User talk:Binksternet/Archive58

Good morning

Take it easy, J Balvin, those edits I made were not malicious, I only intended to contribute by correcting some errors. Apparently I see that you are one of those very common toxic users these days, you are already too old for those attitudes.

In conclusion, I will not continue to insist, thank you for wasting my time on something irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Glam y Sleaze (talk • contribs)

Good morning yourself.

I was responding to the edit warring behavior at Girls Girls Girls involving the Peruvian IP Special:Contributions/200.48.64.106 removing the wikilinks to recording studios and instead focusing on wikilinks to the cities of the studios. This is not helpful to the reader. You followed my reversions with your registered username Fan Glam y Sleaze to restore the unhelpful Peruvian changes. This behavior by you is edit warring.

I have no idea where J Balvin comes in to this issue. I don't agree with you about me being toxic; a large part of what I am doing on Wikipedia is correcting the poor work of others. My goal is to greatly improve Wikipedia by making it more of what it is supposed to be, and less of what it is not. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Since they say that to err is human, I understand that the qualifications were not necessary. I really apologize. Let me explain to you my friend, colleague, that in a certain way I also try to contribute in a correct and coherent way some articles that interest me. But I am not very theoretical in practice, perhaps therein lies the problem. I will work a little more to improve my writing. In conclusion, I hope my intentions are understood, I also do my best to provide improvements, cordial greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Glam y Sleaze (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Giubbotto non ortodosso

You have deal with this editor before, I'm wandering if these recent edits are related to that editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's him again. He's incorrigible. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprising, I have open an case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of audio files

Hello!

I noticed you removed quite a few audio files from articles because of lack of contectual significance. Don't you think an FFD would've been better so more people could take part of the discussion?Jonteemil (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Until today I had no idea there was a page for FFD. Yes, it would have been a fine venue to discuss the problem. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

PROMOTE THE ADDITION AND CHANGE OF EDITS IN RELATION TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

Thrash metal was created by Metallica. The artist's statements must be respected. That in the review of "BIker Metal" they clearly explain where the Motorhead style comes from, which has nothing to do with Thrash Metal. Minimally you should acknowledge this mistake and minimally add quotes describing Motorhead and the relationship with Biker Metal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grind History (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

All caps is considered shouting.

Wikipedia articles should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. The artist's statement is a primary source. It is often interesting to the reader but it is not definitive in terms of critical analysis, genre labels, categories, etc. In effect, Wikipedia does not "respect" the artist's statements the way you think it should. Also, Wikipedia articles should not be based on other Wikipedia articles. Ideally, the articles will all correlate and agree with each other, but that would be because they were all accurately summarizing SECONDARY sources.

I have no problem with the Motörhead article discussing biker metal in prose in the article body. It can be done with or without quotes, but the core of it should be from music critics and other SECONDARY sources. My concern was the biker metal genre was too much for the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The top summary does not agree with the precursor part and the style origin order, you Binksternet should respect my edit because this makes me right WP: SYNTH which says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article" So according to this you are generating vandalism to my article that includes quotes, interviews and above all "allmusic" gives me the reason to say that grindcore was born with Scum Napalm death "Indisputably, the band that invented grindcore was Napalm Death, whose 1987 debut album Scum is also perhaps the most representative example of the style." this quote in quotes I took it from "allmusic" because you in one of your editions said that only speaks of a group and not the genre, however when one refers to the pioneer refers to the first group that came to influence the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grind History (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The place for your argument is the talk page of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sony- Shakira

The same Sony record company claimed that Hips don't lie sold 13 million physical and 7 million digital. Is that not a reliable source?. It is a reliable source, it is not a magazine or fan page, it is the Sony USA label

AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The specific article here says 3.5 million physical units and 13 million downloads by 2017. If you want updated numbers you must find a more recent article to support those numbers. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with page

Hello, I'm looking for help with my page. I'm a musician and recently tried to create a user page with facts about me, such as AmberLynn Browning, Singer Songwriter and Guitarist. It was deleted "speedily" even nafter I made an effort to edit out my entire bio and website. Leaving just name and occupation. I'm not trying to promote, just simply need help with a factual page about my career. I see others in my field many who I know, with these Wikipedia pages. Recently a knowledge panel appeared about me, then sadly disappeared after much work to curate it. I see you're a fellow musician and also with an impressive career. Iwas reading Faith Hill Wikipedia page and saw your edits. So as a Country Singer myself I was advised to be distinguishable through Wiki and don't know how to do this. Is there a way I could have you make a page for me? Or some guidance...I would be much obliged and very grateful. I'm all over the web on many platforms, just need some help, desperately. Thankyou kindly, AmberLynn AmberLynn Browning (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement for notability which you can read at WP:MUSICBIO. If you want to have a Wikipedia biography about your music career, you must have a charted single or album, or have multiple in-depth articles written about you in major media such as Country Music News and Billboard magazine. It's not enough that you have a presence on social media. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Owen. wasn't a rhythm guitarist

Hello, please stop changing Jack Owen's "title" on Cannibal Corpse as rhythm guitar. He did just as many guitar solos as Bob Rusay on those first two albums. He did more solos than pat O'Brien on live cannibalism. so stop labeling it as lead or rhythm and just say guitar. it makes people think differently when you say rhythm guitar for jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himom45$ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically, Himom45$, I agree with you. I don't think we should be saying lead and rhythm with this band. The two roles are blended in Cannibal Corpse.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published sources. What do they say about Jack Owen?

• Metal Blade says he is the "second guitarist".
• Loudwire says second guitarist.
• Blabbermouth says guitar.
• Guitar World says guitarist.
• AllMusic says guitarist.
• Exclaim says guitarist.

To me, it looks like all the energy people have spent worrying about lead versus rhythm guitar is wasted. The band has two guitarists, and they both do whatever it takes. When talking about their music in interviews, the various guitarists acknowledge that some of their work is rhythm and some is lead. So there's this whole rhythm versus lead thing going on in the bandmembers and timeline section... Maybe we should just remove all the rhythm and lead and make it just guitar. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

yes maybe we should just leave it as only guitarist. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himom45$ (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop

What are you doing? Now that I finally use a reliable source coming from sony and Waka waka's own website, decides to delete it when those songs have sold out enough.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

List of People With Tinnitus

Instead of finding sources or references for those on this list, you deleted them. Your edit was reversed, with references and sources were added for those that could be found and the rest were deleted. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to delete Jo Whiley from the list, because Daily Mail is not reputable, feels like it was done in retaliation. There are plenty of other sources to prove Jo Whiley has tinnitus and simply deleting her inclusion on the list was not necessary. Why not simply replace the source? Radman 99 1999 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not retaliation, just following the hard policy of WP:BLP by removing a deprecated source: Daily Mail. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It's not personal. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why not find a new source to replace the less reputable one? Editing this article that I created after not touching it for the last six years is interesting considering my earlier post just today. Especially since you got the original article deleted and merged back onto the tinnitus page, which was deleted shortly thereafter. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of my Wikipedia activity, measured by the sheer quantity of edits, is the removal of other people's work for various reasons including poor quality and violations of policies. It helps keep the encyclopedia trim and respectable. Which means I am not trying to list as many people as possible at the tinnitus page, to make the list complete. I don't usually consider it my responsibility to hunt down better support for other people's faulty citations. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The list has been not been added a whole lot from when the original page was created six years ago. It is not overly complicated as far as finding valid sources either, but you can call the ones you removed "Poor quality" and "faulty" instead of finding proper sources. That's your prerogative. Will you be compelled to remove more names from the list you deem unworthy in the future? Or will you maybe just try to get the list deleted again? We can try to get it relisted on the bloated Tinnitus article again. I am interested to see what you will do. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Danish nuisance

You probably noticed Special:Contributions/192.38.149.31, Special:Contributions/192.38.149.229 and long term abuse on that Danish range. --Muhandes (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks for figuring out which version to revert back to. So many IPs, so much disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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 review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit history

In your last 50 edits, 28 of them have been simple reverts, most without comment, and nearly all of them removing the work of IP editors.

This time 24 hours ago, with a completely different set of 50 edits, 27 of them have been simple reverts, most without comment, and nearly all of them removing the work of IP editors.

In both cases, it seems clear you hadn't actually read the majority of the articles, neither were you familiar with the subject matter. Please don't make me take this to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.13.190 (talk • contribs)

"The next level" would involve examining your contributions from various IP addresses, showing that you have violated WP:MULTIPLE.

Teddybears (TV series)

I do not know why my additions to this page have been construed as vandalism twice, but before I take my leave of the site as it has become clear that I am not wanted here and will be blocked if I add them again, I must say that was not my intention at all; I was merely adding what I knew of the original books (which did indeed originate in the United States, as they were first published in that country by Four Winds Press of New York, before A&C Black of London picked them up for the United Kingdom), and that not all of the named bears who appeared in them made it to the television adaptation for unknown reasons, as well as which episodes were on the home releases. If that is out of scope for this site, so be it. 86.159.21.177 (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first addition was reverted as unreferenced. The problem it introduced was too much detail for a brief encyclopedia article, detail of interest only to a small population of enthusiasts. In your second edit which I reverted, you kept the problem of too much detail, but you added some book cites to show that the books really exist.

