- Archive1 - August 2007 – June 2008,
- Archive2 - July–November 2008,
- Archive3 - November 2008 – May 2009,
- Archive4 - May–July 2009,
- Archive5 - July–August 2009,
- Archive6 - September–October 2009,
- Archive7 - October–December 2009,
- Archive8 - January–February 2010,
- Archive9 - March–April 2010,
- Archive10 - May–July 2010,
- Archive11 – July–October 2010,
- Archive12 – October 2010 – January 2011
- Archive13 – January–March 2011
- Archive14 – April–July 2011
- Archive15 – August–October 2011
- Archive16 – November–December 2011
- Archive17 – January–February 2012
- Archive18 – March–April 2012
- Archive19 – May–July 2012
- Archive20 – August–October 2012
- Archive21 – November–December 2012
- Archive22 – January–February 2013
- Archive23 – March–April 2013
- Archive24 – May–June 2013
- Archive25 – July–August 2013
- Archive26 – September–October 2013
- Archive27 – November–December 2013
- Archive28 – January–February 2014
- Archive29 – March–April 2014
- Archive30 – May–June 2014
- Archive31 – July–August 2014
- Archive32 – September–October 2014
- Archive33 – November–December 2014
- Archive34 – January–February 2015
- Archive35 – March–April 2015
- Archive36 – May–June 2015
- Archive37 – July–August 2015
Please monitor the Ad Council page as someone is removing cited NPOV material. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I have been watching the article for its "We Can Do It" gaffe (which somebody once tried to remove), but now I'll keep an eye on the Limbaugh paragraph as well. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This user is again making destructive edits like in May to the San Francisco radio template. I have reverted the edit to the template.Stereorock (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting everything he does, which is the right thing to do. There's an open case against this guy at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943. If you feel like you have useful observations to make about him, there's a section made especially for such comments. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, a friendly tip, I'd trim down on some of your user page's non-Wikipedia related content. Per WP:NOTBLOG, "user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia". Content on your user page such as where you and your wife have danced in the world, the fact you learned to sing as a child, and an overtly large section on your career as an audio engineer (which was an interesting read, I admit), all amongst other tidbits, doesn't belong on your userpage. I suggest you trim it down so that your user page no longer violates the aforementioned WP:NOTBLOG. Remember, "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Best, Azealia911 talk 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will take your advice into account when next I edit the user page. You are probably not aware of the many times that other users have asked me about a topic that they spotted on my user page, hoping to collaborate in some regard to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid I wasn't aware that people often strike up a conversation with you about information on your user page, but this isn't the best place for it. The fact that others talk to you about the information you place there doesn't make it any less inappropriate or negate the fact it violates the user page policy. Perhaps set up a Blogger account and leave a link to it on your page for non-appropriate conversations. Best, Azealia911 talk 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, but the same sort of editing as Andrewbf on the house music page and the IP location is listed as Mexico - 126.96.36.199
(Etheldavis (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC))
- Then it's him. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Global track example removal
If you photograph a notable place, no one will write an article that says that your photo is a photo of that place. Those tracks are only examples to help understanding, not fact.
Where are the reliable sources of Changing Faces ft. Charli Brix - Everything Is Gone? Ftiercel (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that photographs have an element of original research. I may state that I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower, but maybe I never went to Paris, maybe I fabricated the image from models or software. Wikipedia doesn't have much of a way around that potential problem except for interested editors discussing the matter, deciding whether to use the image in the article.
