- 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 - December 2009 – 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
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked this IP for 2 weeks. Please let me know if he gives you further trouble after his block. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will certainly let you know. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Tim Zukas (LTA)
Please see here and here. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please see here and add your comment. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The criteria set by WP:SONGCOVER are quite stringent, aren't they. Do you think the editor who added them is aware that sources are required? I'd be surprised if some of those deleted were not discusssed in a source. Particularly this one:
- Finding a source is not enough to satisfy WP:SONGCOVER. It might be true that sources discussing the tribute album track might help the Knack version meet SONGCOVER; I don't really know. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- It might be worth at least making the editor aware of the requirements? They might be keen to search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussing regarding "Operation Starvation"
If you don't intend to continue this discussion, after a reasonable period of time I will change the article back to how it was. The other user who replied does not appear to intend to continue discussing it. 2601:8:9780:1EE:4058:55D0:A1B1:D756 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bad idea. You have no support from other editors for your desired inclusion of original research. Again, I recommend you read the Levie book and draw directly from that. There's still the question of appropriate WP:WEIGHT devoted to an aspect that very few writers wrote about. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a good thing Wikipedia isn't a democracy then, isn't it? I apologize for not looking up the Levie book, but I doubt it contradicts the available texts for the Hague Conventions or the fact that Japan and the US are both parties to it, and were during WWII. I also doubt that it lists some treaty that Japan and the US have signed that states that the Hague Convention is no longer valid, or that there are situations where it doesn't need to be followed. I further note that in many other situations, the US has followed international agreements such as the prohibition by the UN of war and therefore blockades; ships from the Soviet Union were allowed to reach North Vietnam during what's called in the US the Vietnamese War, even though they were broadcasting the times, positions and destinations of US bombing flights (which the US was either reluctant to admit to, or didn't admit to, due to the prohibition of war by the UN), and Soviet ships going to Cuba during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis were also allowed after they had been searched for weapons. To avoid "edit warring", though, I will give you a chance to reply before reverting the article in question. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Continuing on talk page, so that any other interested editors can see it. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize, but I don't feel like waiting. Are you going to respond? Talk:Operation_Starvation#New_section:_Legality 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You will be waiting until there is consensus for your preferred version, which does not look like it will be soon.
- As you indicated by saying "continuing on the talk page", the article talk page is where this discussion should take place. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied to your comment at Talk:Operation_Starvation#New_section:_Legality. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your reversion of my edits to
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edits to the Reggae en Español article. Did you object to any of what I did, was the reversion aimed at someone else, or was it some combination of the two? If you do object to something in my edits, would you please be so kind as to tell me what it was?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- The only thing I intended to do was revert the IP editor who was evading a block. Your contribution looks good on its own. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. ^_^ That's what I thought might be the case, but I was a little confused by your edit comment, so I thought I'd check.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed two big edits, this and this, on this page and it wasn't clear to me what the criteria was for removing editors from the list. Could you give it a look? It looks like you've also edited the page. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like PhantomTech removed a bunch of case pages that he had recently archived as inactive, and he also removed the HeadleyDown case which is not archived but has been inactive for two years. As well, it appears that PhantomTech added a case which was active as recently as last October. So it looks like proper list maintenance to me. You may also want to ask PhantomTech directly.
- Yes, I have edited the page, which is a separate discussion. I added two cases back in June 2014, then three weeks ago I added three and removed two. I will gladly explain my actions further if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I just wasn't familiar with this editor and you have a lot more edits (144K vs. 5K) so I thought I'd ask you since you last edited the page. Thanks for taking the time to look into it for me. It's a page that's on my Watchlist (I did some category work on the page) but this is the first time it popped up as having been edited. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Binksternet. You realize you only have about three hours to post the evidence in the Collect case that you apparently wish to submit? (Assuming I have the time zone thing right.) I don't think posting a header for your evidence will "keep" the place for you; when the evidence phase is over, it's over. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC).
- No worries. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You may wish to see this discussion, apparently you are allowed to now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dang. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet. There was an edit filter request from Black Kite for an filter related to the Techno genre warrior from Greece. Since BK is currently on a break could you check that the edits the filter caught are indeed this user, and if not how it could be narrowed? The most useful edits to check are since 15 March since I made a change then to avoid some false positives ("techno" already being in the article). Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I will look into that right now. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have checked the log page of your filter, and it shows a ton of positive hits. I see only solid positive hits, not false positives, so no need to further tighten the filter.
