User talk:Binksternet/Archive32

John Bonham

I noticed you recently made an edit to the John Bonham page. You recently said, per Ringo Starr, that an abundance of quotes should be avoided. I've noticed that the Bonham influence section is packed full of quotes. Doesn't this need reducing? Rodericksilly (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit was more about reverting a serial genre warrior than about examining the Bonham bio. Taking a look at it now...

The lead section is too short. The gravestone inscription should be deleted as unimportant; it should in any case not be using the pull quote style. The Charlie Watts quote says nothing helpful and should be removed entirely. The other quotes might be trimmed but I would have a hard time figuring out which ones. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It seems to me that there is a serious overload of quotes on this section, even if we all accept Bonham is the greatest and most influential rock drummer ever. It seems fair to me to say Charlie Watts called Bonham "the best" and leave it at that. I'm also concerned about the sources of these quotes. I've no doubt Roger Taylor said what he said, I think it was from a radio interview, but is imdb an acceptable source? Also, Chad Smith is a Youtube video, and Eric Carr's quote looks like it's from a self-published source similar to that which was unacceptable for the Ringo Starr page. Am I right? Rodericksilly (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice that Watts did not actually say that Bonham was the best drummer in the world; rather, he said Bonham was the best at being Bonham, which is sentimental nothingness. (You are the best at being Rodericksilly and I am the best at being Binksternet. We're all the best.)

The Roger Taylor quote is pesky—impossible for me to track down the original. I would dump it because of its poor sourcing.

The Chad Smith bit is from a 2010 BBC documentary, so that's good enough. It just happens to be hosted on Youtube, with possible copyright violation.

You're right, the Eric Carr quote is hosted on a self-published website, so it cannot be used to describe a living person. Since Bonham is not living, the quote could be argued as okay. It's still not a great source, and we have better ones. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting points, thanks for that. I didn't think Youtube was ever acceptable as a source? Don't we need to use the name of the documentary and its broadcast date instead? Rodericksilly (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are times when Youtube is acceptable, for instance if a video segment is uploaded by the copyright owners. Something found on the BBC official channel could be used to support whatever it said. That said, the Chad Smith quote should be cited to the actual BBC documentary title and whatever else that identifies it. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll move this discussion to the Bonham talk page. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Input at FARC

Hey Bink, you're an experienced Wikipedian, can you offer an opinion regarding Manila Metro Rail Transit System FA status here? I've argued that the FARC was advancing too long and most ineffective, but additional comment are needed because of the low interest. Appreciate if you can jump in.--Retrohead (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I have no interest in that topic. If I have time today I'll take a look. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking

Would you revert your recent edits at "Battle of Nanking"? The entire rest of the article is properly cited to reliable sources, so why should we include that one section of text with virtually no citations at all? The first paragraph includes citations to an unpublished blog and the personal website of a non-expert. It also cites an article by David Askew which is linked online, but if you read the article you can see that it actually doesn't mention one single thing from that particular paragraph and thus is not properly cited.

The problem with using uncited text like this is that it increases the chance of factual errors. For instance, this paragraph says that the first bombing of Nanking took place on September 21. I know of no source that says that and the Battle of Nanking article already mentions the fact that the first bombing of Nanking took place on August 15. In his book on the subject Tokushi Kasahara devotes enough space on the August 15 bombing raid that I'm already convinced that it could one day be its own article, but that's a project for the future. Also, you re-inserted a picture of Naruhiko Higashikuni, but he was an imperial prince and by and large was only the nominal commander of operations. As Kasahara notes, it was 3rd Fleet commander Kiyoshi Hasegawa and 2nd Combined Air Group commander Teizo Mitsunami who were in charge of operations. We could mention that in the article, but there's so much to say about the bombing, which started long before the start of the Battle of Nanking on December 1, that I figured it would be better to keep it short and give it its own article one day.

Underneath the section on "Aerial bombardment of Nanking" there are for some reason subsections on the Nine Power Conference and the Battle of Shanghai, all of which is glaringly uncited compared to the rest of the article. Obviously these are not appropriate subsections, but moreover extended discussion of the Battle of Shanghai is not necessary for an article on the Battle of Nanking. However, the Nine Power Conference is already mentioned in the article and I don't know why we need to mention it twice.

I think you may have been a bit hasty in reverting me before taking a look at these significant problems with the text. It is not cited, large parts of it are redundant, it includes too much unnecessary information on the Battle of Shanghai, and it includes some factual inaccuracies which are clearly contradicted and refuted in other parts of this very same article. It seems clear to me that we should remove the entire thing, at very least until citations can be provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I wonder where this talk of "100 fly-overs" came from. The official records of the Japanese military mention only 50 raids in total, but on the other hand the Chinese evidently counted the raids differently because the city of Nanking, which recorded the raids up to October 15, counted 65 raids. I suppose it depends on how one defines a "fly-over" but therein lies the peril of using text which doesn't cite any sources. Even the improperly cited blog and personal website don't appear to mention it at all.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I spent some time looking through the supplied sources and more results from Google book searches, and I agree that the disputed text has too many things wrong with it. I would certainly like to have something about monoplane vs biplane fighters in the article, and I would like to see a section about the air operations, but again, the disputed text has too many things wrong with it. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My personal conclusion on the matter is that the sections dealing with the Battle of Shanghai should largely be left to the article on the Battle of Shanghai. By contrast, the bombing of Nanking is clearly relevant to the article, but even that shouldn't be discussed in too much length because it includes the period from August 15 to December 1. I was a little worried that the article was getting too long by Wikipedia standards so I figured the first things to trim down would be the parts that happened before and after the battle like the bombing. The fact is that the bombing of Nanking deserves an entire article just like the Bombing of Chongqing. More than enough has been written on it to fill a whole article. Sadly I can't give you a time estimate on when I could create the article because I have other projects on the go, but suffice to say that someone must definitely create an article on the Bombing of Nanking during the Second Sino-Japanese War sooner or later.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit in the US Armed Forces.