Wikipedia should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources; ideally, a summary of all the pertinent third-party published material about the topic. Your cites were all primary sources, and your analysis of the topic was your own, not a summary of published analysis. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

A friend

I see that you noticed your new friend at 86.187.166.173. They appeared to be just reverting your edits but I couldn't figure out a pattern. Maybe they are a blocked user returning? Notfrompedro (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get that kind of attention every once in a while. Someone got blocked and is targeting me. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There's been a string of these, including Special:Contributions/86.187.166.173, Special:Contributions/86.187.224.68, Special:Contributions/51.9.50.154, Special:Contributions/51.9.50.131, Special:Contributions/143.159.171.46, Special:Contributions/143.159.171.127 (blocked twice) and Special:Contributions/143.159.171.74. They have targeted a few other users as well. Ponyo blocked one of these two times. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The last edit from the IP in Notfrompedro's message was three days ago. They probably couldn't get back on that IP if they tried....-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/51.6.235.70 Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody from Greater London is mad at me for reverting their edits and contributing arguments toward their getting blocked. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing artists on 1017

There would be no point for you to remove Enchanting and BigWalkDog from the list of 1017 artists. Both are clearly signed to the label, as shown by the sources. I added a more reliable one to BigWalkDog than an Instagram post by Gucci Mane literally CONFIRMING he was signed. BY GUCCI HIMSELF. ThesePicklesLoveSosa (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How does BigWalkDog measure as important to the topic of the record label? BigWalkDog is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it matters about his notability, if he is signed to the label, you should put him there. Plus, it's a very small label, so there won't be a problem of too many artists that aren't notable, compared to a label like Interscope. ThesePicklesLoveSosa (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE says notability matters. The problem is listing bands that aren't important. Doing so is promotional. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Laundry Service

Why did you remove the 88Marcus edition that put the sales of 15 million for their album Laundry Service? The source I used was reliable, it was Rolling Stones source accepted as reliable and they used it as a basis to verify the sales of the Supernatural album of Santana. Accept it since at no time did I interrupt anything. Thanks AngheloVidal (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We have conflicting sources for sales, so we look closer at the sources to see whether the sales figures are reliable in context. Shakira has about 9 million certified sales, so if we give her a 50% bump to account for uncertified sales, then she's about 13 million worldwide, maybe 14 million at the upper limit. Any number above 14 million is not reliable in context. High quality reliable sources say 13 million, so that's the number we chose. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sales have not been updated since 2004 when it was its last update, hence it is obvious that it sold many more and we are in 2020 it is reasonable to think that sales grew also it is assumed that Rolling Stones is used as a source so I ask again if they can edit and put that sold 13 to 15 million copies. Thanks I leave the link here: http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fmusic%2Fartists%2Fshakira%2Fbiography AngheloVidal (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think Laundry Service has been selling at such high levels? You think it is "reasonable" but I don't. The album would need 2 million more sales to get to 15 million, but it is from 19 years ago, and people are buying Shakira's more recent songs.

And we still have plenty of sources saying 13 million for the past 15 years, which makes 15 million that much more of an outlier.

• April 2021 – Latin Post: 13 million
• January 2021 – BBC: 13 million
• January 2021 – New York Daily News: 13 million
• January 2021 – Variety: 13 million
• May 2020 – Idolator: 13 million
• February 2020 – Harpers Bazaar: "Ultimately, it went on to sell more than three and a half million copies in the United States and four million copies in Europe."
• January 2020 – ET Online: 13 million
• November 2011 – Courant: 13 million
• November 2011 – New York Daily News: 13 million
• June 2007 – NPR: 13 million
• September 2006 – Sun Sentinel: 13 million
• March 2006 – BMI: 13 million

So I don't agree at all with listing 15 million in any form, not even as an optional number. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that, the sources continue to say that 13 million because they are guided by the outdated pages that said those figures, it is illogical that nothing has risen after 20 years of launch. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey...

...do these look familiar to you? It's obviously not a new user. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: it could be FarisLloyd, who created an awfully sourced article on the song "Brazil" by Iggy Azalea before being blocked for a week due to major sourcing issues. versacespaceleave a message! 13:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, VersaceSpace. I don't see the connection yet, probably because coffee is still brewing. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

understandable. the main connection for me was iggy azalea and the sourcing issues but there probably arent enough edits to confirm anything yet. versacespaceleave a message! 16:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked real quick but didn't see it either. Still, thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States&action=history

I don't know how many times I have to include facts to support that the Simple Minds entry on this page is WRONG. Apparently, even referencing their own Wikipedia page that shows it's wrong isn't enough! Incorrect information that has been proving devalues the quality of wikipedia, but, of course, some people like to be the fiefs of their own fiefdom..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:153:4100:57C0:F1F5:213C:E20D:24F2 (talk • contribs)

The decision was made at Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria to ditch the statistical method, which everybody was fighting about because of differing statistical methods, and institute a new inclusion criteria based on two sources saying the artist was a one-hit wonder in the US. At the same time, the set of articles covering one decade each were combined to show all decades on the same page.

The point is that the term "one-hit wonder" is subjective, not purely mathematics-based. A band can be remembered only for their one big hit even if a second song also charted. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's wrong. One Hit wonder = a musical group that has achieved recognition on the basis of only one widely popular song...it's not "the only song they are known for"...If that were the case, I can name a number of artists who should be on this list that aren't, especially since 2017 where the list since to cut off! XXXTentacion, Bradley Cooper, Roddy Ricch, 24kGoldn, Jawsh 685 just to name a few...the concept "band can only be remembered" is not what Joel Whitburn would call the agreed upon definition. It is, in fact the song Don't You Forget About Me that bolstered the popularity of the band in the US and their subsequent album "Once Upon a Time" sold well. Hell, Ferris Bueller had their poster on his wall in his bed room!

I'll further the defensive with the Psycedelic Furs who are best known for "Pretty in Pink" also from a John Hughes movie....BUT, they're not on the list...cause they had another song, "Love My Way", neither of which really charted that high! But, again, they're not on the list by the "known logic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:153:4100:57C0:DCE8:633D:9F93:307A (talk • contribs)

Travis Miller (Musician) AKA Lil Ugly Mane

Apologies for adding Gustavo as part of his full name, since according to The Metal Archives, it says that Gustavo is his middle name. Was considering to mention why I added that in under the edit summary section but I didn’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.136.194 (talk • contribs)

Removal of content

Can I ask why you are removing various "collaboration" sections from multiple pages? Despite the lack of references, they strike me as uncontroversial, informational sections that add value to the articles. This seems to me to be an unreasonable and unnecessary enforcement of the rules governing synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be built on a foundation of WP:SECONDARY sources. Such sources talk about certain filmmakers as having a coterie of close collaborators. Joss Whedon is described that way, for instance, and a few others. But not everybody! It is not Wikipedia's job to apply that concept to every filmmaker who worked with someone twice or more, even when the media don't say anything about it. Instead, it is Wikipedia's job to summarize for the reader what has been published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this kind of purge is unnecessary. You are taking away uncontroversial content that does no material harm to the project, yet adds value to the reader. This is surely a case where WP:IAR could be reasonably applied? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The controversy is that a particular filmmaker is being given a new crown, a new status, a new label, that of someone who uses the same pool of talent in multiple films. Such a crown must be the gift of WP:Reliable sources, especially independent third party sources. If Wikipedia is granting the crown as a new idea, suddenly the encyclopedia is creating new content.

WP:SYNTH warns us against combining material "from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The conclusion in question is that the filmmaker is a person who has a close set of collaborators. If the media are not saying so explicitly, Wikipedia should not be implying it. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you are ascribing too much importance to the issue, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross article

I'm not committing vandalism. It's bizarre to see that.