- If I took a photo of "electronicore", the image would be conceptual and difficult to define. Music examples have the same problem, which is that music genres are subjective and debatable, not exactly defined or precisely determined. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered where are the reliable sources :) Ftiercel (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I removed that example for the same reason: WP:V, impossible to verify genre with a reliable source. If you wish to point me to other such examples, I will remove those as well. Or you can remove them yourself. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Mass revert at Knox
If you don't agree with a series of edits, please try to take the time to modify them to fit whatever you think is better instead of doing a mass revert. You and I have been editing this website for years together, so I think we can treat each other a little better than that. I wouldn't do that to you. It's fine for us to disagree on content, but it's not fine if one of us refuses to try to work it out. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- The other side of that coin is: don't return disputed material to an article. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't Bother calling me any Names. Thanks CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- My "obstructionist" comment was referring to your obstructionist stance, your flat refusal to entertain any notion of article development. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thats your interpretation. Go to the talk page discussion and read whats been there for 10 minutes. That is a matter of fact section, also it states something as previously stated that has never been stated. If you know about music and this stuff you certainly won't have any problem making it better. I would assume. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Binksternet,
In case you wanted to know why your ears are itching, I linked to a conversation between you, KingofAces and Jytodg here regarding collusion. Thank you for being, petrarchan47คุก 20:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I will keep an eye on the developments there. I might want to comment. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven"
Would it be helpful to copy the discussion in your archived talk pages over to the Spirit talk page, to help head off any more discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll get that done. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand, the information and Quotes I added to Gatling Gun was referenced. How is it a copyright violation? If I rewrite the quotes using the same refs would that be OK? --RAF910 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you use a very little bit of quoted material then you are okay. Instead, you used a huge amount of quoted text. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text allows "Brief quotations of copyrighted text" if you want "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Instead, you were taking the entire content and transferring it to Wikipedia. This material can easily be summarized rather than quoted. The guideline says "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." You can also see at Wikipedia:Quotations that if you summarize the text, your summary should not be a too-close paraphrasing. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough--RAF910 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
OK...I give up...you win, clearly I we not be able to rewrite the section to your satisfaction...Hopefully someone else will be able to do so in the future, as I believe the information to be useful on both the Gatling Gun and Magazine (firearms) pages.--RAF910 (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- RAF910, you can do this! Re-read Wikipedia:Quotations to get a sense of how much rewriting must be done. Don't use the website's text as a template. You have to do more than change a few words from the original. Ideally, you would write as if you were explaining something you just read an hour ago, explaining the concepts in simple terms to someone with not very much experience in the topic. Start from what's in your head, what you remember from the reading, not what's written at the website. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:EarlyLegg.png
Thank you for uploading File:EarlyLegg.png.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.
Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly hi! 22:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Country Joe and the Fish
Hi, I see you have done a number of GA reviews and was wondering if you were willings to initiate another on the psychedelic rock band Country Joe and the Fish. I reworked the article completely and believe it is up to par for GA. By the way, I'm not sure you would remember this, but I wanted to thank you for the early advice you gave me when I just started out. That starting info helped me make over 100 music articles and it has been an enjoyable experience. Thanks again, message me back if you are interested, and, if not, apologies for taking your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds fun! I like reviewing GANs, and I'm glad you are adding so much good material to the encyclopedia. In real life, I'm working long hours this week, but a lot of that time will be sitting around waiting for other people to get their part done, so I think I am safe to take on the GA review. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I forgot to thank you again for conducting the review. I am glad we could obtain GA status for the article and I hope to do the same for many other articles. Best of luck to you and your future projects.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What would you say about the reliability of this website: http://www.popologynow.com ? I want to know what I can use this website for if anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks slick and cool, but I checked out a bunch of articles and they were all written by the same guy, Richard Baxter, who is not a known music journalist. I went to the "about" page and it said the website was Richard Baxter's project. So, it appears to be a self-published website. Not very reliable. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. I did notice the same name on several different articles I read so that makes sense. Thank you. User:RandomChoiceForMe —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.
I also found this copyvio . Good work addressing that paraphrasing problem :) With more support from experienced editors like you, we can get Eranbot running even better. Soon we hope to be able to feed WikiProjects with lists of project-specific copyvio candidates. Until then, please visit and use the tool. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lucas559, is there a way to aim the bot at an article that hasn't been touched in a while, to see what the report says about possible copyright violations for older additions? I understand that mirrored content would be a problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Binksternet, as a non-programmer, I am not sure how much effort would be involved. The bot checks all "recent changes" ::over a certain byte threshold (about 35 words). You could force the bot to scan your old article by making a strategic edit that looks like you changed +35 words. For instance, just changing a word in a paragraph and then copy and pasting that same paragraph often looks like a 'big' edit to wiki. Then wait... The bot runs RCs every few hours, but has to wait on the third-party Ithenticate to do it's part. We borrow their technology and, thus, are last in queue.--Lucas559 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