I think you should really read the article I cited because calling it "nonsense speculation" is blatantly ignorant. Calling the US Military the "best" is also ignorant and there really is nothing to back it up other than the size of the US military and it's technology which hardly earns the title as best. The US military after all has yet to really prove it's capabilities on it's own in a large scale conflict. Calling any military the best is childish anyways. It's almost like saying the Pittsburgh Penguins are the best because they have such good players. If that's all that mattered then they would be but it isn't. The same goes for the US with it's technology and sheer size. Don;t be ignorant.

Nick3111997 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Nick3111997

One article is not enough to counter thousands of reports that the the US military is the largest in the world. Being the "best" is only provable in battle, so the article cannot answer that question. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for work on Kurt Chew-Een Lee

		The Biography Barnstar
		Outstanding work (and a very belated barnstar!) on Kurt Chew-Een Lee! Glad you could incorporate my orphan sandbox work and medals table so well into your other superb edits of this much improved article! Pylon (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! The pugnacious late warrior would thank you, too, if he could. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All-caps in Japanese artists name

Hi, I saw You edited the reference titles of Gackt's article by changing Gackts name in them from all-caps "GACKT" to "Gackt". It is something for some time thought to do, and did it per Manual of Style/Capital letters and Manual of Style/Trademarks, when edited articles Mysteries of Yoshitsune I&II, Re:Born, and Best of the Best: Wild and Mild. But in the third case, not so lately, changed to all-caps again, without much reason. It is something bothering me for quiet a while. I discussed this with Xfansd shortly in now deleted discussion, you can see it here in revision history. I really would like to hear your thoughts on this, and what we could about it.--Crovata (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Xfansd said it was unfair that some trademarks can be all lower case, but none can be all caps. I don't agree that this is unfair, as lower case is a kind of de-emphasis, while all-caps is shouting. The two situations are not the same.

At any rate, the Trademarks guideline is what was driving my edit. Whether or not we like the guideline it still should be followed. If the guideline is somehow faulty then it should be changed. That battle should be fought head-on at the guideline talk page, not by guerrilla action in the articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

When in regard to people's names the situations are exactly the same; you don't place more or less emphasis on names that way. I'll temporarily agree with the assumption that all caps is always shouting for argument's sake. The act of shouting is a way to emphasize. If all caps is the opposite of all lowercase, why would de-emphasis be acceptable but not emphasis? Again, this is simply putting the stylization once in an article to inform, not using it throughout. Xfansd (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you work to change the guideline to allow GACKT. Otherwise, you could equally fight to disallow the lower case bell hooks which is certainly a stylized name. That is, you could fight to make lower case names be capitalized, so that the guideline is kept. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI

No blocks yet I see. I'd rather one of the active SPI Admins do them, then I can do any necessary deletions. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gallup has the wrong numbers

Binksternet,

Gallup has Young Human Creationism, not Young Earth Creationism. You are doubting poll numbers from http://ncse.com/.

DevonSprings (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet hoaxer

Hi there. I saw that you were involved in this sockpuppet [1] and I would like to add more [2] to the list. DeeJamieson, Jzzypearl, Daisyreed all have the same agenda of hoaxing the existence of "Shannon Sixx", and now they've repeatedly created another hoax person Harry_Beckham. Can we get that salted too? Is there some way to just add to a rolling list of sockpuppet names? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I will do some of the paperwork for these new hoaxers, including inquiring whether we can get an edit filter for Shannon Sixx. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, an edit filter preventing "Shannon Sixx" would have an unfortunate consequence if it actually worked: we would be prevented from quickly identifying this hoaxer's new socks. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha! So Wikipedia has no honeypot mode?  ;-) Someone should write a mediawiki plugin for that! Sadly. Coz this is one mentally disturbed individual. Some of the wikilinks they made this time were even just to a first name! I wouldn't rule out psychosis, I reckon. Between whatever their obvious mental condition is, and the giant waste of time these things are for everyone else, it's just so exhaustingly sad. Thank you for your kind and diligent attention. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassidydonovan. I asked for a filter but that question should really be brought up at WP:AN, if we conclude it is a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Who Was That anyway?

Who is B-Nose anyway? He or she It has made one post, to bother me, for what I intended to be a polite challenge to Jimbo. With that posting history, it appears to be a sockpuppet. Of whom? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My guess is Jim Siduri. Only a hunch. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, especially since he has engaged in extravagant praise of some editors, and I have no history of engaging in either extravagant praise or extravagant provocation. You are likely right. That editor has gone from being deeply well-meaning and deeply ignorant to being a pest who is becoming a troll. By the way, my post to Jimbo, asking him what he planned to do about disruptive editing, appears to have been archived by bot error. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi Binksternet, did you mean to file this case with the status as already closed? That makes sense when someone is leaving documentation for the future but I gather this might not have been what you intended. With all of them blocked now, do you still want this open for your edit filter request? You may want to nudge someone with those privileges to read the case. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ach! I did not intend to file it as already closed. Instead, I tried to put the SPI case together automatically, going through the basic process initiated at the main WP:SPI page, but the thing did not work right, and it was malformed. I tried to fix it by looking at previous cases, which is where I accidentally copied the "closed" parameter. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected it for you. That nudge to someone with edit filter rights might expedite it. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/IamHarmonia

He/she added unknown song with no source on diff of Four (One Direction album). 183.171.168.157 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. In the future, you can remove that sort of thing yourself. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

your comment on Daniel Stern: "he is also a husband, a father and a taxpayer, but we don't put that in the first sentence."

Were you being a wiseguy when you said that? It's notable saying he's a sculptor, as that's one of his occupations. --Wizardlords (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

He's not famous for being a sculptor. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see.--Wizardlords (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Compare to Ronnie Wood. Famous musician who does a lot of art. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

Dear Binksternet

Either enter the discussion as a VIP or don't revert the article otherwise I will issue a report under edit warring the WP:1RR.