The crosses are identical, the difference is that one is a coat of arms, and the other is absolute a cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Croix_Serbe_Dark.svg Absolute CROSS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbian_Cross_symbol.svg COAT OF ARMS (with an cross inside an red shield)

Please stop edit war. there's no logic in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.85.93 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes

Excuse me for my earlier species changes, are the changes I made now good? Lysol19704 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you are not citing any WP:Reliable sources for those genres. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Attack on you at Big (Rita Ora and Imanbek song)

Hi Binksternet,

I wonder if you have seen the edit summary aimed at you on this article today. I'm not sure if I can report it to ANI on your behalf, and as you are a much more experienced editor than me I thought I would bring it to your attention. Princess Persnickety (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

New friend

86.173.134.79 is rapidly reverting your edits. What should I do when I find these? Would AIV act? Notfrompedro (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Was this just a troll? Drmies (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: This has happened before. Someone appears to be targeting Binksternet for some reason and keeps hopping IPs. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, my question was really whether this was that jerk from Alberta or someone else who's piggybacking off of that. I think it's the latter, as was at least one of those IPs. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I had no idea it was known who was doing this let alone that others were copycatting. I guess some people just have too much time on their hands. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe it is User:Brettandelle, but there are other fine folks in the Greater London area who might harbour ill wishes toward me. Brettandelle seems more likely because they were using the Greenwich IP Special:Contributions/149.12.14.17 an awful lot to evade their block. Then there's this sequence of socks: sock number 6, Greater London IP, and sock number eight.Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

I came across you on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin/Archive_22 and I saw the Ip range https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact&action=history and also saw you and him on this page to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States&action=history. Just wanted to let you know he is attacking that page to.Mr.Jakub from prague (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I looked around and repaired what I could. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ska as Rock

Why did you take the Ska template out of the Rock music page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A better question is why did you put it in. It's not relevant and it adds clutter. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I put it because it's a genre of Rock music. Please stop interrupting my attempts at cleaning up pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it that our ska article doesn't list the genre as a subgenre of rock? Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone forgot to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "rock music", and some would include ska while others wouldn't. It was clearly heavily influenced by 50s r'n'r, but if "rock" is defined as post-60s (as we tend to do here), then probably not. But, this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You Are Confusing Literal translations with Original Research

The word California means "beautiful form" in Greek. That is the literal translation of the word. That's not original research. I cited the translation. Restore my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.110.238 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No. You are trying to figure it out on your own, which is a violation of WP:No original research. You brought peripheral references in to combine them in a novel manner to support your thesis, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. There's no way we are including the notional Greek meaning of California unless it's found in WP:Reliable sources, which is not the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Explain Why California Should be the Only State, Place or Article with an Entire Article Devoted to the Origin of the Name of Another Article.

When discussing the etymology of a place, a name, a person, etc., the proper place for that discussion is in an etymology section of an article. Do you think we should have a separate article on the origins of the names of every state, every country, everything? Unlike every other Wiki article? Is that how other encyclopedia's are arranged? No, it's not.

Do you have some attachment to keeping this article the way it is? To making this a separate article? What is going on here?

Delete the article. This is not for you to decide. The article has been proposed for deletion, and someone, some panel of admins, who have some level of objectivity ought to be making these decisions.

Also, most western place names have their root in western language, and while many western states do have Spanish names, there is no other language that has a clear translation for California, Cali- -forma, other than Greek. None of the etymologies make any sense, other than the one about the story with California in it, but then the question is, where did the name in the story come from, and the obvious answer is that it came from Greek, as any Greek speaking person would immediately recognize upon hearing the word California for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.110.238 (talk • contribs)

I see from your edit history you have engaged in trolling behavior at other talk pages, and you have engaged in edit warring behavior. But to answer your question about why there is an article about the name California, the reason is simple: lots of sources exist talking solely about this topic. Any issue that has lots of sources dedicated to it is an issue that satisfies the basic notability requirement at WP:GNG.

Your disruptive behavior extended to nominated the page for deletion after your contribution was rejected. You were not wanting to delete it earlier when you were assembling your violation of WP:No original research, but after you lost your argument, you changed your stance and said the article was not valid. You "prodded" it, nominating it for "uncontroversial" deletion, which is ridiculous. That is tendentious editing, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My "edit history" is incorrect then. I am a highly intelligent, well educated disabled Veteran who accurately edited articles, whose work was rejected by highly biased people who preferred a lie to the reality, and who repeatedly violated Wikipedia's own policies.

There is nothing to figure out about what I added. It is two Greek words combined. It is not a notional meaning. It is a literal meaning. Do you actually expect anyone to write a peer reviewed paper on how California is made up of two Greek words? Who would publish such a paper? The sources available seem to consider de Montalvo's origins for the name California that he used in his book to be a mystery. This is a rather obvious oversight, since it would be clear to anyone who speaks Greek where the name comes from. I would point out to you that the article on Calligraphy clearly states that the word is "(from Greek: καλλιγραφία)", yet no reference for this is given. Was that original research? Do you think every etymologist and linguist who writes a page of an etymological dictionary has to have a source proving that Calligraphy comes from the Greek word καλλιγραφία? That's absurd. When a place's name directly or partly translates to another word in another language, that is all the reference one needs. The reference is the dictionary entry on the word in the other language, and the translation for the word or the part of the word directly to the other language.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that Cali- means Beautiful in Greek, and that is exactly the prefix used in both California and Calligraphy? Seems rather unlikely that people's first reaction to the place, that it is a beautiful state, would also be the literal translation for the place from Greek, when so many of the places in the West are also the first reaction that a person had when observing exploring the area, like Salinas, for the salty ground, or Agua Caliente, for hot springs, or Buena Vista, because the person liked the view. Not one article requires a citation to say that Paso Robles means "pass of the oaks", that Baton Rouge means Red Stick, or that Austria's German name means "eastern empire". So why do you insist that someone write a peer reviewed article on a simple translation, which no one will ever do.

Wikipedia does not require citations on matters that are true in and of themself, obvious, and accepted facts. And the standard is whether it would be controversial to a reasonable person, not whether someone can unreasonable create controversy when no reasonable person would consider the fact controversial. I suspect that someone just wants their answer to be write, and doesn't like the idea that the truth eluded to many supposedly well-informed encyclopedia writers, who wrote page upon page of the supposed origins of a state name, when in reality, it was a two word translation from Greek, which any Greek dictionary would have told them. 184.155.110.238 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a WP:BLUE essay, describing how we don't need to cite that the sky is blue. But when all the sources talking about the origin of the name California have failed to mention your notional Greek origin, we have a huge problem. Your idea is not supported by published research. Since that is the case, you will not be able to say it's so obvious that you don't need to cite a source. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did wonder why there was a separate page for etymology on that one article, but that is not why I went looking for the etymology section when I was on the California page. I went looking for it to confirm that the entry was correct, because not many people seem to know where the name came from. What matters with regard to the proposed deletion is not my motive, but whether it should be deleted, because it is not the proper place for the information. But my motive is that, (a) your etymology info is indeed incorrect and incomplete, and (b) the page is also in the wrong page, which I thought of after and during my other edits.

As I said before, I don't need a reference to translate two Greek words, other than a source confirming that the translation is accurate. There is no source for the translation of Paso Robles or Baton Rouge, so I do not need one either, for the same reason. It is not notional. The prefix Cali-irrefutably means beautiful, which is the most common description of the state, and is a very common term used in many California place names, such as Buena Vista, Bellemonte, Belleview, etc.

What I contributed is not a theory. It is the real meaning of the word. The only literal translation that makes any sense from any language. Montalvo was from an Aristocratic Spanish family who helped expel the Moors from Spain. It is highly likely that he was taught Greek and Latin as a child, as most children well-born families of the period. It is highly unlikely that a family that fought centuries of bitter wars against Islamic invaders were ever contemplate naming a Spanish province after the title of an Islamic ruler. No one travels to california and things Islamic Ruler when they step off the boat. They think beautiful state. Beautiful place. Beautiful coastline. There's only one language where Cali translates to Beautiful, and it's not Moorish, or Arab, or Native American, or Spanish, or Old French. It's Greek. And while your article notes that the word was printed in Montalvo's book before the Spaniards spoke with Native Americans, the words Cali- and -Forma were written in Greek long before Montalvo wrote his book, and the Spanish Aristocracy had learned Greek long before then as well, and Spain was colonized by the Greeks at Emporion in 575 B.C>, modern day Empúries in Catalonia. That's the real origin of the word. You are preventing the truth from being told because you don't think you have enough references to allow it to be written that these words are the base words for California or what those base words mean, even though there are already many, many article which allow people to simply translate the words that make up a place name without a reference. If the base words were Spanish, you would allow it, but because you are less familiar with Greek, you will not allow it. So you allow claims which are extremely unlikely to be published in the encylopedia, yet you will not allow the truth to be written. Think about that. What if what I wrote is 100% the truth, and you will not allow it, because you are going to wait forever for someone to public a peer reviewed paper on the translation of two Greek words, which are already translated in many dictionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.110.238 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A WP:PROD deletion is an insult, asserting that the article is completely worthless. It's tendentious editing. If you think the article really should be deleted, nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD. Of course I'll argue to keep it. And I am very sure that it will be kept.

Wikipedia is not here to provide you a publishing platform. If you think your etymology ideas are so valuable, publish them somewhere. I'm done talking about this issue. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What Are You Doing?