On the Maroon 5 wiki page, there have been several new unsourced genres added to the list and genre sources removed from the ones already there. I don't know whether to try again to fix it or just let it sort itself out. RandomChoiceForMe (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I rolled back to the September 2nd version. I think the poorly referenced genres should be removed, if any, and the outliers removed as well. By outliers, I mean the genres that are stated by just one source but not confirmed by others. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not only Maroon 5 main pages, but there's their song and album pages that you keep an eye (if IP users were same involved editing). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
About The "Violations"
can you at least give me some insight on what exactly is acceptable and is not? 'cause as far as my knowledge i was using common sense... --184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
also i'd like to add, i was removing unsourced information when i edited the Pop punk page, which you've kinda been up my ass doing to my edits(and apparently alot of other people's from the look of your talk page... i mean geez man, do you at least get paid for this? ain't nobody got time for that) --220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- The main point is that 5SOS has been called a "pop punk" band by many sources, but you don't want Wikipedia to say that. So when I saw that you were violating WP:NPOV in that way, I looked at other of your contributions, finding this bit where you add Floral Terrace, a non-notable band, and a few instances of adding non-notable rapper Krayon Koz to various articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
wow, you stalked my edits, real cool. that band and rapper is more notable than you'll ever be spending your entire life up everyone's asses about wikipedia edits.. get a life man --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Binksternet. I see you posted something here on this IP's page once before about sock puppeting. Judging from this, this and this, are we not seeing something fishy? Three different but very similar addresses all pushing the same edit. What do you think? Cheers. Robvanvee 16:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Robvanvee, the various 121.5x accounts you are seeing are from the Philippines, probably from a college or university. There's a sockpuppeteer who operates from there, which you can read about at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PogiJmon/Archive. Some of the sock edits are good, others are not. Some look a lot like a new editor experimenting, so maybe they have a class which includes an assignment to edit Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I revert the edit made by different IP's more than 3 times, does that count as 3RR? Technically I'm not engaged in an edit war with any particular editor? I have attempted adding edit summaries, something they failed to do and it's becoming disruptive. What advice would you offer? Robvanvee 17:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- You can try requesting page protection, but they may not be convinced. Changing the colors used in a graphic timeline is not really a serious infraction of any rule. Violations of WP:MULTIPLE are far more serious. You might have to go to WP:ANEW and explain how these different IPs are the same person. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
IP user on Olivia Newton-John's Physical page may be at it again
You may remember the problem we had with edits to the genre category on the Physical article about a year ago? I may be getting ahead of myself, but our IP genre-shark may be at it again. I've had the article on my watchlist ever since that incident a year ago, and caught the following edit made by an anonymous IP user yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_(Olivia_Newton-John_song)&diff=681440132&oldid=681319281
I undid both his edit and the previous edit (which was an uncited genre addition by user "Nofoolz"). Let me know if I'm in the wrong here, but I thought we solved this problem last year. I'm coming to you because you helped resolve it. If it is indeed the same IP user from last year, remember that they kept switching between Malaysian IP's and a range block was suggested (I don't know if it was ever implemented). It may not be the same user for all I know, but I believe a close watch should be kept on this situation.
Temeku (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that article is still on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on it. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
SO FRESH VANDAL
Can you start a case page on this guy? He has been vandalizing the So Fresh series and stuff. That would be nice. THANKS!
Malmsimp (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would like to do that. It will take me a few days or even two weeks to get to it. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Malmsimp (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yep! I've been really busy. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Heavy metal edits by CombatMarshmallow
Hello Michael. I messaged another senior editor on this but I am not canvassing, I merely want your insight on this. What I find staggering is that CombatMarshmallow has been inserting material from a band, Hogans Heroes, almost nobody has heard of, are featured on virtually zero literature, music publications, music magazines nor mentioned by other bands, yet he/she has written most of their article, has uploaded a blurry image he/she took of the band, and has been able to insert it into articles unchecked, one of which is a featured article, heavy metal. Where is the notability? What is this persons involvement with this little known band? I see you have already dealt with people pushing a non notable band. Then there's the awful blurry quality of the sole band image he/she took of them. I am no fan of Bullet for My Valentine and could care less about them, but they are notable, they are listed in VH1 as one of the main metalcore artists, they feature in literature, music publications etc, and their image is of good quality which was in the heavy metal article before any dispute and the intervention of CombatMarshmallow and the insertion of his/her little known band. You know how it works on here, contentious edits require consensus on talk, yet it's been the other way round on the heavy metal article in that he/she has somehow been able to make edits and then require that consensus on talk is needed to change them. Is this going to be allowed to continue? I am a huge metal fan and like the fact the article is featured, but I feel it won't be for much longer.RyanTQuinn (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The heavy metal article was judged a Featured Article many years ago. Today's version would not survive the FA process, I bet. We need muscular improvement to get it up to speed.