DevonSprings (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by VIP? I'm a veteran editor on Wikipedia but I have no special status beyond that. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

i did not leave any commentary on any article. maybe you should read what you are posting since you have no idea what you are doing.96.231.161.128 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello Binksternet/Archive32! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I've worked on a few articles related to women writers, for instance GA Woman's Bible and GA Ina Coolbrith, so it's a good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hey Binksternet

You left something on my talk page that may have been deleted referring to tips for editors that I'd like to take a look at.

Also, I noticed that this page did the exact same thing I did in defining "Traditional Marriage" on a Disambiguation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_equality_%28disambiguation%29

Should this definition be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoGuy11 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit made an absolute statement: "Traditional marriage is the term used to describe marriage between a man and a woman."

Certainly "traditional marriage" has been used in the U.S. by social conservatives in that manner, starting from some recent date. The same term has also been used for hundreds of years to discuss various marriage traditions in context, including polygamy, child brides, arranged marriage, etc. It would be good to have this context explained so that a global audience is not fooled into thinking the term has only that one meaning.

In contrast, the term "marriage equality" does not have this kind of wide-ranging previous use. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet,

I'm enjoying this discussion and appreciate your feedback. Here are my thoughts.

Traditional Marriage has become the most popular term for marriage between a man and woman universally as seen by its adoption in media, the N.O.M., pop culture and other writings. Even still, the multiple uses of the term such as the Christian Views, and Islamic Views help to add clarity, but unfortunately piegon hold the term as being purely religious.

With regard to the final term on the page "Opposite Sex Union" This is POV and an agenda pushing statement. The term "Opposite Sex Union" is usually used as a counter to "Same Sex Union" in a tongue and cheek way. The longer standing and more universally understood representation should look like this: Heterosexual Union. Additionally, the most blatant POV statement is (Used by Opponents of Same Sex Marriage). I can tell your an observant editor, do I really need to explain how this is POV? Could you imagine if Marriage Equality or Same Sex Marriage had a link with the statement (Used by opponents of Traditional Marriage)... edit war based on POV and agenda!

Here is my conclusion, to remove POV and represent the most popular usage of the term while acknowledging the various past understandings of the term in the links that already exist, the definition should like this:

Traditional Marriage: Among other definitions, it is most commonly understood to describe marriage between a man and a woman. -or replace third tier link with Heterosexual Union: A marriage between a man and a woman.

Again, I appreciate your vigor in helping provide quality information. That is my main goal, I truly look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoGuy11 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at the Talk Page for Traditional Marriage. I would love to create a discussion on changes to the page. ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GeForce 700 etc.

FYI, here. I stole liberally from your request a few weeks ago; thanks for the boost. JohnInDC (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! We all build off of each other. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

MJ You Rock My World

Thank you for solving that date-changing issue, as dealing with this vandal has gotten me into trouble after I blew up from annoyance. I found that You Rock My World was recorded between July and September 2000, a few years ago. The source I forgot to cite and somehow along the way, that date was removed in this diff. In the interim, you mediated that issue. It is so frustrating why some of these IP users maliciously play with dates and then in my case, I lose my head with them after 6 years of fixing these problems/fighting vandalism.—Carmaker1 (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's terribly frustrating that some editors want to damage the encyclopedia by inserting wrong information on purpose. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on adding unsourced content, but I don't understand if it's veriable to add cites from other websites. I think that many people want to have much detailed information on first hand (such as recording dates, but when they are empty, it just doesn't seem complete to me). Misa443 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not alone in that feeling. Lots of editors feel the need to fill in every single empty infobox parameter. The problem is that everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable, per WP:V, even tiny little entries in infoboxes.

Regarding your question about "other websites", they definitely can be used if they are considered WP:Reliable sources. For instance, an online music magazine saying that a song was recorded in July 2000 is a perfectly good source for telling the Wikipedia reader what is the recording date of that song. Self-published websites and blog sources are not quite as good, but for uncontroversial things like recording dates, they might be satisfactory. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, he is not sorry

Pride is a powerful thing: [3] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he is. [4] I'll take it, though. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Couched as a twist-my-arm response rather than from the heart. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me out here, as English is not my first language: Sorry vs. Sorrow: It is common to feel sorry when you have caused an outcome you regret. Sorrow, on the other hand is when you are sad about something that has happened and you are not the actor. Am I right, or are these two terms interchangeable? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the terms are not interchangeable. "Sorry" is certainly regret for the distress you caused others, with an element of sympathy for the victim. "Sorrow" is generic sadness, with no actors identified, and no sympathy. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, "sorrow" has no regret for personal actions, just sadness from larger events that could not be avoided. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I'm not sure you can force regret ... Either you feel it or you don't. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you had any doubt about how sincere his "sorrow" was - check out his userpage now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh mai

I think I found another one whilst poking through new uploads on Commons, what do you think of this one? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Turkish language sources might be brought in to make this biography notable, for instance I found brief mentions in a Turkish bibliography from '99, a gazette from 2000, and a listing from 1990. There might be some in-depth coverage somewhere, maybe a newspaper. The early versions of the biography had a lot of peacock language, but that's been removed. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but what do you think of Special:Contributions/Omersevincgul's edit history? He has 100% of edits on Ömer Sevinçgül which rather looks like he's editing what seems to be his own page? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like two editors have a conflict of interest with regard to that biography. There's Omersevincgul and also the article creator. In the grand scheme of things it is not so big a violation. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cabazon Dinosaurs

Hello, I didn't mean to offend you by removing your blurry, out of frame, close-up picture of a sign. Was just trying to improve the visuals of the article with my "inferior" images. Haha. I thought your image should be removed from the article because it does not capture the entire sign and you can't read any of the sentences on it, making it difficult to even verify what the sign is about. But no worries, not going to edit war with you. You can keep the article your way. Have fun and good luck! @citymorgue 05:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FFS What am I doing wrong?