I have some playlists on YouTube Music that are divided by genre, but your constant additions and removals of genres from templates or song templates (and removals of templates themselves from genre pages) make it hard for me to know which song belongs where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:85EE:D248:B428:B332 (talk • contribs)

YouTube genres are not considered reliable because they are generated with some algorithm. Genres on Wikipedia must come from journalists, music critics and musicologists publishing in WP:Reliable sources. Genres must be explicitly named with regard to a song or album or artist. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking: Rock music has the templates of all its subgenres on its page, so I figured I'd try the same for other genres, like Folk music and Electronic music. Blues, Country music, and Jazz are all in the Folk music template, but they have their own templates, so I put them all on the Folk music page. However, Blues also has Rhythm and blues in its template, and that have its own template as well. Country music also has Bluegrass, which has its own template. What's more, Rhythm and blues has Post-disco and Soul, which both have their own template. Lastly, Post-disco has House music, which has its own template. Shouldn't all genres in those templates go under folk music, or is there something I'm missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:85EE:D248:B428:B332 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, I was thinking of removing most of the footer templates from the rock music article. It's wa-a-ay too cluttered, and the information can be found higher up. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? What info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:D5B6:50B1:EBB3:570F (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disintegration - removal of critical reception

Could you pitch in with your view on this matter? On The Cure - Disintegration page continuosly someone is removing critical reception, and citing decade old argument by a user that is not even active anymore. Dhoffryn (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Filing complaint against you

I see I am not the only one who has an issue with the way you have been around me, but you seem to be rather threatening to other users as well. That seems to violate not just a host of wiki policies but probably a dozen laws in every US state in the Union. So here's how it's going to be: back off and leave me alone and possibly others you have wronged or I launch a complaint to the Arbitration Committee and if relief fails there, I may seek legal counsel for advice for possible judicial relief before the courts of my state, the state of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4040:FE00:872:C3B9:46EB:89F (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings -- just a note -- I have blocked this editor for making legal threats, i.e. here. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I imagine we will see more activity on the /64 range pretty soon. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Boingo Alive designation

I was wondering if I could get your two cents on how to classify Oingo Boingo's Boingo Alive album. If you're not familiar with it, it was a "live in the studio" album recorded on a soundstage over nine days, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus here as to whether it's live, studio or even a compilation. Mburrell mentioned at WT:ALBUM that you two had a similar discussion about a KT Tunstall album and decided to designate it as a "collection." Would this fall under that umbrella? FWIW, Boingo Alive's [hype sticker], [promo ads] and a 1988 [Los Angeles Times article] all go out of their way to state that the album was recorded live. Boingo Alive is currently designated as different things here on Wikipedia, depending on where you look, and I'd like help deciding on one classification to keep it uniform. The Keymaster (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I would set the infobox parameter as a live album, for the reasons you list, and because of the label applied to it by Edward Murray for CD Review when he was reviewing the greatest hits album Skeletons in the Closet in the December 1989 issue. He wrote, "Released around the time MCA came out with the live disc Boingo Alive..."

There's also the Los Angeles Times concert review from Halloween 1988 in which Mike Boehm says "When a rock band’s live album sounds as rich and as precisely sung and played as Oingo Boingo’s new one, Boingo Alive, it’s natural to wonder whether any studio trickery went into producing that supposedly pure aural treat. The fact that Oingo Boingo made the double-album in a rehearsal studio instead of under fire in concert also raises the question." It's clear that Boehm retains the classification of a live album even when he questions the methods.

But we would be remiss if we didn't also tell the reader what was written by AllMusic: "Not quite a greatest-hits album and not quite a live album..." The album straddles the line. When we must choose one way or the other, as in an infobox parameter, I would go with live album. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I lean toward your methodology on this as well. It seems Wikipedia tends to insist that live albums are performed at a concert in front of an audience, but I can't totally get behind that...especially when the album in question is billed as live on all promotional material. I noticed it's been moved all over the place on the discography and template pages, so should we just go with a uniform "live" designation for those as well? The Keymaster (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's.

Whenever there is a tough question about what we should do on Wikipedia, I look at the sources to see if there is a majority consensus in the way they treat the question. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with Playground Global request?

Hi. I have an edit request on the Playground Global talk page and would love to have some collaboration on these ideas. I've seen that you're active on the San Francisco Bay Area task force and was hoping you could take a look at my requests. Thanks! AllisonatPG (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Complain

Today I edited the information on Shakira in legacy but you have reversed it, if before she was called a pop legend and they left it there, I ask that you also leave what I said there, also above it says that the reggaeton magazine attributes to Shakira internationalizing reggaeton In Europe, Asia and North America, that you say that Daddy Yankee did it with gasoline is totally wrong, likewise Spin magazine credits Shakira with paving the way for reggaetoneros like Jbalvin and Maluma. Links: https://www.dukeupress.edu/reggaeton and the other link: https://www.spin.com/2020/09/maluma-on-finding-his-voice-again-back-in-colombia-for-new-lp/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You added, and I removed, this phrase: "they called her a 'Music Legend' due to her validity in the musical current from her beginnings with her first album to the present thanks to its great capacity for reinvention". There are several things wrong with this statement.

The first and most important is that Vogue magazine did not call Shakira a "Music Legend". The magazine wrote that her appearance on the cover of Spanish-language Vogue "confirma su estatus de leyenda." That translates to "confirms her status as legend". It's not a title that they gave her. They did not give her the crown of Music Legend.

The second problem with your addition is that the rest of the sentence is garbled English. It does not accurately summarize the magazine source. The magazine listed eight reasons why Shakira is such a great star:

1) "La humildad para seguir adelante" (The humility to move on)

2) "Su lado más humano" (Her very human side)

3) "Derribando barreras" (Breaking down barriers)

4) "La exposición latinoamericana en el Mundo" (Showing Latin America to the world)

5) "La importancia de las raíces" (The importance of roots)

6) "La trascendencia del su show para el Super Bowl" (Her transcendant Super Bowl show)

7) "La reflexión y su impacto" (Thoughtful reflection and socio-political impact)

8) "Reinventarse y continuar" (Continuous reinvention)

Regarding the sources that claim Shakira was first in making reggaeton famous, they must be judged in relation to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That means if an otherwise reliable source writes something which is clearly wrong, we ignore it. Obviously Daddy Yankee was first in reggaeton, preceding Shakira by five months. In the majority of sources about reggaeton, the Daddy Yankee song "Gasolina" is credited as the first global reggaeton hit, opening the door for everyone else. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, to avoid misunderstandings here is the cover of Vogue magazine where it says "The musical legend", link: https://www.elheraldo.co/sociedad/shakira-es-la-nueva-portada-de-vogue-latinoamerica-827665. Hope now if you don't delete it. Greetings AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No. That new link says "a music legend", not giving her a crown or title. It's just a descriptive phrase. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering once again, on the page there is a photo of the cover of Vogue Mexico where you can see that it says: "Shakira La Leyenda Musical escribe un nuevo capitulo: La Globalización derribó muchos prejuicios contra la música latina" AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

How many more publications use that title? Or is it only Vogue? If lots of publications use the title then it is worth including. If it's only Vogue then it seems like too much emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet!

Howdy, hadn’t talked to you in a while, so I just wanted to stop by your talk page and say hello. Hope you’re doing well friend. Category adder :D (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Calypso Removals

I have been adding more to the Calypso template, but you keep removing the Calypso music category, even though the genres were listed under Fusion genres.

Sign your posts.

Stuff like this should be discussed at the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

re: Nancy Wilson

I'm curious why you reverted this edit [1]? Your edit summary says it's unsourced but it was taken 100% from the pre-existing citations in that paragraph. I'm pretty sure I don't need to add another source. Can you be a sweetheart and self revert please? Best regards. 156.57.12.245 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, it was this edit [2] you reverted. 156.57.12.245 (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, so after refusing discussion you're now edit warring, eh? I thought you were smarter than this. Grow up. 156.57.12.245 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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 review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding pp-sock

Binksternet, Please adding pp-sock to Jane Kim because the article is semi-protection due to sockpuppetry. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I alerted the admins to do that and it was done. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael why are you dismissing alt-pop?

Michael why are you dismissing alt-pop? Its a term that has been used time and time again over the last few years, mainly in regards to young teen pop stars. A term shouldn't just be used over and over again on this site and then take you on a wild goose chase...not should it be redirected from google into the wrong information. Instead of creating articles for random people who you may love (for example Jean Rodríguez, Brown Meggs and Lady Tambourine all which don't mean that much over here as they are not very TOTP-worthy) it might be better if you sorted out the alt-pop problem by starting an article about it or expanding an indie article to includes these alt-pop artists...seeing as its modern, its of the now and its a phrase that loads of writers are using when categorising modern chart acts as (and as a lot of these acts seem to come from America you should have no problem with it).

btw Suggs still missing from the "I'm Only Sleeping" article...even though he gets an infobox for Cecilia (Simon & Garfunkel song),,,that's something else for you to expand on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk • contribs)

References

I'm not dismissing alt-pop, I'm dismissing your opaque arguments. Once you discover how to convey your thoughts succinctly, we can talk. Until then... Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but haven't I made myself clearer the last time I posted...that

A) the term 'alt-pop' exists in the real pop world...with online sites, blogs, newspapers, magazines all using the term frequently

B) alt-pop doesn't seem to exist in 'wikipedialand' apart from when the term is used again and again in genre descriptions that take you nowhere in particular when you click on the link (which is a problem if you are trying to figure out what alt-pop actually is - apart from a new breed of young female pop stars - and especially if google/other wiki articles keep taking you to indie pop which seems to be a completely different thing)

so what actually is alt-pop? Is it indie pop?, indie rock?, alternative rock?, teen pop? art-pop? pop music? there seems to be no answers on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk • contribs)

Here's how I would have stated your case:

"Alternative pop" currently redirects to alternative rock, but I think it could be its own article. What do you think?

