipedia again a day ago, are unrelated to that account when both accounts edit the men's rights aspect in essentially the same way (including by their focus on WP:Words to watch), you have chosen the wrong person to believe you. But carry on as usual, I suppose. The truth usually comes out on matters such as these, especially in the obvious cases. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"if you expect me to believe" - I don't expect you to believe anything. If you have concerns that I am using multiple accounts, take it to the appropriate notice board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations Your discussion here is not productive, serves no purpose, and I see it as an attempt to start an argument with me. Please refrain from such accusations and inflammatory discussions outside of their proper venues. BrentNewland (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion gets a WP:Disruptive WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet off Wikipedia, then it is productive. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I'm being brought up in this user talk page... but I might as well respond: In regards to the bad faith accusations from Flyer22 (talk · contribs): feel free to perform a WP:CheckUser on my account. You will see I have been editing wikipedia since 2006 on articles that interest me -- the latest Men's rights movement article being the most recent. Currently the men's rights movement subject is prominent and receiving significant public attention as of late -- so it's no surprise the article is receiving additional attention from newer editors like myself. Personally I should explain this article caught my attention after reading it due to its heavy use of Expressions of Doubt WP:ALLEGED and Undue focus WP:UNDUE on critiques vs. describing opinions within the movement "as they see it." As such, my concerns with the men's rights movement article are similar with BrentNewland (talk · contribs), (as I'm sure the opinions of Flyer22 (talk · contribs) are the same as other active editors on that page) -- but I should clarify that I differ from BrentNewland (talk · contribs) in that I see the resolution of this conflict coming from making the tone of men's rights movement article align better with the tone/balance of the feminism article, rather than vice versa. You will see that my efforts in this regard are already underway, and that during incidents of reverts I have appropriately explained my actions to promote consensus within the talk page. Spudst3r (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spudst3r, you call my opinion that you are related to the BrentNewland account bad-faith accusations; I call it common sense. Yes, your Spudst3r account has been registered with Wikipedia since 2006, and that account has edited Wikipedia sparingly since then. Like I stated above, it is relatively dormant. You are wasting your time trying to convince me that you are unrelated to the relatively dormant BrentNewland account. Notice that I mentioned WP:Sockpuppet and WP:Meatpuppet above. Binksternet and others have dealt with a lot of editors like you concerning the men's rights pages, and very experienced editors often know when a WP:Duck is a WP:Duck. The Spudst3r and BrentNewland accounts are not applying the templates or other tags precisely, and the pages I pointed to above show why the templates or other tags are not precise. Both accounts also show a huge disregard for WP:Due weight; do read it and its subsections carefully. The men's rights topic does not get equal weight; WP:Valid is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, BrentNewland stated, "Remove 'Expressions of doubt' which are only included to cast doubt on the claims of the Men's Rights Movement. This brings article more in line with article on Feminism, as far as neutrality is concerned. Wording is now neutral without changing intent."
Above, Spudst3r stated, "I should clarify that I differ from BrentNewland (talk · contribs) in that I see the resolution of this conflict coming from making the tone of men's rights movement article align better with the tone/balance of the feminism article, rather than vice versa."
Yeah, if you are going to claim you are unrelated, you might want to do a better job at not having the same, or essentially the same, wording. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus, do you feel that there is enough evidence here for you to run a WP:CheckUser in this case? Check for any attempts to avoid detection via WP:Proxy? Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Before you continue making baseless accusations rooted entirely with your disagreement with my edits and that of BrentNewland (talk · contribs), I will remind you of WP:FAITH, a principle I am still upholding in my interactions with you. What do you think it is more likely, that I am a WP:SOCKPUPPET, or rather, that significant attention exists on this article, which is causing it to receive an increase of contributers of like minds? My _possibly_ incorrect usage of tags, wherever that may be happening, I admit comes from my still gradual learning wikipedia editing rules and conventions since as you noted, I don't edit here enough (though I've slowly picked up more and more editing conventions). My recent edits to [[men's rights movement] were made in the spirit of WP:CAREFUL and WP:SOFIXIT, and do not reflect unique concerns of just me nor BrentNewland (talk · contribs). In fact, if you check the men's rights movement article you will see many other people have raised similar objections within the talk page.
In terms of my use of wikipedia policies similar to BrentNewland (talk · contribs). I will admit to you last night I spent many hours reading over Wikipedia policies so that I could properly use them where appropriate to allow for proper, good faith improvements to this article. If you look at my recent edit history I believe you will see that I have used Wikipedia policies accurately in good faith to promote good NPOV edits. In fact last night I even made a recent contribution to the WP:NOR article to make it internally consistent with WP:CLAIM after my recent study of both! Anyways, back on point: while I can't speak for BrentNewland (talk · contribs), I believe the overlap of BrentNewland (talk · contribs) using wording of WP:ALLEGED (i.e. "expressions of doubt") almost certainly comes from my mention of that policy in previous edits I made before he starting editing the page, and by other users who pointed out similar issues of bias within the talk page. I don't see how the overlap of our agreement of the presence of a Wikipedia policy violation WP:ALLEGED is proof of anything suspicious or a sign of wrong doing. His use of the term likely comes from him his own independent conclusion (shared by many) that this article is biased. If not, then any specific language probably came from seeing what he saw he me wrote or what others wrote in the talk page before he made edits himself. I don't know, because I am not BrentNewland (talk · contribs).
Finally: Flyer22 (talk · contribs) on your use of WP:VALID it is clear that the source of our disagreement comes from our relative **opinions* and **perceptions** of the relative size, opinions, makeup and character of the "mens movement" relative to the women's movement, to the point where you are happy to treat it as a fringe belief when it is not. Currently this article heavily sources from feminist critiques to create the impression that WP:VALID compels this article to take a negative or critical stance in tone within the article about the men's movement. I would argue this tone is truly rooted in WP:CLAIM due to academic disagreements by the parties about how to describe this movement. Sources on the men's rights movement should be treated the same way sources on pro-sex feminism and anti-sex feminism are -- as ideological positions treated with balance in respect to their use of sources. Currently the article is skewed by its use of sources primarily due to the excessive attention one side of this academic position has given this article over the other. However, appropriate sources do exist (such as from Warren Farrell) to provide a more balanced NPOV of the mens rights movement than is given here, so that it can be accuratetly described "as they say it is" with fair consideration given to critiques without giving them WP:UNDUE of critiques (which at a minimum should never be more than half of an article, according to the Proportionality guidelines of WP:CRIT ) Spudst3r (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Mercedes W204

I received a warning from you saying that I may be blocked from editing, if I continue disrupting Wikipedia. First of all, lately I haven't edited Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W204) page, and what have I done something for this page? I am not trying to Vandalize this page like what you think, Why are you warning me for no reason? Forgive me but you are probably mistaken commenting on my page. Because lately I haven't even looked at this page. I appreciate your understanding. --86.99.26.165 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @86.99.26.165: this edit was from you IP, and deserving a warning as original research (from a quick inference of the circumstances), and keep in mind, warnings stack up. However, a quick check places your IP to belong to a corporation (Emirates Telecommunications Corporation), meaning that it is shared by multiple people, and these edits may not, in fact, be by you. -- Orduin Discuss 20:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=646566668"