I'm trying to help sort better information here and it seems as if you hate and dissagree with me here. What is wrong with it? Can you please explain. I'm not vandalizing or ruining pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.90.195 (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 120.148.90.195 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please start referring to a book or magazine article which describes the genre. Up until now, your efforts at sorting "better information" have the appearance of being your own opinion. Wikipedia has a rule called WP:No original research which basically means that information on Wikipedia should already be published somewhere in a verifiable source, a reliable source. Musical genres are not like math problems where there is only one right answer; genres are debated and disputed in the literature. A musical genre on Wikipedia should be supported by at least one published opinion. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for some of my ignorant behavior and the inconvenience I caused, I'm not that good with some resources like that Jersey club one and tend to get into the habit of "I may be on the right track" but then later it may turn out that I wasn't, I had a couple of references there but I guess I should of looked more into it and add more references along the way. I'll try to keep that in mind next time. Thanks for the feedback. 120.148.90.195 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Promo article on user page

Thought you might like to see this one. Yes it's user space, but... really? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have started dealing with it. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Please stop edit warring

Thanks for expressing your concerns. See User_talk:Nick-D#Re:_Please_stop_edit_warring wherein I hope I've addressed them -- Kendrick7^talk 05:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lil Armstrong

I made a couple of corrections to the Lil Armstrong biography, mainly to remove false information taken from (possibly posted by) James L. Dickerson, who wrote a book on Lil Armstrong, "Just for a Thrill," that rife with assumptions. I was paid a visit by Dickerson when he was writing that book, but I refused to give him any information, sensing that he was spewing out books in a most irresponsible fashion. You know what I am talking about, I think.

I was very close to Lil during the last 10 years of her life. We had been working on her autobiography, so what there was of a manuscript, and a box full of her photos were—and still are—at my New York apartment. I should clarify that "Fred Nurdley" is the name I originally used when I registered with Wiki many years ago. At that time, I was mostly correcting misinformation (usually well-meant, but erroneous) and vandalism. My expertise being jazz and blues, I was mainly checking out listings for performers with whose life I was well acquainted, including Bessie Smith, about whom I wrote a book. You can see more about my background on Wikipedia's bio on Chris Albertson (my actual name). Yes, I have even had to do some light editing there, mainly correcting dates.

Anyway, it's 2:45 AM in New York now and I am working to meet a deadline on a Lil Armstrong bio for the Hall of Fame in Memphis (hence my discovery of the corrected mistakes). You say that I need more substantial (i.e. published) sources for my corrections, but I'm not sure why my first-hand account is less valid than something an unprincipled writer has had printed. Please advise.

Sorry for this rambling note, but working all day and half the night will do that to you, especially when you are 83!

My e-mail address is bessiesmith@mac.com

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Nurdley (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you have first-hand authoritative experience is a perfectly good reason for you to write another book or magazine article, or publish a bio online. At Wikipedia, however, there is a hard rule called WP:No original research, which is the opposite of normal book writing procedure. This rule is difficult for authors and scholars to swallow. Wikipedia is never supposed to be the place where the public first hears facts about Lil Armstrong – the facts should already be published.

Regarding Dickerson's book, I am not seeing such damning criticism of it in reviews. Publisher's Weekly says in 2002 that it is a "well-meaning, meandering account" but they don't say it is wrong. They say that it sheds little light on Lil and more on Louis. They repeat as fact the Dickerson account of "vultures" taking Lil's manuscript. Scott Alexander's redhotjazz.com website lists only one book as suggested reading about Lil, and it is Dickerson's. Jazz Review says that the book is "highly recommended reading". Jazz Times read a copy of the book before it was published, and quoted a couple of stories from Dickerson's work. Gene Henry Anderson cites Dickerson three times in his book The Original Hot Five Recordings of Louis Armstrong, saying that the Dickerson book is where you'll find more about Joe Glaser's troubles with the law. None of these reviewers and authors describe the Dickerson book as flawed or counterfactual. Your negative appreciation of Dickerson is thus a personal opinion until you get it published. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi once again.

I'm back to Wikipedia for a time after a short break. Is everything going well?

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you're back genre-warring, which is not such a great idea. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2014 (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, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Madonna Talk

Dear Binksternet, I have initiated a new discussion on the Madonna Talk page. I need editors to weigh in and decide if Madonna's article should follow guidelines usually followed by articles on artists known mononymously. Some discussions tend to be overlooked; this is why I'm telling you about it. Thx! Israell (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

BenefactorDubsta

Are you going to fill out an SPI for this editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly can, but I did not see the need until a few minutes ago when he started reverting back to his version. The 'tell' is super obvious, so there's no question that it's GoldDragon socking. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. If you go to the archived investigations on the guy you can see he complained in June about being caught in a frustrating cycle of persistent socking and block evasion after getting caught abusing multiple accounts in 2010–2011. The guy really wants to contribute here but he cannot for the life of him stay away from Wikipedia for the required six months in order to qualify for WP:OFFER. He keeps making new accounts and coming back to his favorite topics. At this rate he will be a sock forever, and be reverted forever. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. It looks as if you've accidentally marked the SPI case as "closed". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll go try and correct the problem. This is the second or third time this has happened to me after filling out the SPI form in what I consider a normal fashion. I wonder what is going wrong with the process. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua

Blocked for six months. Tell me if he reappears. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Salsa

My name is Bobby Sanabria musicologist, can you tell me, what the Colombian did or created about the Cuban music called salsa today, to deserve to write the son montuno or salsa, is Colombian popular music?. You are misinforming the world, and that's not instruct on the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.153.227 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Sanabria lives in New York City; he works at the Manhattan School of Music, and his English skills are excellent. Your internet address shows that you contribute from North Carolina, and your English is faulty, thus you are not Sanabria. Instead, you are the sockpuppet of blocked editor Arch1p1elago, known for edit warring on topics related to Latin music, especially Salsa music.

Regarding Colombia, that country is one of the most enthusiastic consumers of salsa music. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!

In the area? You're invited to    San Francisco Meetup # 22   Date: October 11, 2014   Time: 1-5 pm   Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105   prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you my friend!