The filter allowed some edits by the vandal, including unimportant changes such as upper-to-lower case, but also important changes to the genre:
- 184.108.40.206 was caught by the filter on three of six edits. The other three edits were removing house genre, swapping acid house for rave genre, and the same again.
- 220.127.116.11 was caught by the filter 10 out of 14 edits. The other four were changing electro house to techno (where techno was already in the article), removing hard trance, changing hard trance to disco, and removing trance.
- 18.104.22.168 was caught by the filter one out of five edits. The other four were changing house to disco, changing electronica to rave, removing electro house, and removing house.
- 22.214.171.124 was caught three times adding techno, but less than a minute after performing a filter-triggering edit, the filter did not catch him putting a second instance of techno into the article. However, the filter would have caught this if it were attempted as one edit.
- 126.96.36.199 was caught four out of eight times. The filter missed changing house to Eurodance, adding techno to an article that already had Technotronic mentioned, removing a flatlist template (but this followed a trigger edit), and changing house and hip house for pop.
- 188.8.131.52 was caught six of seven times. The filter missed him changing hard trance to disco.
Those are the results from after 14 March when you tightened the filter. The kind of false positives you got prior to 14 March appear to be useful to me, for instance this 13 March removal of house, hip house, rave, and electronica, swapped for pop, a change that did not involve the addition or removal of the word 'techno'.
Is there any intent to modify the filter to perform an action such as to disallow the attempted edit?
Thank you for your work on the filter. I will continue to monitor the log page to see what it turns up. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, this was his first edit
- Malmsimp (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Samwalton9, for setting the filter to disallow. We still need a filter logging the actions of the same range of IP addresses, actions in which the genre is being changed. I would like to see such a log to determine whether the vandal is active. Today, filter 663 missed a handful of edits by Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206 despite his disruptive genre warring. Binksternet (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing techno from most of his target pages. JG Malmsimp (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Harman and Ising
Please monitor the Harman and Ising article as an editor is trying to insert a bad and uncited edit with too many typos. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Notable DJs and bodybuilders??
Hiya Binkster! Have a gander at  &b  perhaps? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- One I gave a user page template, the other I gave a user draft template. Now I will keep an eye on both of them to see if there is any untoward promotion. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks. I will not be participating for various reasons. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not really involved, not familiar with the dispute, not familiar with the process. But, looking over the page, my eyes latched on:
- And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is "fringe", ...
- Holy scatalogical metaphor. Is this what Wikipedia has come to?
- Just sounding off at your page for I don't know why. Indulge me. --Yaush (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if you noticed, but I went and filed that SPI, which closed with a block. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am relieved. Good work by Mike V. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- And good sleuthing by you. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
.. at If I Ever Lose My Faith in You. I am sure you know full well that this may lead to a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see that now. I have self-reverted. Earlier, I was acting as if the IP editor was evading a block, but now I see that I cannot prove such an assumption. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Arrangement is part of genre?
I saw "arrangement" page in which "popular music" section, says "Popular music arrangements may also be considered to include new releases of existing songs with a new musical treatment. These changes can include alterations to tempo, meter, key, instrumentation, and other musical elements." Clearly if it is not really means any musical genres.
I Knew You Were Trouble and Catch My Breath, as you can see there "pop rock" in the infobox and any sections with reference, in which prior review or article texts says "pop rock arrangement". 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, a song can have a pop rock arrangement by one artist, and perhaps a hard rock or country rock genre by another artist simply because it has a different arrangement. Binksternet (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Maroon 5 (Specifically Genre)
I've started this conversation to come to an understanding on Maroon 5 genres and concerning what would be reliable sources to cite genres for them and what they would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Don't use AllMusic sidebars, just use their prose reviews. If a review site has user reviews and staff reviews, only use staff reviews. If it's About.com, check to see whether the reviewer is considered reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Don't use Metacritic or Discogs or Rate Your Music or iTunes for any kind of musical analysis including genre. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 18 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Andrewbf sockpuppet returns to House Music?