— Suddenly Succinct in Salford

It's an interesting proposal but because of the shifting terms found in the literature, I'm sure the effort would be difficult for the editors and perhaps even confusing for the readers. The proposed article might easily suffer from WP:SYNTH as a variety of sources are combined to create a new conclusion not found in any of them. There will be many sources saying "alt-pop" but not explaining the meaning of the term. The first step is to find a reliable music critic or musicologist who defines the term. Without that there's no hope. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A request for clarification

Hi, Michael. You have nominated Draft:Top Drives (Card Racing Game) for speedy deletion as created by an editor evading a block. It isn't obvious to me that a block is being evaded. Can you say what block you think is being evaded, and why? If you can I'll be willing to consider deletion. JBW (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, JBW. The IP editor 2607:FEA8:F180:3FF1:293C:596A:7C2F:B39B created the draft on May 22. The related IP range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F200:0:0:0:0:0/40 had been blocked eight days earlier. My conclusion is that the May 22 action was block evasion.

This is a case of long-term abuse from Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, with no communication at all from the person, and massive amounts of genre warring. Two ANI reports were made, one in March, then one in May which resulted in the large rangeblock.

We are spending more effort discussing the deletion of the draft than the person did in creating the draft. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Deleted. JBW (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Call Me If You Get Lost

Which one of these sources described the genre of the album explicitly [3] [4] [5] [6]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Rap, mainly, is what I'm getting from your linked sources. So we would say hip hop music. There are splashes of other stuff in there, but like Vulture says, it's a "full circle" return to form for Tyler. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, Vulture says the new album is much like the Gangsta Grillz stuff he did with DJ Drama, which means it's a rap album. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which should I add in the infobox, hip hop or rap? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hip hop music is a genre on Wikipedia. Add that. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That works! Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverting

Why do you keep reverting my edit. Shoot for the Stars has not edited in almost a month. He is in college now and has moved away to a new place now. What makes you think this is him? He gave me his old back-up account because he's been wanting to upload those pictures on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesfan210 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't work that way. You are doing the exact same shit as he was doing, with the difference that now you have polluted Commons with those images. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Personally, I don't understand why Shoot for the Stars add these mugshots anyway, there are other pictures of these artists instead of using those mugshots. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Disrespect? Or maybe show the bad example of some to deter others? Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the pictures for PnB Rock. The mugshot is public domain and does not break copyright on here. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits on pop music articles

I noticed your reverts regarding the IP's disruptive edits on various pop music articles relating to Ava Max and Ariana Grande and appreciate your continued assistance in dealing with them. I recently submitted a sockpuppet investigation page here on July 3, 2021, with past reports indicating repeated behavior starting from late 2020. They have attempted to create several falsified draft articles about non-existent songs and albums, and constantly edit with multiple IPs to avoid rangeblocks such as the one I reported on June 10, 2021. Their repeated behavior pattern also includes constantly reverting talk page notices and edit-warring over non-existent song/album versions relating to Max, Grande, Dua Lipa, the Weeknd, and Gwen Stefani. Although the current IP has been blocked for 3 days, I suspect they will continue editing under new IP addresses and sockpuppet accounts based on their previous activity from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhmailik/Archive. Is it necessary to add them in WP:LTA to assist music article editors in identifying their behavior to avoid creating multiple unnecessary WP:AIV pages? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "necessary" to have the LTA page but very helpful to keep things organized. When a busy admin sees a link to the LTA page about the vandal then they are more confident to act swiftly, with lengthier blocks. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111, maybe we need a page titled Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Max Arosev, to talk about the disruption starting in 2017 with IP Special:Contributions/91.157.70.30] and the registered username, focusing mostly on Olympic sports, with disruption extended through St Petersburg IPs to today's music article vandalism and hoaxing. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that will be good. Once the sockpuppet investigation has concluded, they could potentially merge the case pages for User:Max Arosev and User:Zhmailik. There are several other users who have consistently reverted the IP edits over time. Maybe we could notify them about the potential LTA and sockpuppet investigation page to see if they have any other comments. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

EveryTime I Cry

Hello, Binksternet,

You put an MFD tag on this article but there is no accompanying discussion page that exists. Could you either create one or remove the deletion tag? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll figure out what went wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my wrong edit.

Hello, Thank you very much for warning me about my edit incorrectly and apologize for what happened. My english is not good. I will try to understand and follow the rules of the wiki. Can I add the other tracklist in the page If You Really Cared and Should I Stay and revert some page that lost some tracklist again? Then I will try to correct the wrong capitalization and I will see the example from other page. Sorry for my english and thanks again. Dongngi (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can add a tracklist for a single, if it is the subject of "extensive commentary" in a reliable source. See the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single track listings. Otherwise, you can tell the reader in prose that the single "Should I Stay" includes remixes by Junior Velasquez and Satoshi Tomiie.

Rather than Discogs, which is not allowed per WP:ALBUMAVOID, you can cite the template {{cite AV media}} for any simple facts appearing on the disc label, or front/rear cover, or in the liner notes. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lauryn Hill

Please explain how hers is a laundry list but Beyoncé’s isn’t? And are you saying that those artist listed need to be added to the article quoting how she influenced them? Kanyfug (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would help the reader a lot more if two or three names from the big list can be described in more detail, so that the reader can see why and how the influence is seen. I think this should be the case for all biography articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album)

The article Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wetrorave -- Wetrorave (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange DRN Filing

For some reason, an unregistered editor filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning Nu metal bands. They listed you as an editor. You do not appear to have been involved, and they failed to notify you, and they did not discuss properly. I am not sure why they listed you as an editor. I have closed the dispute. You may want to take a quick look, or to ignore the whole thing, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. They need to log in to their account if they want to file such reports, and they need to stop using it to edit war. It's pretty obvious who the IP belongs to.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps keep down the noise. SlytheWarrior is very involved in fighting the nu metal genre, just like the recently blocked Las Vegas IP and lots of other IPs from all over the globe. The basic problem is that some fans of nu metal bands don't want to see them classified as nu metal, because the genre was derided by many observers, and the fans don't want to be associated with any genre held in low regard. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. @Binksternet and Ponyo: - Filing the DRN report logged out was pointless. Even if I didn't know who the logged-out editor was, there is no reason why they should have thought that I would be more likely to open a DRN discussion for an IP than for a registered account. I sort of understand logging out to edit war. That is done to game the 3RR rule. It doesn't usually work, but at least it appears to be a way to sneak around a numeric rule. But logging out to start a content dispute isn't even a plausible way of cheating. Anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you Stop?!

You are very mysognistic because you only mess with black women sales. STOP BEING IGNORANT. white men cant stand to see black women win,I swear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaxhy (talk • contribs)

Today, my professional work assignment was to help a woman Black Panther get her podcast audio sounding good. The podcaster is a professional colleague and also my good friend. Her mother was also in on the ground floor of the Black Panthers with Huey Newton, etc. I would love to see her "win". I would also love to see fewer people be ignorant, so we seem to agree on that.

The sales figures of musical artists would be a simple math exercise if it wasn't for so many of them inflating the figures to look good. There's no race barrier for that activity; every kind of artist does it. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Umm no these sales are verified, so now you are saying that the black women are lying about their sales to make them look good. sir please take several of seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaxhy (talk • contribs) \

I already told you on your talk page where to go with your requests: Talk:List of best-selling music artists. That's where we hash out sales disputes, and it happens a lot. Plenty of people are concerned about their favorite artists. It's not just Black women.

The guideline is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If HuffPost mentions a sales figure in passing it has much less authority than, say, Billboard or the old Cashbox or the RIAA. So the higher Huffpost figure is thrown out in favor of the carefully gathered figures from RIAA and Billboard.

Playing the race or gender card doesn't do anything good for you here. It makes your related argument look weaker, and it doesn't stop me from working to improve Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

and it doesnt stop me from continuing to undo all your edits to mine, kma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaxhy (talk • contribs)

This is where the Wikipedia system stops you from making further personal attacks. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Canciones folklóricas de América

Hello Binksternet, what I said about the article not having independent notoriety of the artist who recorded the album, it is not silly, if you believe that, see this that clearly says what i said:: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (A9).--Germanico5468504 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The artist is Victor Jara, a celebrated martyr to left-wing Chilean progressive politics. Very famous man. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but that's not my point.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you can find good sources for the article to survive. Read WP:BEFORE. If an album has good coverage in the literature, its article can be kept. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Greetings, I am happy to concede that PC's prominence as an actor is not nearly as high as his other talents... however, I do think it should still be mentioned in the opening description line. With 100 acting credits or more on his list - far more than other musicians who have also acted - it is certainly noteworthy.