Hello Mr. Michael I am Dfrr I want to give you this Awesome Cheeseburger and see if we could be friends. I am editing articles on MAX Light Rail. Dfrr (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dfrr, and thanks for the noms! I don't know anything about Portland's light rail system, so I'll let you do your thing. If you have a specific question maybe I can field it. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Genres

If you see an edit of mine in your watchlist that mentions a genre, it's never an addition, but a disambiguation of a (most likely) new addition to the genre field. Reverting only my addition doesn't actually remove the new genre. For a while, I was reverting genre changes, but instead, now I just disambiguate them, which makes the addition stand out in watchlists of users that do keep an eye on genre changes. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 04:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, cool. On what article(s) have we intersected? Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Steve Hackett and Starless and Bible Black. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see that now. On the album I realized after four minutes that I had not reverted enough, so I fixed it fairly soon. On the Hackett bio, I fixed the problem just now, with your hint. In both cases I was aiming at this guy, nobody else. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre tyrant much?

What exactly was the problem with expanding those genre sections? "Changing without discussion or sources"? Discussion isn't really necessary for such a trivial area (and is largely a waste of time), and sources are not necessary when the album itself is the topic (hence, its own source).

It all seems more megalomaniac protectionism than actually about defending article integrity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niriop (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is twofold: that the genre parameter for an album should be supported by article text and references per WP:V, and that the genre parameter for an album should be about the album as a whole rather than an aggregate taken from all the songs found on the album. Reviewers should say that the album is a rock album, or a folk rock album, or whatever. The individual song genres belong at the song articles, and of course they can be mentioned in the album article text, described in prose. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Light my fire

Thanks for being thorough. I have now added more specific refs for Larry Knechtel.----Design (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gabed123

This guy is back for another wave of genre edits. I've let a few stay put for now, but otherwise it's always the same shit with him—he either removes hard rock, and/or adds glam/heavy metal. I've got his activity on watch, but in case I miss something perhaps you could keep an eye on him too? It's getting tiresome. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. Agree it is tiresome. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed as a genre warrior that is not here. He didn't communicate with any of the editors that tried to converse with him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ravenkills97

I didn't change the genres on In This Moment, all i did was put commas in between the genres. U gave me a final warning for no reason. All because I put commas in between something, like it fucking erases the genre.

You're right, that was not fair of me. I'm sorry. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

David Mamet and Cameron Crowe

I accept your warning and will take it into consideration for future edits. At the same time, I would appreciate if you would read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution please. I hope that you and I may come up with a compromised solution in the future.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Compromised" is not a solution I would seek, ever. The answer is that the "Frequent collaborators" sections you like to compose should be based on WP:Reliable sources. If there are no sources commenting on frequent collaborators, then there's no need for such a section. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. If whatever I post has no sources, then by all means please delete it. I have nothing wrong with you deleting whatever I post, and I admit I have made mistakes in past Wikipedia contributions. According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, it is stated, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I do not want to be misunderstood to believe that what you sent to my talk page about blocking me, which I now deleted, to be a personal attack.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note I have also read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. I will agree not to win; you may delete any information I do not have the sources for. I just hope you will not win either. That is all I have to say and thank you Binksternet.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ygm

Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi once again.

I'm back to Wikipedia for a time after a short break. Is everything going well, Binksternet?

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

I'm only using one account. Anyways, I'm leaving from editing for a while. MrLW97 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: Arena rock/pomp rock

This discussion (if that's what you were referring to?) had bearing on whether arena rock warranted a genre infobox at its article, not whether the term should be excluded from the genre parameter at infoboxes for WP:ALBUMS. Also, as I brought up here, several sources refer to pomp rock as a genre, including Martin Popoff, and I cited a source verifying it as one of the synonyms at arena rock. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed at the bottom of the page that the article Arena rock is still categorized as a "Rock music genre" article. Dan56 (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that arena rock is a genre. However, you should settle the matter via RfC before taking the ball and running with it. So far, I have been unsuccessful in convincing others that arena rock was a valid genre. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as kind of hypocritical, considering I was the only editor who made an effort to "using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors", and considering you made three reverts as well to that article in the past 24 hours, including the most recent revert that didn't explain a thing but restored an unsourced genre added by some IP a while ago in place of genres actually sourced in the article. I deserve a courteous response more than a 3rr warning. Do you have anything to respond to regarding my original messages here (about there never being a consensus banning "arena rock" or "pomp rock" from the infobox) and what I wrote at the article's talk page, or should I just start an RfC? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I started one anyway, so its whatever, but no genres--especially the unsourced ones that are currently there--should be there until a discussion decides it. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Physical (Olivia Newton-John song)

No wonder there's an unreliable sources edited by an obvious fake admin. I was brokenhearted. Can you help us? 183.171.172.42 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't you see my note? 183.171.171.246 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I went to the song article and made some genre fixes. I don't see your "fake admin", so there's nothing to do there. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is really confusing.....however your post above just now, Binksternet, brings me comfort in that I'm not going crazy or am totally lost here. The above IP user (difficult to pin down since him/her keeps slightly changing their IP address...) is going around various talk pages, accusing me of being a fake administrator (wtf?). I am just a Wikipedia editor who tried to add a genre and source to a popular music article, since most others have them. Physical didn't have one, so I went out of my way to fill it. I can't even have dialogue with the above user since they refuse to confront me about it, instead they avoid me and ask others to do his/her bidding for them. I thank you however, Binksternet, for being clear in your edits about the sources I added. Since I had seen the source Allmusic used frequently around Wikipedia without any fuss, I assumed it was a reliable source. I wasn't aware that the sidebar genre can't be used until you said so in your edit summary. If the above IP user had told me this from the beginning, this entire mess could have been avoided. I don't know what I've stumbled upon here with this user (not sure why they don't just register), but it sure is spooky. Hopefully the above IP user and their buddy don't try and remove this message too, like they tried to do when I responded to the user's accusations on an administrator's page earlier today (my message was quickly restored by another admin). In the six years I've had an account on here, this is the first time I've been met with such hostility. What am I to make of all this? =/ Temeku (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There he/she goes again. I get a notification each time I'm mentioned on a talk page, and I just got 2 more of them, both from the same sketchy IP address. The user is still going around talk pages, accusing me of being a fake admin - even right now as I'm typing this. This also means that they're not even reading yours or my messages. What should I do? Temeku (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need a rangeblock on the IP addresses from Malaysia that this guy is using. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Chancellorsville

