- 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
- Archive38 – September–October 2015
- Archive39 – November–December 2015
- Archive40 – January–April 2016
- Archive41 – March–June 2016
I'm extremely surprised about your comment on my edit on Justin Bieber's article "I'll Show You", since the beginning here on Wikipedia, the thing I do the most is to help increase the pages (you can check them out), all of my contributions are made to help the articles to grow and receive a good article nomination. What I perceived that you thought it was a copyright violation was only some terms used by critics as "sheets of cascading synths" and "fat bass, snapping", but none of them are there without a source and maybe it lacked only the quotation marks, but it's all sourced and they are minimal issues not an issue to be blocked or infringe any copyright. I believe that you got me wrong, because my mission here is only helping the articles to grow, without violation. You can see that many of my contributions were nominated for good article status, therefore I would never violate anything. This was very minimum and it was taken out of proportion.
Best regards, FanofPopMusic (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you use the source's unique wording without naming the source explicitly in the text – each time the wording is employed – then you are violating the copyright rules. That's why I pointed you to the guideline. Writing GA-class articles does not allow one to bypass the rules. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You may want to stop by the article when you get a chance. It's been subjected to extensive editing, some of which concerns me. Would like to get your opinion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I have examined both versions and responded on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
Does his/her edits remind you of Deeego? —IB [ Poke ] 15:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the pattern. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Joe Eszterhas article
My Name is Janie Hubert. I received a message from you regarding an edit I did on the Joe Eszterhas article.
As to the Joe Eszterhas article, I am the editor of the official website for Joe Eszterhas and I am working closely with him. We have been reviewing the information listed on Joe's article. We have found a number of errors along with inconsistencies, and we are in the process of updating the information. All the information we are adding or changing has been confirmed either from available sources or from Mr. Eszterhas himself.
Any material we upload, we have all rights to. Please specify specifically what portion(s) of the page you see copywrite issues with.
The current Wikipedia page for Joe Eszterhas is incorrect and we are working alongside Mr. Eszterhas himself to update it.
Please restore our previous edits as soon as possible.
Maryjanekathryn (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- So is there a PR fluff text file that he sends to all his media contacts? Because somebody used the same wording as you did (http://www.londonscreenwritersfestival.com/whats-on/sessions/everything-you-wanted-to-ask-about-screenwriting-but-never-dared-ask-with-joe-eszterhas), and it appears to be copyrighted by them, not you. I realize that they might have copied your PR puff piece verbatim, without crediting the source to you.
- Even if you own the words, they are not neutral in tone. Wikipedia has a policy about WP:TONE which says that you cannot use such promotional wording to puff up a subject. Your work for Eszterhas will have to be less obviously promotional or it will be removed. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all of this information. It is all very helpful, since I am new to Wikipedia and figuring it all out.
Any other advise you have as far as the best way to make this all work is much appreciated.
What we will do is request changes on the Joe Eszterhas talk page, and let other editors make the changes.
If you can keep an eye on all of this, that would be great, since you seem to be such a experienced editor.
Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryjanekathryn (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Maryjanekathryn: The easiest and best way to edit an article that you might have a conflict of interest, is to use edit requests on the article's talk page. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In regards to your denial of genre change
To begin, I must remind you that Wikipedia is a free and open source of information that anyone can edit. To disregard this is to disregard the entire purpose of Wikipedia, regardless of alternative purpose. So your argument is that because I didn't provide any sources that I am for some reason not allowed to change the information on the site. This argument in fact is an argument that lacks support by itself. The reason for this is that the source doesn't need to prove that the song is a particular genre, but simply state it. I am able to prove that the song The Beautiful People is both Industrial Metal and Alternative Metal, and disprove the current argued genre Alternative Metal and Gothic Rock, but there simply lacks a section to be able to do that. So to chain this up, your logic is that you can provide a source that has no information to prove that a song is a certain subgenre, but you can't prove it yourself on the site. So because there is no other section to prove/disprove the genre, I will explain it here. The guitars give off a distinct electronic grinding sound, present in Industrial Metal with distinct drone based repetitive rifts also found in Industrial Metal, but with a bit more groove. It fits into the Alternative Metal catagory with the slight distortion present with the grinding industrial sound, and a slightly Funk Metal based chorus rift, present in Alternative Metal. The reason that the genre Gothic Rock does not apply to this song is because