Hello again! I think the Andrewbf sockpuppet has returned to the house music page. I have intervened, but would be very grateful if you would also keep an eye on developments there.
(Etheldavis (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC))
- Thanks, I'm on it. We're on it! Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello B. I hope that you are well. I just wanted to alert you to this User talk:Swarm#Note. Have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I could have removed the post because it's a banned user, but I commented instead. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Binksternet:, in your opinion, is it correct for someone who opens an AN thread to close it again themselves? The user in question basically admitted to trolling you, then closed it. I will be happy to open it again - if it is appropriate for me to do so. It doesn't look right as it stands. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody who is involved with a dispute is allowed to close the discussion about it. Feel free to do what you think is best. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see you have previously added to the Talk page for this member. I believe he may be the same person as Avenged77 and keeps making unsourced changes to the genre of the "Keep On Loving You (song)" page. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see the connection between the IP and Avenged77, and I'm working to correct his disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binks – hope you enjoyed your Easter. I've got another situation on my hands, this time at the Furious 7 page. All of this revolves around a single character name and a few edits to the plot and cast. The other user involved is way out of line to threaten me with a block and to tell me to stay away from the page. This is another one of those situations where I'd like to have a second opinion, so could you please help mediate for me, when you get the chance? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, let me see what's going on. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- All right, thanks for stepping in. For the plot, which version did you rollback to? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I picked a version from April 4 which was fairly close to 700 words and then I trimmed some of the excess verbiage to make it be exactly 700. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Hopefully this issue is now sorted, but if something else happens, or if the other user disagrees, I'll let you know. Other than that, thanks again for you help. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the diff of my plot changes from the April 4 version – focus only on the plot section to see what I did. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I can see what you've done. However, even after I fixed it so that the plot was at around 750 words and didn't leave out any essential details, you rolled it back again, reverting my changes as well. I understand that there's a word limit, but one thing that I think we can all agree on is that 700 words is too short for this particular film without leaving out any essential details, and the guideline even says, as I'm sure you're aware, that the word limit can be exceeded for complicated plot summaries. The way that the plot has now been written, following on from this, isn't of as good a quality as what I had spent ages trying to perfect, and the other editor who I told you about earlier (who decided to file a report against me and then change his mind) has tinkered with the note that you left to say 800 words rather than 700. Could you please revert the plot back to my version? Thanks – 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree that this film's plot needs more than 700 words. There's a lot going on, for sure, but we don't need to represent every bit of it. It's an action film, not a psychological puzzle. In fact, the criticisms of the film are about its threadbare plot. Even people who praise the nonstop action acknowledge that the plot is thin. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help earlier, but now I have a different problem in the same area. I've managed to shorten my revision of the plot to 700 words, but the same editor is preventing me from "messing with" the page. In terms of readability/accuracy, which revision of the plot would you rather read – mine or his? Additionally, the editor is not letting me compromise with the whole 'Frank Petty/"Mr Nobody"' situation. He's telling me to back off, more or less like before. Unlike before, though, I don't believe that this editor means well, and that he just wants to control everything and won't take no for an answer. This is unfair and unjust. Could you please look into this again? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- There really is no compromise to be had; you're the one continually reverting to a name the character is NOT credited by. I'm really sick of arguing, but I don't want incorrect, irrelevant information sitting on an encyclopedia page, so as long as you keep reverting despite all my attempts to tell you no, I will continue to fix what you seem content to break. Apologies, Binksternet -- I don't know you very well, and I'm sorry this conflict spilled over onto your page. Stolengood (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- As an addendum, I will not be able to respond to this conversation further for the next six to ten hours, as I am heading to bed. Just putting that out there in case any further decisions are made; I don't want them to be made, in this instance, without me -- however, I am really, really tired. Hope you understand; I'm sorry. Stolengood (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not my favorite Romanian
What is to be done about this guy? He's now started making dumb edits to Thomas Moy, nothing in any way contentious, but deplicating material & clogging up my pellucid prose (ahem) with unnecessary numbers.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The lead section is too short—it doesn't tell the reader why Moy is notable. The article body contains a paragraph which describes what Moy is best known for; that paragraph should be clipped out and rewritten for the lead section. Once it's in the lead section there will be no need for the numbers, since the lead section is a summary. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the crit...I'll do what I can!TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I have named you as an affected party, I'm giving you the courtesy of letting you know there is a discussion at ANI regarding edits at Traian Vuia . Flat Out let's discuss it 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
18.104.22.168 isn't my IP
I'll try to keep it as polite as possible.