That being said - for some reason, an IP editor took it upon themselves in this edit to re-org his notorieties from prominence to alphabetic. A check of the IP's contribs shows they have done this to a number of pages. Personally, I don't feel that is right, and that prominence should be the correct order, in which case "singer" would be first for PC. I even indicated that in my subsequent edit, in which I originally restored the then-deleted actor mention (that was the IPs doing - not yours). I have reviewed the WP:MOS and can find no guidelines surrounding that in the base page, however. Interestingly, the closest that I have been able to come is the cat/lists/nav project page which then links to a different subpage in the MOS here for embedded lists. In that page it does not seem to reflect that alphabetization is required for lists in prose, but it is not specifically stated either way.

I have taken a look at some other random pages of singers who have also acted and have found them to be ordered by prominence vs. alpha - and would like to edit PC's page back to that format, and include actor at the end of it, if you would agree to it? Thoughts? Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Alpha-order is not appropriate for a list of achievements or occupations. Prominence is certainly a good basis; another is chronology, in which case PC would be a drummer first. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Great.... I thought so. The IP edits really confused me for a bit... not sure why they decided to start changing those on various pages. I will correct it on PC and also take a look at the others he re-ordered in case they have not been put back yet. Thanks! Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories are often put into alphabetical order, so no need to revert this person's alphabetization of categories. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ok.... well now you are confusing me. You just indicated above that alpha-order is not appropriate for this. The same edit I cited above in which he did exactly that is also what he did to a few other pages. So....... which way are we going to go with these? Alpha-order or no? Thanks! Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In the link you provided, the person was changing short description and listed occupations in the top part of the article. I agree with you that the person should not be doing that. But with categories at the bottom, alphabetization is standard. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. I was only referring to the top portion, in the prose lead-in of the article. With that in consideration - would you agree to me placing "actor" at the end of that prose list? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, add actor. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

So nice to have you around! Thanks for the gem of a memory. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tupac Page in italian

Hi, on wikipedia Italia Tupac is badly marked in genres because they used all music and above all they do not accept any other sources. Can you intervene in any way? Ballataclassica12 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is you using an IP address from Lombardia, then I think the "political rap" genre is valid but the source you cited isn't very good. Ideally it would be source concentrating on Tupac instead of other people.

Tupac hated the term "gangsta rap" but that doesn't stop it from being true. AllMusic is not wrong. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you like Tupac very much? you know a lot about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballataclassica12 (talk • contribs)

No, I don't like Tupac very much. I understand that he is revered by many, but his music was never my bag.Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is adding one subgenre to a film page considered vandalism?

I have similar concerns to the person who did the above edit. You removed my addition of period to the genres of O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and it is not that it was removed that I am concerned about, it is that you called it vandalism. I must disagree with you on this classification, as it was adding one genre which I felt was relevant for the readers to see. I have never edited a page with the intent of vandalizing or disorganizing the flow of information, anywhere on the page. Might I ask why? - Ryan1783

I reverted as vandalism because nobody at all describes the film as a period drama. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Describing how an album sounds

I wanted to get your thoughts on a trend I've been seeing here on Wikipedia. I'll often find that album articles have some unreferenced prose (usually in the lead, but not always) describing how an album "sounds," often leading to subjective statements (words like "softer," "cleaner," etc.) and resulting in some kind of overall conclusion that sometimes isn't even justified. Is describing the sound of an album without citing sources an accepted practice here, in much the same way as, say, writing a plot summary? Or would this fall under original research? I'm thinking the latter, but I'd like a second opinion. The Keymaster (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The latter. Music is much more subjective than film, because of the absence of visual elements. Music without lyrics is a step further.

Ideally, everybody would summarize the critical reviews which might in fact say softer or cleaner, perhaps written as "velvety" or "crisp". Briefly quoting critical reviews is common, so that the job of summarizing is made easier. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking as well. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. The first paragraph of that section, while somewhat true, seems to be siphoned through someone's own subjective take. I've been doing a lot of editing on the Pixies' album pages lately and have also run across examples like this. (There's also some problematic stuff in the lead as well.) What's the best way to clean these sections up?

I may keep seeking your advice from time to time, if you don't mind, as you're a veteran editor and we have similar interests and intentions. Also, I find that any attempts to get discussion going on the talk pages always seem to stall out. The Keymaster (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I see in the page history of Dark at the End of the Tunnel that you have worked on the musical composition wording previously, for instance in May 2018. AllMusic is cited nearby but nothing is cited explicitly for the musical analysis. AllMusic doesn't support all the stuff that is asserted in the section. What the article needs is some more source material, for instance the Pop Matters review from 2003, or the L.A. Times piece from 1990. You can draw bits and pieces from these to describe the musical content. Not much else is out there... most people writing about the album skip over the music and go on to say that Elfman disbanded Boingo soon after. When the sources are slim, I'm afraid our articles must also be slim. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, information on the Boingo album is indeed slim. Most of my editing work on that page was just rephrasing what was already there for clarity and better grammar. There's another editor who kept tinkering with the description of the music, but I'm not sure it should even be there...at least in that form. I will definitely poke around those links you found and see if I can fashion something out of it. The Keymaster (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

How's this? I couldn't find much in the Pop Matters article that I could use, but the L.A. Times and AllMusic reviews seemed to have enough information. The Keymaster (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's good work—a good summary. I supplied you the L.A. Times Google cache URL for your convenience but those kinds of links expire in a few days. At the article just now I trimmed the URL down to the essential core, putting the article back behind the newspaper's subscription system. Another way to get around the subscription system is to use the Wayback Machine of archive.org, but this particular URL was not in their archive. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

I am sorry if I am causing any inconvenience but I am adding a source to a certification that Laundry Service achieved in 2002 in Central America with two platinum discs, as I still do not know very well how that reference table works I am trying to learn and at the same time time adding more information. If you could help me or something like that it would be very helpful. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am bad at certification tables. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America, Central America if it is in Wikipedia and if it was able to certify 2x platinum as indicated by my source that I placed. If you can get it back to how it wasAlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I've Had Enough (Wings song)

Okay but the article for the song in question hardly classifies the song as "soft rock". I don't devote too much time to music-related articles (and I know you referenced AllMusic), but as far as Wings are concerned, the swaying (and general difference) of opinions from public and authors over the decades as opposed to other acts...--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Album genres come from sources discussing the overall genre of the album, not from assembling the various song genres to make a conglomerate. (The sources are allowed to do that, though.)

I'm open to looking at other WP:SECONDARY sources than AllMusic. Rolling Stone says "rock"-related things about McCartney and about the really short song "Backwards Traveller", but they don't say the album is hard-, soft- or garden-variety rock.

Feel free to bring new sources for the album genre. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

May do. Appreciate your observations. I do have a few sources. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed discussion topic on Lost Cause

Hey Binkster, you removed a discussion from Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy as a sockpuppet of Detecting Guru. I'm not convinced. Detecting Guru consistently tried to downplay the racism of the Lost Cause, while also removing statements that the Lost Cause is a myth. This IP is proposing to strengthen the statement that it's a myth and clearly assert that it is racist. It seems this IP is arguing the exact opposite of what Guru did. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You could be right. Here's how my logic worked, working backward in time:

IP Special:Contributions/199.204.56.216 posted on Talk today, saying "racist power structures" should be "segregation". The IP is from Wisconsin. They mentioned Jorm as the barrier.

IP Special:Contributions/75.100.2.144 edited the article earlier today, changing "racist power structures" to "segregation". The IP is from Wisconsin.

IP Special:Contributions/67.209.88.156 was edit-warring in the article six weeks ago, removing lots of stuff including "racist power structure". The IP is from Wisconsin.

Detecting guru preceded 67.209.88.156, removing "racist power structure". Jorm reverted this edit. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you have a point. In particular, mentioning Jorm by name was a bit sketchy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello if you see this I was asking how do you a sourced genre because I am a new wiki user I was asking you because I thought pop was a genre

Hello if you see this I was asking How do you add a sourced genre because i am a new wiki user I was asking you because I thought pop was a genre Apollo wiki page (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

First thing is that the infobox is supposed to summarize facts that are already in the article. So the best way to add genres is to talk about the style of music in the article.

Second thing is that Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Genres come from those sources, not from people liking a song and coming here to tell everybody that it should be classified as chopped and screwed, for example.

Finally, the way to cite your sources is described at WP:CITE. You would say that the song is chopped and screwed because that's what they wrote at HipHopDX, or DJ Mag, or whatever source. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there something special about sourcing a production discography?

After reverting some unsourced additions to DJ Premier production discography I noticed that almost none of it is sourced. There's a link to the subject's credits at Allmusic at the top of the page--is that how it's done, assume it's all supported by Allmusic unless otherwise noted? Second, I read in some discussion somewhere recently (maybe one of the discussions linked in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE? idk) about not needing to cite a source for track credits, but I don't recall the details. Is there such an exception in music articles, and if so can you point me to the relevant policy? Thanks. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The published item is considered a source. You can cite a book, newspaper or magazine, and you can also cite an album, a concert video, and a song—if there is a published version of the song. You would use Template:Cite AV media and fill out all the relevant parameters such as the record company for publisher, the year of publication, the type of published media such as "DVD liner notes", etc.

Otherwise, the unreferenced entries you are talking about are relying on the unwritten rule of WP:V. The rule is that everything on Wikipedia "must be verifiable" but it doesn't say that it must be verified. So if the thing is published somewhere it is verifiable even when it is lacking a citation.