- The apparent conflict of interest we see with little-known Hogans Heroes cannot be continued. If CombatMarshmallow tries to keep that stuff in the article it will be his undoing. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The section is about recent trends they started the recent trend. If you feel the band is known or not has no bearing on them being Metalcore Pioneer. The page status has been discussed by this administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Revert
- Who also reverted the picture back to the article. Along with 4 others. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=prev&oldid=681543799, 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/22.214.171.124 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681529999&oldid=681529647 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681513709&oldid=681510726 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681508151&oldid=681504472 This editor who is more or less "canvassing" was also warned about the same reverting edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RyanTQuinn. Same editor who claims to "care less about Bullet for Valentine" but has been doing that three days. They are what they are. The section is on recent trends they are the start of at least one and the Article is on Heavy Metal music.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hogan's Heroes is little known. SputnikMusic has no biography on them, nor does AllMusic, which is telling. The one or two possible references say that Hogan's Heroes is primarily punk, especially skate punk, not metalcore. See MTV's biography which says very little about metal, and never says metalcore. If AllMusic does not have a band biography written then the band cannot be very influential. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rolling Stone has a Biography on them It was removed when they trimmed the website but it still has the address. You're an expert of the genre huh?CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm an expert in finding out what the literature says. Your notional Rolling Stone URL goes nowhere; it's not even archived in the Wayback Machine. The only thing Rolling Stone says about a band named Hogan's Heroes is that Bradley Nowell of Sublime started such a named band with Eric Wilson (bassist) in 1981 when he was 13, but this was a different band. I think it's high time that Hogan's Heroes (band) got a heavy duty trim to remove unsubstantiated claims. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think its high time you get a clue. I have access to Photos of It all. So you dint remember editing at Metalcore, sure you do, you want to make pretend they don't have consensus as a Pioneer. Thats Worldwide, a sound editor doesn't change the world view. I can load probably 50 sources. Ive been book making them for a time just like this. Im having a great Day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you have verifiable sources, why don't you use them? Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't I use them because its hard for me to make them, things end up showing up in red, ever since the HTML was changed, for references at wikipedia I have an even harder time making them. I usually have to copy a reference with a HTML I am familiar with and then template it for a new reference. It still ends up being red or all messed up. It takes like 13 tries to fix it. I also only type with my pointer fingers. Replying takes Forever. I really do the best I can and am going to take a typing class before the years end.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are an expert of metalcore I would assume?CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am an expert in finding WP:Reliable sources, which is all that matters. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Its called a Discussion, not an argument. An argument is one person vs the other. If you slow your roll I can clarify and explain many things you have no idea about. The rapid fire "argument" style isn't happening and not good for wikipedia. Just because Rolling Stone trimmed down Rock "H" doesn't mean the weren't there. I was so surprised to see them there I took Webshots with my Computer. I thought about uploading them to the article. I don't know if it would look good or how it would be presented. Yes I have TONS of sources. I do a search every few months and bookmark them. Also for articles Im thinking of creating. I also have a simple reason why "I"created the article. I may share it here. Why haven't I added the references is because Ive shoved as many as I could in an article that needs expanding but Ive only kept it on facts about recording etc. take a look at their release articles. Try and Slow down. I have more than enough to prove or show most Everything. Its the first article Ive ever created. I think it came out great. I never tried to make it GA because I know it needs way more work than I know how to do, Im pretty sure. Ive never been "mad" at you I don't know why you are attacking me. I am a good editor.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, if you have verifiable sources then you should use them. What I'm seeing is almost nothing written about the band, which shows how unimportant they are. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have to eat and do some work. Your still edit warring lets see how long it takes for you to get a block. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You really should edit what you know. You don't know this genre at all apparently. Its Ok Accuracy will prevail. I make statements about topics I know. So may case isn't to "you". However like I typed Rolling Stone is a Very Reliable source. Keep making pretend I guess. You know, theres a great chance you're mad at me because I am a really good editor and you added something way off from accurate at metalcore and I reverted it and since then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=next&oldid=669832482 this is Your Behavior. You are now making pretend they don't have consensus as a Metalcore Pioneer and are not related to Heavy Metal music? Interesting. If you are. Theres proof you already know. All of a sudden its new to you huh. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is interesting "Removing photo and all mention of Hogan's Heroes per WP:UNDUE -- band is unimportant to the topic" ....though Its already Proven above you've edited where they have long page consensus as a pioneer. Didn't one of you say Theres nothing at Sputnik?
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Hogans-Heroes/55331/ says Metalcore. Revert yourself.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I got stuff to do, this will all catch up to you. Your disruptive editing and POV pushing is out of control. Going to have more of my great day. ttyl.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No one "knows them" Skid Row's Rachel Bolan Wearing Hogan's Heroes Built to Last t-shirt front cover Heavy Metal Magazine Burrn Japan 1990 from Sebastian's FB https://www.facebook.com/sebastianbach/photos/pb.26257129808.-2207520000.1442697481./99635704808/?type=3&theater.
- Bink Every band back then was called Hardcore Punk. Thats how a band could be Seminal in the New Sub genres "The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash" Those genres didnt exist yet and everyone was called either Punk rock or Hardcore punk. Also they are relative as talked and discussed already with Dmies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Revert because they are a Pioneer of the Recent trend. So they belong in the Recent Trends at Heavy Metal. One more thing, the quote used is not a mirror of wikipedia. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Metal Music Archives. "Hogan's Heroes". 2015-07-28. Retrieved 2015-09-21.
"formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash
- If modern sources discussing the past are still saying hardcore punk then it's hardcore punk, not metalcore. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have a copy in html of everything thats gone on. Deena Weinstein and the two Hogan's Heroes threads. The sources discussing the band say they are seminal, metalcore, metallic hardcore, hardcore punk and crust. I assume you mistakenly replied to a completely different thread right here. Ill reply to your reply here by posting last nights reply. -"No one is pumping anything up. The intro which is no mirror states "seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash" Definition of seminal | Adjective 1. (of a work, event, moment, or figure) Strongly influencing later developments:his seminal work on chaos theory. Thesaurus seminal adjective her paper is a seminal work on the subject INFLUENTIAL, formative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original,... . btw you called them metallic hardcore then removed sources for metallic hardcore, said they aren't metalcore and removed two sources calling them metalcore and seminal in metalcore." Not a problem. I wanted to work this out with you. Apparently I can't do this here. Apparently you have no intention of collaborating. Take a look at Wikipedia:Collaborations, which does not support your obstinacy. Your stance has more of WP:OWN about it, which is not going to work. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:126.96.36.199#September_2015_2 Already being taken care of. It will be re-added after the band makes it known its an official page. Thats not my IP I have no idea what happened. 2601:84:302:D3A0:21A6:598B:8FC1:B61D (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
An unbiased eye, can I borrow?
The trackless effin' trolley article, currently misnamed Trolleybus, had a large amount of recent editing. It increased in size by over 50%, much of it was narrow in geographic scope, and with a definite point of view.
I nuked it.
The other editor restored it, and I...well, you can guess. Could you let me know if you think I'm overreacting here? Point of view is one thing, but this is polemic. Anmccaff (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- And now I got a sock, by the look of it, restoring it. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a good statement to make about a few things. I need to do something and then re-read it. (typed it out already). So in a little while. Meanwhile I have realized the MTV page was not me. I honestly thought it was. Which is pretty puzzling. Be back soon with more updates.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is so much information and much HTML to do and I have no idea where to begin. You're behavior is more of less exactly why you failed at being at application for administrator. I clearly told you I have HTML to do. Instead of being helpful and asking how you can help or even giving it a rest until I get them on you are trying to roadblock Hounding my edits at Pages you've never edited. They made the right decision. Administrators not don't issue "warnings" to get their way, are actually Helpful. The most you would be doing if you were helpful is saying there needs to be sources.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a previous discussion that was had by Mashaunix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metalcore#Cultural_originsCombatMarshmallow (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Im done dealing with you unless you start seeing things for what they really are. I uploaded each reference one at a time to make it easy in case any sources weren't good enough. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9onFQlDkPBIJ:www.musicnectar.com/music/genres/metalcore+&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari When I completed certain searches in about 2 cases it said what was needed but was missing when I got to the page. So I clicked cache that why it said "google" non of those references added are "google". If we can't work this out civily and accurately all of this will be have to be reported and shared through the appropiate channels. Which I would assume will be very drawn out in comparison to us handling it here. Only because my edits should be judged by their merits. The most I thought you would do(because I knew something would go on again) is Advise what sources weren't good, the why I added so many about 5 or 6. Have you even clicked this stuff. https://prezi.com/cyifu7ugm3g1/the-history-of-metalcore/ I spent a decent amount of free time locating. Thats the last message from me in so many hours this will go forward. I did honest searches and edited the best I could and thought it was a good thing that our interaction helped me to find more than just some consensus. However there seems to be a negative twist on it and its not from me. If you reply perhaps I will, if not this is the last interaction. We can handle it ourselves or you can continue to basically roadblock and it will be taken elsewhere. I can show if I have to in a resolution exactly what searches I completed. Which yield far more results than what was utilized. Thank You in advance. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- You inserted Hogan's Heroes into a section talking about recent developments, from 2000 onward. The sources you supplied say nothing about recent developments. The source shows a Wikipedia URL at the bottom, giving credit to Wikipedia for supplying their review. So the source violates WP:CIRCULAR. So that's two strikes against your addition. The third strike is that the source says very clearly that the band is hardcore punk, not metalcore. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bink Every band back then was called Hardcore Punk. Thats how a band could be Seminal in the New Sub genres "The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash" Those genres didnt exist yet and everyone was called either Punk rock or Hardcore punk. Also they are relative as talked and discussed already with Dmies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Revert because they are a Pioneer of the Recent trend. So they belong in the Recent Trends at Heavy Metal. One more thing, the quote used is not a mirror of wikipedia.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you'll have to find a reference that says the band is metalcore. If critics and musicologists are not talking about Hogan's Heroes with respect to the 2000s metalcore scene, then they aren't metalcore within that scene. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- You removed sources that say Metalcore. The Metal Music archives says they are a Pioneer in 4 genres. That stuff is going back. Tomorrow it will be going back in the Heavy Metal Article as well. You're going to have to use the talk page as I will. You obviously don't know the genre. In a linear path Hardcore Punk bands, with Heavy Metal by mid eighties were called Crossover thrash, thus the reference, by late 1980s bands with heavy metal in them were called Metallic Hardcore, thus the metallic Hardcore references, then finally Bands mixed with heavy Metal and with breakdowns/mosh parts were called Metalcore. Thats the evolution. There are references for all of them and the Intro was written by an administrator at Metal Music Archives. I checked the whole page and never once did it say what the quote is. Which is no mirror.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Metal Music Archives source barely mentions the band Hogan's Heroes. You are misrepresenting the source, which says they were hardcore punk. Your personal interpretation of genres is interesting but it is not supported by the sources. Look, if you keep pumping up that band you are going to get blocked. They are not as huge as you think. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No one is pumping anything up. The intro which is no mirror states "seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash" Definition of seminal | Adjective 1. (of a work, event, moment, or figure) Strongly influencing later developments:his seminal work on chaos theory. Thesaurus seminal adjective her paper is a seminal work on the subject INFLUENTIAL, formative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original,... . btw you called them metallic hardcore then removed sources for metallic hardcore, said they aren't metalcore and removed two sources calling them metalcore and seminal in metalcore. Not a problem. have a nice night.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Ill start with Deena Weinstein https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deena_Weinstein&action=history do you know who created the article, you may know where Im going with this maybe not. Well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OnBeyondZebrax who created the page has been putting her in every article possible. Do know where this is going. Probably not but perhaps have the ability to answer. I know this is something you probably won't really want to discuss. There is a point in it you will most likely never guess. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
IP 188.8.131.52 - Unsourced Changes
Sorry to trouble you, but I'm rather concerned by the antics of this editor, who is making many edits without providing sources - IP address 184.108.40.206
(Etheldavis (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC))
- I've seen that person at work, using IPs from Puerto Rico, and by far the majority of their contributions are positive. So every once in a while, I give the person a (rare) warning, but mostly the changes are okay. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What was wrong?
Scott Bradlee’s Postmodern Jukebox is a genre-busting, rotating cadre of musicians and vocalists that reimagine modern pop hits in the style of jazz, ragtime, funk, bluegrass, New Orleans big brass, country, bluegrass, swing classics of the 1920s-1950s and other genre variations. Pianist, composer, and arranger Scott Bradlee has assembled a multi-talented group of musicians who join him for reworked versions of popular songs — the music videos of these collaborative covers have become viral sensations with millions of views on YouTube. An act that crosses musical boundaries and generations, Postmodern Jukebox has developed a niche all its own, and performs a live show unlike any other. 
What was wrong with this? Thank you for your help!
Bubbe2015 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aside from looking like a press release of a press release, and all?
(Not an Actual Binksternet, do not even play one on TV.) Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, the wording is florid and promotional, full of WP:PEACOCK terms. Second, the exact wording is found in many newspaper accounts, which means it was standard promotional copy written by the band's publicist. Wikipedia is not the place for such promotion. Third, the extensive quote violated Wikipedia:Quotations which says that quotes should be kept very brief, to establish context. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Possible Thomas.alrasheed sox
Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Those two IPs are the same person, but it doesn't look to me like the sort of stuff we saw at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Thomas.alrasheed. That is, if the air dates are correct, which I didn't check. If the air dates are false, then this is the guy. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Shadows (1959 film)
||On 24 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shadows (1959 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that film professor Ray Carney found the first version of Shadows after searching for decades? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shadows (1959 film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
(talk · contribs
) 14:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Need an Expert Opinion(tm)
Hello! I've come across a set of related articles-- Loadstar (musical duo), Future Perfect (Loadstar album), and Xample-- that leave me wondering if I should go to AfD. Maybe they're notable enough, but the sourcing on these is terrible. The group and album articles are bloated with SoundCloud and Youtube cites, and I've jotted down a couple of the concerns I have with the other sources these articles use here-- some sources are super primary, others seem dubious, and I can hardly find anything on these guys when I look myself. I don't make forays into music articles very often lately, so I figured I'd asked someone more experienced who deals with WP:MUSIC subjects-- is it possible to improve these, or should I try AfDing them? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 16:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Xample is okay because of a #1 hit song: "Lowdown / The Latter".