Ccook55 here. I was informed I made an unconstructive edit to the Battle Of Chancellorville. I made no such edit. — Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see that? The notification is not on your talk page, and there's no discussion about you at Talk:Battle of Chancellorsville. I have never touched that page, and it looks like you have not either. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U

I wondering if you might help with an RFC/U on Atsme?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Same response as Roscelese: if you put it all together then I'll comment. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Basically the same thing I said to her. I'm just contacting you before before hand. I don't expect y'all to look up the evidence and ect. I'm just asking before I move forward.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I dug thru and gathered some diffs. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox I posted them there. I thought the SIOA conversation may in some way relate but I wasn't involved there. See if you think I should gather more if that is enough. I'm just trying to keep it simple.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes in the Joe Walsh article

Maybe you didn't read my comment. You're reverting citations in the article by using the "undo" function to make the change you want. That makes this a destructive edit. I don't want to go back and redo the citations. Do you have some objection to them? Please be responsible and take care of it yourself. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation is unreliable, being an online discussion board. That's why I removed it. And a guitar solo is not "written" it is performed. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. The citation for Rolling Stone below that is the actual source. Pkeets (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Greater

The Greater San Francisco Bay Area is greater than the typical Bay Area Definition you idiot stop reverting my edits until YOU have sources obviously like every other metro area a greater region is obviously bigger you idiot. Go shove your internet awards some where because they dont matter when all you do is type on a key board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladygaga328 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It means a lot to me when someone who doesn't write properly in English comes to my talk page to call me an idiot.

Regarding the term "Greater San Francisco Bay Area", your assumption that it is larger is based on what? You've brought nothing to the table. The many sources I have seen use "greater" in this instance to mean "the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area", not "the Bay Area plus some outlying places that are just beyond the San Francisco Bay Area". So counterintuitively, the two usages have the same physical extent: "San Francisco Bay Area" is the exact same size as the "Greater Bay Area". Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"United States pro-life movement" article, "violence against pro-life people" section

Hi there. Just a note to advise you that someone has re-introduced the case of Shulman's online threats into the "United States pro-life movement" article, the "violence against pro-life people" section. Didn't you or someone say that the article should list only violence, not mere threats, back in 2011? Also, someone has entered the case of Professor Miller-Young, who did what, just shoved a protester and damaged his gory anti-abortion sign. Hardly seems notable enough for a wikipedia article! Please correct or advise. Thanks, Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps of airliner routes in articles about shootdowns and inflight breakups

In regards to this edit, I think they are needed. If MH17 has an overall map showing the course of the flight (origin and destination, plus the crash site), with one map showing an overall view and the other showing a closer view, it should be the same with KAL007. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If a map can be configured to show something less than half the world then it will be much more applicable. The best map would just show the flight path over USSR territory. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The MH17 article sees it as important to have a both a faraway and a closeup image: see the "Maps" section of MH17 which has dots for Amsterdam, KL, and the crash site. Because the path was mostly Asia and you can see the Netherlands, they can just set the image to Asia. Also: it's is true that it's a good thing to find a better image for the closeup. If I set the parameter of the closeup as the "Soviet Union" it's going to show the entire country. But what I can do is try to set the parameter to Sakhalin and see if that does a better job showing the location. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Sakhalin Oblast", which seems to be the most logical choice, doesn't seem to work. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Now I have it. "Sakhalin Oblast" works, and so does "Pacific Ocean", so the maps should be better now. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Those images are much more focused, which is an improvement, but the article already has File:KAL007.svg and File:Outline Map of Sakhalin.png so I don't believe more map images are necessary. File:KAL007.svg was basically enough for me to get the whole picture. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the Pacific Ocean map may be useful because KAL007.svg does not show the originating destination of New York City. A person who is not geographically inclined may wonder why a plane from New York to Seoul needs to stop in Alaska. The Pacific Ocean map helps illustrate why Anchorage is the midway point and why the plane took the path it did. Also, do you think Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Crash and Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Maps have redundancy? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a fuck if i'm blocked xD

You act like I care. I know it's true and the source is reliable and that's all that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talk • contribs) 08:57, October 9, 2014

I would like your assistance please

Hello. You seem to be very experienced when it comes to fixing mistakes at Wikipedia so I was wondering if you can help me?Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When you have a chance, look up the article Convicts 4 and see for yourself because I do not know how to restore information. Thanks!!! Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I do not need your help. I guess it would be best just to delete the content entirely rather than restore what was previously written in Convicts 4. Thanks anyways.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I have changed the first paragraph to emphasize the fact that the film's script is not quite true to the book or to other accounts. The film is fictionalized, as they say. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:F.E.A.R.

I'm not sure why you reverted my change to F.E.A.R.. The 2009 version to which I reverted is far superior to the current one—as should be plain to see. The article has been corroded over the years by crufty IP edits. It wouldn't survive a GAR. So, if you have no objections, I'm going to revert back to the 2009 version. Anything of value in the 2014 version (if it exists) can simply be transplanted into the old one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have strong objections because a lot has changed since 2009. You are erasing all the developments that have happened in the last five years. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I don't see any information in the new version that wasn't (or couldn't have been) present in 2009. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In this diff you can see the paragraphs that include the 2012 developments, including a paragraph which starts, "On December 19, 2012 Gamespy Industries announced the end of its Gamespy Open Program." Also, some URLs are dead, such this one: http://aigamedev.com/reviews/fear-ai. Your old version does not include the archived URLs such as http://web.archive.org/web/20080130195609/http://aigamedev.com/reviews/fear-ai. So I don't see that it is very constructive to revert to 2009. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the 2012 material is unsourced fan community cruft. The one detail that can and will be salvaged relates to the closure of the GameSpy service. As for the archived URLs—I can re-add those after the revert. From what I can see, nothing else of value has been added since 2009, and a lot of garbage has piled up in the meantime. I'm one of the people who originally took this article to A-Class in 2006, and I'm trying to return some of the quality it had then. In its current form, the article deserves to be delisted as a GA, let alone as an A-Class article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry edit reversion