If this deejay's discography is fully represented by AllMusic then you can name the single citation and repeat the name at every entry. See WP:REFNAME for instructions.

Let me know if you still have questions. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"the unwritten rule of WP:V"--that's pretty funny; I'd never considered that. OK, I thought maybe putting in the track name was like shouting "King's X" in re sourcing. Thanks. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates

Just put all the music genres in their respective templates. If you don't approve of my methods, I'd like to see you do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk • contribs)

Don't put nav boxes inside nav boxes. It's massive clutter. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe you're the one starting these edit wars. I was merely trying to put each genre where it belonged. If you don't like the way I do it, just put in the genres your own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk • contribs)

The project moves forward with WP:CONSENSUS. Without that, it spasms.

Everyone needs to get aligned to some degree. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

J.Lo album Russian sales

I don’t feel like my edits should be reverted. : https://chartmasters.org/2018/06/jennifer-lopez-s-albums-and-songs-sales/ this is the only reliable page for Russia that lists her sales as 4x Platinum for J.Lo and This is me…then Tnays20 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Help me out, please. Where in that link is Russia? Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This 2020 Chartmasters page says that J.Lo has four certified albums in Russia. Two are Gold and two are 2×Platinum. She also has one Platinum ringtone in Russia. The listed albums do not include J.Lo that you and your Delaware IP have been adding today.[7][8] Also absent is This Is Me... Then added by your IP. [9] So I'm not convinced. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Hi Bink. I just re-edited the Whitney Houston’s page. I read your reviews about my sources. I think some of the chosen words were biased so I changed them. However, you shouldn’t remove all of reliable sources like the CNN, ABC , Rolling Stone and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Could you re-read the page again? If you see a problem please reply to me before editing. Thanks Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez Gives concert in Japan as Part of the Dance Again tour

She had a concert in Japan in February of 2013 as part of the dance again tour. No Japan was apart of the original tour list but according to numerous Billboard articles and this article: http://empireentertainment.jp/project_detail.php?id=1055303 Empire's Asia Division Helps Deliver Jennifer Lopez to Perform at a Private Concert In Japan this concert should be counted as a Dance Again tour Concert. You don’t always have up to date articles so I just wanted to give you a reliable article I’d like to see you do better. Tnays20 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What part of "private concert" are you not understanding? It was a private concert for Japan, not part of the previous world tour. Lopez said in her book that the last shows of her tour were in Puerto Rico in 2012. Your 2013 date is not part of the tour. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have the book I know more about her than you do. The concert should still be counted since she did it for Amway Distributors. I’m going by what I read in the article it said :a special concert as part of the Dance Again World Tour. Tnays20 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Look, if you had just completed a tour, and someone says they want a private concert, paying you lots of money, what songs would you sing? What dance choreography would you use? That's right, you would use the same songs and dances and costumes and sets that you had just used on tour. This kind of thing happens all the time. But all of those elements brought together don't make the private concert part of the tour. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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 review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on 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) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

COI.

No COI whatsoever, no relation whatsoever to these authors.--77.124.110.240 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

More than a decade of Ray Carney promotion on Wikipedia from Israeli IP addresses. No relation my foot. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Houston

Is there any problems with the last edit beside the “gender” part? Cause I think it already contains better information than the current version Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It’s been a day since my post. If there is nothing wrong beside the “gender” then I will keep the last edit with the “gender” part removed.

You keep trying to shoehorn new concepts into the lead section: a violation of WP:LEAD. Stop trying to make Whitney Houston's bio launch into unsupported superlatives. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-writing the "Complete On The Corner Sessions" article

Hi there!

I left a note in the "Talk" section of the "Complete On The Corner Sessions" article. Sorry if the note itself feels mean-spirited... it wasn't intended at all. I think this Miles article has the possibility of being labelled as a "Good Article" after a nice overhaul + the addition of more info about the performers, recording sessions, instruments used and detailed descriptions of the unreleased songs. Right now, I'm writing some drafts in hopes of a possible editing greenlight, with the ClueBot disactivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu-Protocole (talk • contribs)

Whatever happens to that page should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. What sources are you looking at? Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Genre

Hi Bink. Looks like genre troubles, see [10] [11] [12]. 113.210.118.253 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Condemnation to condemnation

You wrote to me recently:

It doesn't help your case that you went over to the Feminism Project talk page and preached to them saying they are going against nature and that eventually they will fail. The basic problem here is that you are not here to help Wikipedia in its mission; rather, you are here to push your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So here is my response:

I am not here to push my point of view, I am here to prove the criminals in moral crimes against humanity, in that it is not my point of view but a point of view that is of the whole world, and they deny it because they evade dealing with their conscience. I'm here for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is here to help humanity, Wikipedia is supposed to serve morality and humanity, not morality and humanity are supposed to serve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not God! And if there is a truth that you deny, I will fight for it to the last strength I will have. I am a Jew and this is my moral duty!--195.60.234.101 (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic. "I believe it, so it must be true for the whole world." How progressive and constructive for the world to return to the dark ages. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not dodge! What do you mean? Is there something that works out of something he does not believe in? Show me? Only the feminists! Who insist on convincing themselves, and it will still come to them in a boomerang and they will learn a lesson the hard way.

Morality is fixed and exists in the consciousness of every human being, and is not really subject to controversy. Even if you force a whole people on distorted moral laws, it will not help, it will only lead to a revolution that will come.

This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the human morality that also exists in you (I hope)

The world right now if feminism is dark. The Israeli press is just laughing at your nation, making fun of the "enlightened education" of the Americans. Even a thousand entries in Wikipedia that do not give expression to morality in a variety of technical arguments, will not clear your conscience!--195.60.234.101 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem like a man who appreciates enlightenment. Approximately 3,300 years ago, the big achievement of the Jewish religion (the Law of Moses) was to eliminate pagan worship of primarily feminine, earth-mother figures, and establish a patriarchal system that has lasted ever since. That was enlightenment of a sort, ending many thousands of years of pagan beliefs. Do you think it's possible that another enlightenment can supplant Mosaic Law? I do, and you probably don't. If that's true, we hold very different viewpoints on this issue. I believe that the highest-possible human morality does not support the idea that men are superior to women. I believe that patriarchy's extractivism and imperialism has caused massive damage to the environment, endangering all of humanity. The end-game of patriarchy is death for all of us. I don't want that to happen, which means I don't want patriarchy to continue. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru

Posting a 3RR notice to my Talk concerning my reversion of BLP violations, which were clearly marked as covered by WP:3RRNO #7, isn't really what the template is for, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You are using BLP wrongly as an excuse to push your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID isn't "a viewpoint". It embodies widespread community consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom standard DS notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hey! Just reaching out about recent edits on the Halder page. The first edit in the opening I made because I believed it helped the opening flow better while leaving the information intact about the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. The second edit I made about Halder receiving the bribes and these assuaging his guilt was because I could find no mention of Halder recording a feeling of guilt on the Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture page 62. The other mentions seemed accurate on a cursory perusal. I apologize for giving the impression that these changes were not objective and hope they can be reinstated. Thank you.Nate9510 (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, you are talking about these removals of text cited to historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies. One of your edit summaries claimed that "persistently using the same source is not good practice." There is no rule on Wikipedia that one source cannot be used repeatedly. In this case the source is very high quality, and I think we should give its conclusions a hefty WP:WEIGHT.

You were not "leaving intact" the conclusion about Halder's post-war reputation rising higher than he deserved because of his military record and the atrocities he supervised. You removed that part, and User:אברהסה בו restored it saying that your effort was an attempted "whitewashing". Do you understand how your edits could be seen as whitewashing? Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the book I am discussing. I have that volume in my library and I do think it is a high-quality source. I was attempting to streamline the article by moving the discussion of his atrocities to the section specifically designated for that because I did not feel as though the sentences flowed well in the introduction and the end. The other edit I made because page 62 of the aforementioned manuscript does not mention Halder’s “qualms” in the way described in the wiki page. I feel as though both of my edits were reasonable and apologize that I was not clear in the edit description. I feel as though the user accusing me of whitewashing is inaccurate. I made no attempt to change or edit the lengthy descriptions of Halder’s crimes and even pointed this out in my edit. I hope the discrepancies can be adjusted at some point by some other individuals. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate9510 (talk • contribs)

The core of that material was added to the biography in 2019 by Szzuk, with expansion work such as this, repeated in the lead section like this. Szzuk also repeated this at the very end of the bio, following news of Halder's death. You removed the final one, which makes sense to me, but your removal of the one in the lead section was too much, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Gothic Rock

I grouped some genres of Gothic rock together, but you reverted the change. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.25.163 (talk • contribs)

You doubled the entry of gothic metal, listing it twice. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Should I try again and change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.25.163 (talk • contribs)