- The other two articles meet WP:GNG because they are discussed in sources even though the debut album performed poorly. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Think you might have another IP to block – see the edits of IP address 220.127.116.11 on Band Aid and other pages in the last couple of days. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
And this one - 18.104.22.168 Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks suspicious. The guy is putting out false broadcast information. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(I'm All Ears
) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Harvey Carter, whoever he may be, may have reappeared on Anthony Eden's biog. Somebody with no previous edit history appears to be looking for a fight and is making a patently false claim - that no former British Prime Minister remained active in politics - in his edit summary. Don't know whether you want to keep an eye on it.Paulturtle (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am always interested in keeping HarveyCarter at bay. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "ancient astronaut hypothesis"
The deletion of the removed word does not qualify as an addition of "commentary or [my] own personal analysis" to the page's lead section. Also, the presence of the word "pseudoscientific" is no less objective or encyclopedic than the absence of it, as this word (and its derivatives) are inherently pejorative. A truly neutral account would be one which informed readers that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is widely regarded as, or generally considered to be, pseudoscientific. AndrewOne (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- In this case it's descriptive and specifically true, not just "pejorative". Pseudoscience includes any theory that starts from the answer and then looks for evidence to support it, rather than looking at all the evidence and figuring out the answer based on that evidence. Another aspect of pseudoscience is the belief in theories that cannot be tested. The ancient astronaut theory is exactly pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Notability of a protest
I was wondering if protests make something notable or only based the coverage it gets. There was a book launch  and a translation author was asked not to come because she is a woman and an organization prohibits their holy men from looking at women. She was offended and there was some public outcry. Is this considered something that is notable in the book page, organization page, somewhere else or just not notable?
Citations here 
Swamiblue (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The newspaper accounts of the translator being denied a place on the book promotion tour are enough to put a brief bit into the article. Large protests are not required; the newspaper stories are enough. Don't make too big a deal of this, though. Maintain a balance that matches how the topic is portrayed in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Binksternet Would you please comment on the talk page? Should this be in a stand alone section or under a specific section that is in the article. The person that I am discussing this with is refusing to acknowledge that this should be incorporated in the article. I feel it is controversy and an issue about feminism overall. I appreciate your comments. Swamiblue (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"World Wide Web" page
Hello! The page on "World Wide Web" is being changed wholesale by a very few editors. I was not logged in, but I reinserted information and re-linked to information by Tim Berners-Lee on his webpage, only to have it reverted and to find a comment from an editor on the history that "Wikipeda prefers to tell what actually happens rather than link to other websites". I have told the editor Wikipedia policy on this, but there seems to be a small knot of editors who have assumed "ownership" of the page and this worries me. I would be grateful if you or another admin could take a look when time permits. Thank you.
(Etheldavis (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
Hello once more. I really must get some sleep now, but I have made a few changes to the World Wide Web page and added reliable links to Tim Berners Lee's pages and the CERN 2014 25th anniversary article on the invention of the World Wide Web in 1989. I have left my thoughts on the Talk Page and a message on Videodrome's Talk page regarding future changes. I haven't much time over the next few days, and I do not know what stance admins will take, but I would be grateful if somebody could perhaps pop over to the page at some point. Videodrome is also extending changes to the "History of the World Wide Web" page. I have reverted this as I found that relevant information had been deleted and what was in its place was not as encyclopedic. Anyway, I must away to bed.
(Etheldavis (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
- I will look at this. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reason to believe we have a multiple IP user back who has returned to their old tricks of changing Sting's record sales from 100 to 200 million against what is actually in the source attributed. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- When I get time I will see what's up. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The IP address is from Israel. Were the previous ones also from there? Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The one who was doing it before was 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52. Rodericksilly (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- He's back. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Prospects for future Garage rock article reveiw
I've done a major expansion on the Garage rock article (it has grown exponentially in text size since March and has gone form 54 sources in March to almost 400), and I was thinking about having it reviewed at some point (in the not-too-distant future). I would preferably like to get it reviewed for FA, but that may take some time (and before vying for FA I have to add things: I want to do a psychedelic garage section and a folk rock influence section--I want to increase the coverage of certain under-represented American regions such as the Pacific Northwest, the South, the plains states, Midwest, and Canada, islands etc.). In admit that one drawback when approaching the garage rock article is its topic, which, by its very nature, celebrates a plethora of obscure and lesser-known acts, so, consequently, "high-level" sources are tougher to find--but I think that reviewers might take that into account, because what is ultimately important is achieving the necessary amount coverage that the topic requires and doing it justice--and we are talking about an article about a whole wonderful musical genre (the largest rock genre by far in terms of number of bands and performers) which deserves a great article to capture its scope and breadth. The circle of editors who cover garage rock topics have a high regard for "little" sources such as Garage Hangover and 60s Garagebands.com, but I realize editors who don't cover our terrain might disagree. Does the article have the realistic potential of eventually reaching FA, and if so, what would it need in order to accomplish that goal? Does an article have to go GA fist before it can be considered for FA? I'd rather not have to go through two processes, if only one would suffice (the highest possible), and quite frankly it has been such a labor in the last few months to get it to where it is, that anything less than highest would feel like a letdown. But, I realize that there are also A and GA. And, I have no intentions of sacrificing coverage. So, what are your thoughts. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I recommend not skipping the GA process. Ideally, it's going to shake out little things such as lapses in WP:MOS, inconsistencies in cite format, and perhaps larger problems with content, presentation, tone and breadth. Have you taken part in the FA process? If not, I highly recommend helping a couple of unrelated articles attain FA status before you dive in yourself. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I could first get the Garage rock article to GA status, then later vie for FA. I would guess that the Garage rock article is not far from being able to go GA--would it be within near reach at this point? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes; GA then FA. The FA people will be much happier that way—happier that you went through proper channels, less inclined to teach you a harsh lesson. Let me know when you start the WP:GAN process and we can get it done quickly. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cool beans. I'll add a few references ther and then start the process. I'll let you know then. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
One source of many on the internet pertaining to the "POP" recognition Of j Wonder's output.