Hello,

You recently reverted an edit I made to the Katy Perry article, stating in the info box: "Lower case 'the' in running prose for band names. The production team is akin to a band name." So, could you please provide a link to the Wikipedia principle you are referring to? Or a reliable source that makes that assertion? If you examine The Cure, which has Good Article status, the "T" is written almost always in upper case in running prose. Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This BBC News editor writes "The Cure" in every single instance, including running prose. Therefore, please make it clear that whatever source you provide has universal consensus unless it is in Wikipedia. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide there are conflicting style guides, for instance the Chicago Manual of Style which specifically says to use lower case 'the' for the Beatles. Certainly there are other style guides which specify capitalization to yield The Beatles but Wikipedia held a huge Request for Mediation two years ago and what came out of that long process was to go with lower case 'the' in the Beatles. See WP:THECAPS which has extrapolated that case to include other bands and groups such as the Moody Blues. I see the Matrix (a.k.a. The Matrix) as one more case of the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting, I mean, the Beatles mediation case here on Wikipedia. I now fully understand the situation thanks to your very helpful response. My only regret is that you formally undid my edit when you easily could have put the lower case "t" back in there instead, to achieve the same result without me getting a notification of a reversion, which will be permanently on my Wikipedia record. Perhaps that shouldn't bother me. Anyway, thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about staining your Wikipedia record. I guess I'm jaded, having eight blocks on my record. I forget sometimes that others might wish to keep their nose clean. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Willis E. Davis (painter)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U on Atsme

Before I posted it I wanted to allow you to review and see if you agree these diffs are of issue. These aren't the only policy violations and really even a quarter of the diffs. But everything would take a really long time and there's no point. Either this will be enough to get her reconsider her behavior and change it or it will be enough for ARBCOM to get involved. Here is a link to what I have User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines. Let me know what you think.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, give me a day to consider it. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added more to Desired outcomes and cause for concern sections. And Ya take your time. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

One impression I got was that the diffs are mostly from last Spring leading up to when Atsme was blocked. Sure, you want to establish a history, but the majority of your case should be based on recent behavior. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added more to the cause for concern section. Do you think this alleviates your concerns?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok so it's pretty much done. Is there anything that you think I should change or are you fine with this as is?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre general discussion

Hey Bink, I remember a user making comments in a couple of places that genres should generally be boiled down to one selection for use in the infobox. Was that you? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not me. Two or more genres is fine with me as long as reliable sources support them. Binksternet (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No-Li Brewhouse

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hey Binksternet, I'm Shallowharold. I oversee a few pages on several albums (including ones by Big K.R.I.T. and one of the users under an IP address (specifically 68.55.10.170) continues to be disruptive in their editing practices- even after you warned them. Here's a look at their current activity- as you can see, they have been very busy with being a genre warrior. Shallowharold (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.55.10.170

Yeah, this person fits the profile at WP:GWAR. I will see what, if any, of their contributions are worth saving. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot unofficial member

Even if it is supported by a citation it is constantly deleted by fanboys. What do I have to look for the article every time I want to change it back? Some people are busy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The quality of the citation is important. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

rfc/u

So I think it's pretty much ready to publish. Just wanted to see if it you think that it is ready for your endorsement.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is ready because the arguments are not convincing enough and the overall aim is indistinct. I asked for emphasis on recent behavior but I don't see enough of a shift in that direction (you should delete some of the early diffs and add new diffs.) There should be more discussion about forum shopping at the various drama boards until one of them stirs up enough agreement with her viewpoint. There should be more about the disruptive AfD on IPT which was unanimous against Atsme. Several times she misrepresented comments made by me, to say that I supported a further idea of hers. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The only point of misrepresentation of you specifically that I can recall right off hand is in the AFD. Hmm, How about this... In the section titled "Applicable policies and guidelines" I'll add WP:LISTEN and add diffs from the AFD. I think in regards to some of the behavior at the AfD fall under that. Do you think that would cover your concerns? Also there is a question section on that page for after it gets certified. Some of this stuff is really going to come out there. My perspective on this is somewhat similar to yours, and somewhat similar Roscelese. However none of our perspectives are really the same. Some of this will come out after it's published and you comment on a section, Roscelese comments on a section, and I comment. Really there is just so much. It's went on for so long. One of the things that I do want to show is that this started along time ago and it's just continued and escalated. Check this out [5] February 16. Here you responded to this. This was the start. From here one of her first actions was to go to [6] Anjem Choudary article and fight tooth and nail to be able to get call Anjem Choudary an extremist in wikipedia voice. Seems WP:POINTy. She got a ban for edit warring there. Then we end up eventually to where we are now. Her misrepresentations are bad but that is just another example of doing anything but an honest attempt at seeking a consensus. I apologize if that is to bloated of a response. TLDR, would adding WP:LISTEN with diffs meet your concerns?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I add a section on wp:listen. If that covers your concern I'm ready to publish.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Harrison296

Harrison296

I was trying to figure out how to send you a message, new to editing on here, i see you have a long history, i TOTALLY do not agree with your edit on Zepp, they have been commercialized for over 40 years and do have METAL songs especially The Immigrant, but ill leave it alone, dont know where you base facts on said songs but Zepp has Metal songs especially from the first 4 albums, but ill show you the respect as you showed me, have a good day. Harrison296 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Musical genres are not based on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors; instead they must be verifiable and previously published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me

I went to a lot of effort to source the information on the Peter Jackson section i created in 2012. I think the section 'Box Office' is of value but i'll happily bow to your superior knowledge. Some editor told me that Box Office Mojo was the accepted source for referencing box office grosses . Is this no longer the case? I'd like to try and do things properly but i don't fully understand. As far as original research is concerned i don't understand how it fits that bracket either? I'd like to understand and Hope you can help.

Hope to hear from you soon. Rob

Hi, Rob. I can see you've been contributing to the Peter Jackson biography for a long time, starting with this edit in July 2012. Thanks for your good work on a wide variety of primarily film-related articles.