You could, but you should make certain your genre grouping is supported by WP:Reliable sources. Have you seen the Music Map or the Genre Evolution Tree? Have you read some books by musicologists? Can you cite those books? Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

blog

the blog TJMK? seattlePI is journalist exerpting her book .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop putting truejustice.org into the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not re-add truejustice.org ... I was editing and the edits may have overlapped, then I restored my work without truejustice.org, which was only pictures of the murder house. Do you only object to the truejustice.org picture link? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I object to any link to truejustice.org, which is an attack site aimed at Amanda Knox. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)"

Use words to describe your objection not templates. In fact I removed prior bias in my edits. What "opinion" do you think I inserted? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Have a cookie, thanks for all of the hard work you've done in the past decade. you deserve a break for once! SomeWhatLife (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Lockheed P-38

The proposal was not single-engined; the aircraft in the proposal was, so the adjective is in the wrong place, and not needed, since "similar" is there.2603:8080:B203:79BD:E9D8:E71:8EE:F697 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Kinda pedantic there. English is more forgiving than you might think. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Rogers (2nd nomination)

So, that was indeed socking by Ashley45675. They're blocked now, and I found a half dozen other accounts, and a dozen more of those awful drafts. Veramack95 was another one, so I'm about to take measures in regard to the article. Anyway, you said "sock", so you must have had some idea. The CU record led me back to Vanessa566, but that's relatively recent; older accounts were evidenced in the histories of various favorite articles: Angelika46t, Mariya96834, Augustina123, Calirose546. If you know who this is and there is an SPI, you might could add those pro forma so they get tagged properly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hunt around and try to make the list more complete. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I may have found a progenitor who came back and edited recently. There are two related users, CHall10006 and Christopher10006,[13][14] and the Tennessee IP range Special:Contributions/2601:840:8300:C3A0:0:0:0:0/64 which posted an unblock request here on the user's talk page. This person was interested in the same topics of voice actors in games[15] and album tracklists. The Ashley45675 group involved some IPs in Kentucky, so it's not a huge stretch to imagine they could have started in Tennessee.

If this doesn't match up just tell me I took a wrong turn somewhere. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't really tell if it matches up from a technical point of view--the data is old. It's very possible, of course. I think we should wait and see, and start an SPI when they come back, which I'm sure they will: what they are doing is compulsive. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Fw 190 A-5/U12 wiki article editing

Apologies for the slight edit war. Both 'Cannon' and 'Cannons' work, however, 'Cannons' is the more modern and common way to write the plural of cannon. 'Cannons' is more commonly used than 'Cannon' as plural, and using 'Cannons' makes more sense than using 'Cannon'. A teenager or a young adult would most likely think that 'Cannon' is a mistake. Byorh2 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, let's not surprise the youngsters. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring

User:Lard Almighty User:Binksternet

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by edit warring, as you did at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Binksternet

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Murder of Meredith Kercher. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, the WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus for your additions by starting a talk page discussion. You can't just keep adding your preferred version after others have removed it, no matter how many warnings you deliver to the people opposing you. When there is a dispute about article content, the disputed material stays out until consensus is clear to put it in. Your next move is to argue your case on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, I have not added my preferred version, I corrected deficiencies, and added improvements based on similar articles. The complaints you made made were you made were implemented, yet User:Lard Almighty User:Binksternet still deleted a string of edits with etc as your only reason. Why dont you complain about each delete separately ? 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A serious question

Hey, I got my final warning and I'm super panicked now. If I continue to add poorly-sourced, unsourced or unconstructive edits, how long will I be blocked for? Really panicked right now. 81.110.120.177 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a quick run 'round the park will settle your nerves. And citing reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

But how long will I blocked for? 81.110.120.177 (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Stand for Myself

Can you upload the cover art for the album Stand for Myself? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You removing notable album at Thrash metal

Stop removing Sacred Reich's The American Way. Nobody cares how many examples there are as you pointed out. The American Way is definitely as notable as those other thrash metal albums released in 1990. Thank you. Bye. 172.58.30.206 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Not so important. That album charted in Germany but not very high. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Who cares where it charted. You are such a rude and selfish dude who baselessly said there's "enough examples" when it comes to thrash metal albums released the same year. Thanks a lot, Mr. Binksternet. 172.58.27.39 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

There an editor who is making questionable edits [16] [17] [18], is it's necessary to have Mars' name ending with a 's in it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The way we write that depends on how it's pronounced. Different places might pronounce it differently. Me? I pronounce it without repeating the zee sound at the end: Not MAR-zezz but MARz. (Not Bruno Mars's red jacket but Bruno Mars' red jacket.)

For Wikipedia, I would tabulate media treatment of the possessive and see if there is a consensus you can point to when reverting. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I reason why I asked you this because there seem to be a edit conflict at Bruno Mars talk page over this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Songwriter Removal

Hi Binkersternet, I noticed you removed Nate Hills as a songwriter on Do It and on Loose, you claim to have looked on BMI’s website. I have included an image source that states all 3 (Nelly, Tim and Nate) are indeed the songwriters coming from the liner notes. [19] Also if you could there is a discussion going on at Do It’s talk page on whether or not the original writers of the song should be credited since Timbaland was sued for plagiarism. But it was settled in court in 2009 and the judge never ruled that they had to be credited. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please make these pages live?

Hello/Hi, Binksternet,

I've seen that you've done your mandated work on this template, but two of the articles I've linked are in the draft space. Could you please bring them to the mainsapce so others can read? Every but one of the rules is as you want! I'll be waiting! Thanks!!45.222.192.66 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The plot section at Draft:Barbie & Chelsea: The Lost Birthday should be shortened by about 40%. Right now it is 1088 words long, but the guideline at WP:FILMPLOT says the plot section should be between 400 and 700 words. The plot should not contain every detail about the film... just the highlights. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ciated source

can a Youtube video be a ciated source , because he ksi admitted to being 5'11 in one of his videos Aero554 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not so good. Somebody independent of KSI needs to evaluate whether KSI was being truthful or just playing games. WP:SECONDARY sources are always better. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jeanne L Noble.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jeanne L Noble.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Email

Yo, thanks for the email. I'd rather not reply via email as my wiki-anonymity is important to me. Is there some way you can share the sources by uploading them somewhere and sharing here? If not, no prob, I'll set up a burner email account and reply there.

As it happens, my copy of the ZZ Top bio arrived at the library today, so I can check that out too.

Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, lemme fluff the file dump a little more and I'll upload it somewhere. I need to clear up a couple of publishing dates first. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also in the Wikipedia Discord if you use that. Popcornfud (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a zip file on Dropbox – 2.11 MB in size. One clipping from the Houston Chronicle saying that the band "pirated" a song was published on March 6, 1985. The note on the side is hard to read.

Not included in the zip file are primary arguments sent by Linden Hudson which advance his point of view. A book or magazine author would be interested in these things, but if the facts are not yet published, they are of no use to us here. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Ping Popcornfud... Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a batch of treasures. Thanks very much for sharing. I'd be interested in reading the rest of Linden's arguments but yeah clearly they won't be usable.

FWIW, the pages that cover Linden's involvement in the biography by Blayney (ZZ Top's ex-roadie) make it clear that Blayney wasn't involved or present, and that he's just typing the story up as Linden told it to him. Blayney writes that his claims "ring true, based on what I saw and heard myself". I think there's a lot of material we can pull out from the book, but will probably have to phrase it in terms of "According to Blayney," etc. I'll probably start working on the article again over the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

It's look like Giubbotto non ortodosso has evade their block yet again [20]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I tagged the account. Keeping an eye. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your claim of POV has no evidence or basis. Stop with the false claim and bias. Go to talk Page and explain. Provide actually reasoning and assume good faith. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources to introduce a false bias. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for your changes. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You have provided no reasoning for your change and have been edit-warring. To do so again will result in you being reported for edit-warring. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A section in the talk page was created under Black Genocide for you to discuss. I suggest you explain there or you will be reported for edit-warring. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binksternet reported by User:3Kingdoms (Result: ). Thank you.

John Krol and hounding.

Per wiki: ""Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for."

Your objection to Krol's quote makes little sense and you calling it "grandstanding" comes across as POV on your part. Furthermore this all fits a pattern of what comes across as you hounding me across my page. It to be quite frank is rather annoying and I ask that you stop. You might mean well, but I suggest we both cool off from doing this. Have a nice day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I found that you have introduced bias to a number of articles. My action of going to each of the articles to remove your disruptive contribution is not hounding. I'm only interested in stopping the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about the Krol page. Please stop with the hounding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Not hounding. The WP:HOUNDING guideline says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." You have been promoting anti-abortion views in violation of WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

How so? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Parenting books has been nominated for splitting

Category:Parenting books has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 15:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Something is Wrong

I made some edits to the Punk rock template using the Music Genre Tree as reference, but they got taken down, with the remover saying that the Music Genre Tree isn't a reliable source. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.25.163 (talk • contribs)

• I imagine we are talking about this edit in which you changed New wave music from being a related genre to being a direct subgenre of punk. Your genre tree source is pretty much alone with that classification; most observers put new wave under post-punk with strong lateral connections to synthpop and pop rock. The genre tree website is self-published by a person named YellowJelly which makes it unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)