it has melodic, romantic, and soft elements that the song fails to deliver. In addition to this, I am calling you out on 2 things. The first is protecting something you don't know anything about, and even worse is you protecting something you don't know anything about, using guidelines instead of information. I am calling you out on this because you're blindly protecting something. The second is stacking a confliction that contains the second confliction, with that confliction. I am calling you out on this because you're just saying I did the same thing twice and expecting double the result (I also don't appreciate the dismissal of "assumption"). I appeal that I broke the route conflictions, but because no matter what the source I give, the page will accept it as long as it says that the song is what I changed the information to, and even if I gave one that explained it in depth, someone else could change it with a lesser source, and it would be accepted regardless. So I don't participate in this flawed mechanic. I await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The Pop Matters source definitely lists the song as one of the ten best alt metal tunes of the 1990s, so the alt metal genre is supported there. The NME source definitely lists the song as one of the 20 best goth tunes, so the gothic rock genre is supported. Your own analysis of the guitar sound doesn't work here because Wikipedia has a hard-and-fast rule about editors not doing their own research, the rule called WP:No original research. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Power Windows edit
You said that we should try to have a neutral outlook on different pages, and yes, I am a bit biased because I like Rush. But that's not why I edited the page. The Rolling Stone article giving Power Windows 2.5/5 isn't valid anymore, at least not for me. The source provided leads to a dead page saying "Sorry for the inconvenience, this page could not be loaded." That's why I think it was fair that I removed the rating (I forgot to remove the source though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviskebisk (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia still counts the source as valid even if Rolling Stone doesn't host the review anymore. There's a guideline at WP:KDL (Keep Dead Links) that tells us we should not remove text supported by links that are no longer working.
- Furthermore, there's a pretty easy way to see what was on such links: go to the Wayback Machine at archive.org. I plugged in the dead url and got the following result: http://web.archive.org/web/20101222001032/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/rush/albumguide. It shows that Power Windows did indeed get a 2.5 star rating. at least in 2010 when the page was archived.
- I can understand that a fan of the album might wish to remove a poor rating, but the rating was notable, published by a major music periodical. It would violation Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you help me get the story of how the video was done for free
I recruited 150 crew members and 20 companies to help. I am not looking for glory for myself. I'm 71 with Muscular Dystrophy and want to get the story out. I was a TV engineer at the beginning of my career and promised myself to treat crew fairly.mplease help me. Hgmalley@sbcglobal.net Hgmalley (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- You need to find a newspaper or magazine that wants to run your story. They can interview you and other crew members and tell how it all came together. Since the old Life magazine was involved, Time magazine should be your first choice. Time has access to Life archival photos.
- Wikipedia cannot be your first place of publication, according to the guideline at WP:NOTESSAY.
- Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I found  that on the way to checking a pile of copyvios. It looks like the user has copied a bio from another page onto a sandbox page. I'm concerned about search engines. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a student in school, playing around with editing. I have blanked the user page and the sandbox per WP:NOT, and I will keep an eye on this kid. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we revise an edit you did?
Hello, Binsternet I have a question about one point on the edit you did on the Robert Perless page. It's about the highly unusual and broadly written-about house and studio complex that he literally built. This is germane to his work as a sculptor in metal, because he built the house in metal, which is extremely unusual. I know that my contributing to his bio is considered COI, but I am knowledgeable about architecture. Is there a way we can re-edit his entry?
You wrote, "In 1978 after working in cramped quarters in New York City, The Perlesses built a house with attached sculpture studio in Greenwich, Connecticut."
What is actually the case is, "In 1978, Perless began literally to construct an all-metal house and studio complex with 25' ceilings in Greenwich, Connecticut so that he could freely construct and exhibit his work. It has been widely published."
In addition to the NY times citation I added, here are five others:
I hope that you will reconsider and change this one entry. Thank you so much for your help.
BTW, Robert has sent in the correct forms for the inclusion of other work to the Gallery. It would be important to actually show more of a sculptor's work on their page. Don't you agree?
Eperless (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- ^ GA Houses 17, February 1985, Pp.60-67
- ^ "Amours d'aluminium," Decoration Internationale, Octobre 1983 Pp.82-95
- ^ "Modern Sanctum," Interior Design, October 1985 Pp.242-243 et seq.
- ^ "Living in Sculpture," Connecticut Magazine, February 1986, Pp.136-141
- ^ Slesin, Suzanne, Stafford Cliff, Daniel Rozensztroch. “The International Book of Lofts.’’ New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. 1986, 218-219.