First, please do your research well before accusing me of "edit warring" and putting a block warning template on the IP page. This is not my IP. I have a provider that changes them constantly. Please check it well, because I live in Canada.
Second, Melbourne bounce is a subgenre of house music since 2014, whether you like it or not. Currently, WP has a page about the dance, which is not directly related to the subgenre, and nothing on the subgenre itself. Please take the time to see other WP projects in other languages, to see how it should be done. Feel free to make proposals here or on the page talk (not in the IP I'm currently associated with).
Sorry, but you really got me upset. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
An Archiving question
I notice you manually archive; is there any comprehensible guide to the automatic archive programs?...and how to TURN THEM THE %$^#$$^% OFF!!! (Not that I have strong feelings here, mind you, nope nope nope nope.)
The Streetcars Conspiracy page has a couple of slow conversations that the sigmabot wants to chop into current portions and archived portions; I think there is quite enough re=stating of the same ideas without forcing more of it. Anmccaff (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Automatic archiving can be annoying, for sure. I just commented out the MiszaBot section of the talk page. There's probably a setting that will not drive you crazy, but just stopping the bot for now will likely satisfy your immediate needs. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. My apologies for bothering you about this, but every damned time I ask at the "right" places, someone shows up, fixes the minor problem, and finds or creates a new one of their own. The trackless trolley page lost all its state flags like that.
- So, the sigmabot works off the miszabot's commands? Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I guess so. The MiszaBot section was the only automatic archiving section I saw. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The English Gibb issue
It seems they are creating a number of accounts like here, waiting the four days, then make ten fast edits to get past the autoconfirmmed status then back to the Gibb articles, do you think we could get the Gibb brothers articles fully protected for a couple months ? that's the only thing I can think of. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the four Gibbs should be fully protected for at least a few months. There's the PogiJmon sock group from the Philippines and the Chowkatsun9 sock group from Hong Kong, so full protection will stop them both. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've started to get a report drafted, The brothers Gibb issue, not sure where it's going to get posted at but, please add/adjust as you see fit if you want and once it's ready I/we need to figure the best noticeboard to post at, anyway thanks for any help (I'm not very good at theses reports :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think a report at RPP with all pages listed in a single request ? Or just ask a single admin (IDK) :P Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. There are some admins who are particularly firm with socks and disruptive IPs, for instance JamesBWatson (who is away from keyboard for a week or two), Amatulic, Materialscientist, Dougweller, and others. But let's go with RPP because it will get the most eyeballs. Let's make sure to say what percentage of the most recent edits to the Gibb bios are from socks followed by reversions of socks. It's an impressively high number. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Too late :P Your welcome to add info to the report :)  Mlpearc (open channel) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
YAY . Thanks for your help ! Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome! Let's see what happens in six months. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, since you often make music genre-related edits, here's a discussion that might interest you. Some input is welcomed. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Hauge Convention synthesis
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Hauge Convention synthesis. Since the anon editor in question doesn't seem willing to listen to us I thought it might be constructive to ask for input from outsiders experienced in resolving NOR situations. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
Hello and thank you for all your hard work to improve music articles and to report vandalism and disruptive editing. Millions of people enjoy reading Wikipedia and it is regrettable when a small number of individuals, mostly anonymous IP users, attempt to spoil things with long-term abuse and disruptive editing.
As well as deliberate vandalism, there is an issue on a number of song articles with long lists of non-notable and poorly sourced content about cover versions, against the guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER. I appreciate the work that you do to improve things for the vast majority of online readers who want to read notable and well-sourced factual content. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. It's otherwise a thankless job, removing the text you describe from articles. My first few years on Wikipedia were spent creating content, without paying too much attention to what others were doing. It took a while to recognize the enormity of the problem of trivial content, poorly sourced content, disruptive editing, etc.