Myself, I first touched the Jackson bio in July 2013 as part of a series of removals I was making at that time to the biographies of many directors, removing the influences/influenced parameter from their infoboxes. So my first involvement was a removal of excess material, which colored my viewpoint, making me look at the article more as reduction project than an expansion. In December 2013 I reverted some of your work soon after you added it, calling it "uncited trivia" because it was not referenced and it appeared to me to be unimportant. Then in January 2014 MarnetteD reverted you a couple of times because of a lack of referencing, but then you found referencing and your text was kept.

Finally, in June 2014 I removed your "Box office" section, citing WP:No original research. My problem with that section was that it drew the conclusion that Jackson was one of the top money-making directors in the world, but none of the references supported that idea. Instead, the references were about individual films or series of films.

What you need to find is one or more references describing Jackson as a director who makes lots of high-grossing films. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing it will not be so difficult. After you do that, the section will be supported by someone who makes this overall observation. That way you'll have more of a foundation to argue against the next complaint which will likely be that the section gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to successes in Jackson's box office record, ignoring the profit margin (a film may make a lot of money but never recoup its costs) and ignoring any low-grossing films. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Exactly how is that "puffing" the Wikipedia page when similar material is included on Rihanna's Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs)

Then it should be removed from Rihanna's page. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering

There is currently a Rfc and discussion at Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. The result could have repercussions for every article of albums originally released in vinyl. If you are interested, please join in the discussion there. Lewismaster (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I published that RFCU

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atsme It says there are 48 hours for it to be certified.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I apologize for that, was only doing what employer had asked. I sincerely apologize. MalkaAdler (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

hello

The RFC/U, I agree with alot of the things that you have said, but Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#The_nature_of_RfC.2FU we can not block, ban, or impose any disciplinary measures. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case it looks like I should reword some of my comments. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme has indicated that she no longer wishes to take part in the RFCU. So I guess that's over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad. The next disruption will require sterner measures. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet:I guess she's changed her mind. The questions I've asked she's avoided so there really isn't much point in me asking more. I cede the floor to you and Roscelese.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am here to ask you nicely to please stop making threats against me which includes your relentless attempts to get me topic banned so you can continue advocating the indiscriminate placement of the Islamophobia template despite any BLP violations it may create. The recent BLPN consensus validated the Islamophobia template's BLP violation on IPT which is what gave rise to the editing you wrongly accused me as being disruptive. End of story. WP guidelines are clear regarding WP:NOTADVOCATE, and I consult you to exercise GF. Your continuing discussions about me with threats that the "next disruption will require sterner measures" is harassment, and further demonstrates your own disruptive behavior and relentless attempts to suppress my work as a GF editor. Any further attempts to inhibit my work, or to irritate, annoy, or cause me distress as you've done on talk pages and noticeboards is a violation of WP:Hounding, and the latter includes discussions in ANIs, the ARB request, and recent RFC/U you have either participated in and/or initiated against me. Hopefully by now you have acquired a better understanding of WP:BLPGROUPS, and why the Islamophobia template was removed from IPT. Atsme☯^Consult 14:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not stop pointing out your WP:NPOV violations when I see them. This message from you looks to me like a transparent attempt to shift focus away from your POV mission which is to remove "Islamophobia" as a label wherever it appears.[7][8][9][10][11] Your legal threat against Serialjoepsycho should have resulted in you being blocked; consider yourself lucky on that point. Your battleground attitude will have to change or you will not have a long career on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have no POV mission. [12] Read the diffs you included above thinking you were maligning me. Perhaps they will help you understand why the Islamophobia template created a BLP violation on IPT. You also need to read WP:BLPGROUPS. Emerson is inextricably linked to IPT, therefore the template created a BLP violation. There are numerous other issues at IPT that need to be addressed, but based on your comments above, you still WP:DONTGETIT. When advocacy of the template violates WP:BLP as what happened with IPT, editors are obligated to take action to correct the violation. I wasn't being a disruptive editor, or pushing a POV, rather I was doing my job to correct the BLP violation. The disruptive editors were those who violated WP:BLP by reverting my edits. At the time, I didn't fully understand the procedures as I do now. I have no problem collaborating with GF editors who engage in intelligent discussion to improve and/or expand an article. Unfortunately, that isn't what you attempted to do at IPT, or what you are attempting to do now. And FYI, the simple reminder I posted on my Talk page about potential legal repercussions regarding BLP violations are further evidence of your WP:DONTGETIT. You obviously didn't read the meritless ANI. Please exercise good faith, and stop the threats and meritless allegations. Atsme☯^Consult 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a continuation of Atsme's prior harassment. After that RFC/U the next logical step is ARBCOM. If you feel the need take it there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think an ARBCOM is definitely the way to go. Please begin. Atsme☯^Consult 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Buem alert

Just to let you know, our buddy the buem has started to upload images with Japanese captions to Commons. He was caught out by some Danish project admins. I know you always keep your eyes out, but this is another time to be vigilant. I really don't see the point of all this, but I suppose it makes some sort of 4channish sense to childish minds. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The language matters not so much; it's the image that gives him away. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

CPCs

As you're a very experienced editor, Binx, and as you have edited abortion-related articles for a long time, this really shouldn't be necessary, but I'm compelled to remind you that Crisis Pregnancy Center is subject to discretionary sanctions.

Your recent revert restored in one fell swoop a variety of materials that had been redacted in a series of edits as violating wp:or, wp:npov and/or wp:rs, or simply not in conformance with a cited source. You gave no explanation of your reasons for restoring material that is objectionable on a number of bases, and only made reference in your edit comment to wp:biased and supposedly "far too much removal of good sources." As you well know, that doesn't cut it. Please stop disruptive editing, re-read wp:own, provide an explanation for your edits, take disputes to the Talk page, and generally behave in a civil manner, consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Cloonmore (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion of violations of OR, NPOV, and RS are your own takes on the situation, not shared by all editors. Your large-scale removals were away from consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)