http://theboombox.com/stevie-wonder-fulfillingness-first-finale/ Ikesquared (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source does not identify any particular album, or any particular song as a pop song. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Matt Holt of Nothingface page
I appreciate your dedication to your work. Perhaps you can help me.
- So, Matt Holt's birthdate was wrong for a long time on his Wikipedia page, but it was on the page.
I recently pointed it out to him. He asked me to correct it. I've seen his Driver's License; "May 28, 1977". Some hours later, another user deleted the birthdate all together. After which we decided to make a verification photo.
The verification photo can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/Nothingface-Fanpage-212669334201/timeline/ It can also be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/matth0ltsick Those were the first times it appeared on the internet.
The picture was posted on September 28th, by me, Leila Aria. It is a picture showing the identifying blue flames of his right arm with a  sign in his hands. This was made to prove I'm close enough to him to know his correct birth date, and that it is not an old photo. So please, leave the birth date alone. He's very busy, and he asked me to take care of it.
- Regarding this: "Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Matt Holt."
Sir, if you looked at the edit history, you would see that the novel syntheses existed before I ever touched the page. Please do not assign blame without proof. His Wiki page was around before Wikipedia became more formal about citation; probably a bunch of his fans added things here and there. Despite the lack of citation, everything on there is truth.
The last sentence, which I did add, is from a direct quote from Matt, and he has personally approved it, as it is written, for publication on the Matt Holt Wikipedia page. If you would suggest some manner I could cite that in, I would appreciate it. I have no problem with doing so. It is a primary source, after all. I have proof I am known to the individual, Matt Holt, and that he was willing to take a verification photo to stop people from deleting the corrected birthdate.
If the last quote, despite ample proof of association with the individual Matt Holt, is unusable... Then so are all one-on-one interviews, which are commonplace with musicians. However, I am perfectly willing to provide whatever proof you would suggest in this situation, if the photograph previously mentioned is deemed insufficient. I could even print out his Wiki page article, and ask him to write "I am Matt Holt, and I approved this message."
The correct birthdate needs to be on Wikipedia, in order to correct anyone who cites from that article.
Please, everyone who is tempted to delete things off that page: just leave it alone. It is all correct. Binksternet: I will do my best through search engines to find an interview that gives his correct age. It *is* May 28, 1977.
Thank you for your time, and again, I respect anyone dedicated to their work. Leila Aria (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Leila Aria
- Holt's birthday has never been published, as far as I can tell. Every fact on Wikipedia must have been previously published, according WP:No original research, which is hard policy, not just a suggestion. Facebook fan pages are not reliable as a published sources, per WP:SELFPUB; you would need the official Matt Holt page with him stating his birthday. Your own initiative is appreciated but it is not allowed in this case. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Appearance in Selfie (song)
Regarding my edit that I made on September 30, it is true that Darth Vader does makes a cameo appearance in the said music video at 0:57. I was not using it as a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actors make cameo appearances, not fictional characters. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Bink, While you believe that Hogan's Heroes Wasn't a metalcore band, Maximum RockNRoll, a RS, seems to. I am going to look through my library but can you slow down this removal? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will be surprised if you find something. I looked at a bunch of the references that CombatMarshmallow had been talking about, and found nothing that stated specifically that Hogan's Heroes was a metalcore band. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Manual of Style
I wasn't aware there was a manual of style. It was an honest mistake, thank you for not assuming it was intentional. NapoleonX (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)