- Best... Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Cause of death vandal
I see that you warned 126.96.36.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal - what do you think of 188.8.131.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Same guy. Same location, same behavior. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet. The original FAC nominator was blocked, and a summary of this Featured Article will appear on the Main Page soon. I see you were active at the FAR. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Has anyone been keeping up with this article since the FAR? - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting such a fine summary together for TFA. I see no glaring omission in your blurb. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, I just saw your page, and we grew up next door to each other. After review of your user page, I have a project that I could really use your help with, would you mind e mailing me? WPPilot@Hotmail.com Thank you! --talk→ WPPilot 21:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
About changes on the pages of Martin Garrix
Hello, I made these changes for reasons such as: The songs released, the remixes are the same as in the artist discography but I removed the "Unreleased" in the artist page but I kept it in the discography. DOORN, artist influences, records singles and genres are asked to leave for a good reason. Why you removed the recorded and genre of all songs. The Martin Garrix's album "+x" is release this year. Timothe8872 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anything that you want to put into Wikipedia must have been published in a reliable source such as a magazine, newspaper, book, or established website. Wikipedia cannot be the first publication. So you must show a publication of this information. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
About changes on the Sini Anderson page
Hello, all of the work I posted on the Sini Anderson Wikipedia page has been deleted and i don't know why. Besides quotes that i cited from sources WITH the source links, there is not one plagiarized sentence. Please help me, as I am a college scholar doing a research assignment in which i conduct my own research about a director and add to her Wiki page. I have done thorough research on Anderson and everything I posted is factual. Thank you. Maggiefrank (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)maggiefrank
- (talk page watcher) @Maggiefrank: Wikipedia does not accept original search. this is most likely the reason for the deletion. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maggiefrank, let's start with me saying that I respect Sini Anderson and I like her film The Punk Singer. I saw Anderson introduce the film at my neighborhood theatre in Oakland and the experience spurred me to create the article The Punk Singer. So I'm friendly to the topic.
- However, the big problem I saw was that you copied text from your sources.
- There are other problems such as your multiple incomplete sentences, your inclusion of unimportant information about where Anderson has appeared to present the film, and your emphasis on her dancing, spoken word performance and poetry when the world knows her best for directing the documentary. (She's not famous for dancing, and not nearly as famous for poetry.) You wrote that Anderson has been sober for 9 years but the source says she has been sober for 8, showing that you assumed she has been sober for the year following the interview. You used this source to support the assertion that Anderson "currently splits her time between" L.A. and Brooklyn, but the source says nothing about that, and the source is from 2001 so it could not be current. You used this source to say that Anderson's next film will be ready in 2016, but the source does not estimate any time of completion.
- But the copyright violations were the most serious of problems. You wrote:
- ...picked up by IFC films for distribution in 2013 and released theatrically in 73 cities across America from 2013 to 2014.
- The source says:
- ...picked up for distribution by IFC Films. The film was released theatrically in 2013/2014 in 73 American cities.
- You wrote
- Has won numerous awards such as POV’s "Humanitarian Award in Media", the Seattle International Film Festival's "Lena Sharpe Aware for Persistence of Vision, Women in Cinema", Mexico City's Distrital International Film Festival's "Best First Feature Director" and "ARCA Best Director Award", and Barcelona’s BEEFEATER IN-EDIT Festival Internacional De Cine Documental's "Best International Music Documentary Director".
- The source says:
- has won several awards for the film including Seattle International Film Festivals Lena Sharpe Award For Persistence Of Vision, Women in Cinema. Mexico Cities, Distrital International Film Festivals, ARCA Best Director Award, First Feature. Barcelona’s BEEFEATER IN-EDIT, Festival Internacional De Cine Documental Best International Music Documentary Director, and in 2014 Anderson was awarded POV’s Humanitarian Award in Media at their 40th annual awards ceremony in Los Angeles, CA.
- So with all the above problems, I did not think the rest of your work should be assumed good. That's why I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet, could you explain in a little more detail about your issues with the section you're removing from Sucker please? I see you cited WP:TONE, but I'm not sure what aspect you mean, you were a little vague, could you go into further detail? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 13:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your text is not neutral; it quotes Charli's angry tweets when it should summarize Charli's overall message. However, the primary sources you used do not lend themselves to summary. This bit should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources to show that it was significant. Primary sources fail to show significance. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right-o. I'll keep the possibility of copyvio in mind. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)