- I can see a couple of online sources that support your assertion, one published in the New York Times Magazine in 1984 which says the architect was John Ciardullo, and a brochure hosted online by Ciardullo. I will rewrite the bit. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Binksternet, you did not get the idea correctly. Robert built the entire house. He did not just cut the panels. I have made the corrections. Please do not take this out for COI. You just did not get it right. Actually, we collaborated with John on the design of the house. robert literally built everything in metal — the steel, the exterior, and the sculptural railings. I am also adding the other references.
I hope that's okay, and we can just move on.
Eperless (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
edit summary Tom Selleck
Hi, Could you explain your edit summary in this edit ? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote, "Rv... Persistent POV changes by IPs in N.Ireland." What I was doing was reverting every questionable edit by a person using an IP address from Northern Ireland. I erred on the side of reverting this guy, because the other edits were pretty bad, and the person was getting tiresome. This particular change from "soldier" to "guardsman" and back to soldier again was not so terribly bad, but the word "guardsman" is rarely used in the US – very rarely. It's much more common to call someone a soldier, even if they are serving in a Guard unit. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I guess we now both think that the IP's edit was in good faith, rather than some kind of POV pushing.
- I was thinking of deleting "soldier" because it seems redundant with the rest of the sentence. Would that be OK with you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Link to REDIRECT prohibited
I understand that there was some kerfuffle at A Love So Beautiful, but I don't understand why a link in Nessun dorma to that REDIRECT should be prohibited. That's what REDIRECTs are for, no? I would appreciate you restoring that link in "Nessun dorma". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I neglected the sources for the material in question. I've now added a number of them. Also, I deleted some unsourced material that had been lurking in the article. Doubtless there's more unsourced material there & it needs work. Badiacrushed (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks to me like a lot of folks quote Waltke rather than a lot of folks coming to the same conclusion independently. Also, C. Everett Koop and some other evangelicals don't agree with Waltke, so I put that in. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
About my edits on David Irving's talk page
You have removed my edits on David Irving's talk page because it didn't meet some Wikipedia standard. Than I changed my edits to comply with said standards and put back the edited version. Than user Dmol removed that and you accused me of engaging in a edit war. I did everything in my power to address your complaints and even if my edits are still unacceptable I think it is not fair to accuse me of participating in a edit war. --Nekdolan (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your first talk page contribution said "I am not proposing any changes. I just want to talk." Such talk is against WP:NOTAFORUM. However, your discussion was in any case aimed at removing the label "holocaust denier" from the Irving biography. So your changes which addressed NOTAFORUM were not really substantive changes – you still wanted to removed the label "holocaust denier." That label has been confirmed over and over again in countless talk page discussions, so the fact that you were bringing it up yet again was disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you believe that I have violated the three-revert rule? Or did I get a warning because somebody else at some point had raised this issue? As far as I can can tell I am the only who got a warning for (re)raising concerns regarding this issue. Why was I singled out? The last similar attempt was less than a year ago. Did that person also get a warning? --Nekdolan (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are also misrepresenting of what I said in the talk page. I stated that the sources are missing or misinterpreted and therefore they should be expanded, and only if that can be done should we remove the label that is therefore unverifiable. I don't see how expanding existing conclusions is disruptive. Care to explain? Nekdolan (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you just an Oasis hater?
I love the band Oasis, do you just generally hate them, you removed both Oasis' cover of I am the Walrus, and Oasis' cover of Heroes by David Bowie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeizawsom (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, he don't really wanna know, how your garden grows... Etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I asked you to look at WP:SONGCOVER. Have you done so? It says that unremarkable song covers are not to be listed. B-sides are not usually important enough to mention, nor are covers performed during concerts. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Can i have your input regarding an user continuously disrupting the Ray of Light article by removing content from the lead here and accusing me of falsely adding that content? I tried explaining him/her about WP:LEAD but the user chose to ignore it. —IB [ Poke ] 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I raised a talk page discussion if you would like to comment. —IB [ Poke ] 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- About this, sorry somehow I mistook you for the user Jeremiah here, and thought he was re-opening the discussion. My eyes are playing me today. —IB [ Poke ] 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight
Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!
MediaWiki message delivery
We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)
Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.
Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo
The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.
We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.
See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)
) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)