User talk:Binksternet/Archive56

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

9thx my edits

12:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please maintain proper behavior, it doesn't matter how fervently you believe something you need to discuss things and engage with others. XiAdonis (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a history of protecting Wikipedia from activists, a behavior which is naturally opposed by activists. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not an explanation of your reverts of my edits on APA Group (Japan) & ABCD line, i've created an opportunity for you to explain yourself yet you refuse to do so. Calling the person you disagree with an activist and ending the discussion there is not a proper response to a request for you to explain your reasoning on an edit. It doesn't have to be said but i am not an activist. You need to adhere to the rules of this site, im going to undo both your contributions to these 2 article while we discuss this. XiAdonis (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! So I was skeptical too the first time I saw the Amsterdam pop up. But the source given seems accurate and the further I read, it seems to be the case. He was BORN in Amsterdam where his parents were living at the time. they then moved to Nijmegen within months of his birth, and that is where he spent his childhood. So it seems he was born in Nijmegen but from Amsterdam. Just trying to prevent an edit war. It is kinda funny that this never came up before. DLManiac (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that complicates things. Do you have a source describing the birth in one city and the move to the other city?

I wasn't thinking in that direction. Rather, I started searching Google books for Nijmegen and "van halen", making sure the books were published prior to Wikipedia to avoid circular sourcing. Here's what I got:

• 2003 Rock N Roll Gold Rush: A Singles Un-Cyclopedia says born in Nijmegen. By Maury Dean, a PhD musicologist, a writer of pop music books.
• 1996 The Rock Who's Who, page 701. "Edward Van Halen (b. Jan. 26, 1957, Nijmegen, Netherlands)"
• 1995 The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, volume 4. Says Nijmegen for both brothers.
• 1994 Pioneers of Rock and Roll: 100 Artists who Changed the Face of Rock, page 273. Says Nijmegen.

Which hopefully explains my editing at the EVH biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT doing fancruft, I am correcting grammatical errors. There are two "the"s in the first sentence in the Plot section, for example, or were you too stupid to see that? And how many times do I have to tell you, the reference to Rick Taylor is for a PA Congressman, not a comic book colorist! Heroic Age's real name is Pat Garrahy, who worked for DC Comics. You can look it up on the Internet, for Heaven's sake! I suggest you try the DC Database first, or do you consider that site to be beneath you?

Who do you think you are anyway, buster? I DEMAND that you explain your actions! Who are you, huh? And what in the world is "fancruft", anyway?Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

First problem is that you have been editing logged out and logged in on the same articles, which is a violation of

WP:MULTIPLE. You have been using the Malcolmlucascollins account and the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7E31:5710:0:0:0:0/64

.

Second problem is that you are adding more text to comics topics without citing WP:Reliable sources. You appear to be violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I log in and sometimes I forget to. That's not wrong, is it?

I'm also trying to copy the long version of the article (which is based on the original article) for a friend of mine so that he can have a copy of. It's not my fault I keep finding mistakes that were mostly made by me and have to keep switching back and forth to make the copies. You switched it and now I've got to help him find it so he can make another copy of all 22 pages of the article you took off, However, every time I've done so recently, I have switched it back to what you switched it to. If you want it that way, fine, I'll keep it that way. But don't tell me that I can't make copies of the article that I want. If you would've left it alone in the first place (as you did for a long time until now), I wouldn't be in the fix I'm in! Can't you please just let well enough alone?

And I am using reliable sources: the comics that make up the stories themselves. I've read them dozens of times and I know what's in them. Don't tell me that isn't wrong!

Here's a few more mistakes I've found: Justice League Task Force #30 takes place at the same time as The Ray (vol. 2) #19. There's a footnote in it that says so. Take a look and see for yourself if you don't believe me. And in "Supervillains that accepted Neron's offer" the "S" entries are not alphabetical. It should be Shrapnel. Sledge, Louie Snipe, and Spellbinder. How could anyone miss that one, including you?

And you still haven't told what "fancruft" is.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Glossary#Cruft. Fancruft is a menace and we are constantly trimming it away. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be built on

WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources such as the comics themselves should only be used sparingly. All articles on Wikipedia should be a summary of the secondary sources that are written about the topic. In the case of the comics, it should be non-comics sources talking about the comics, for instance the book The Golden Age of Batman: The Greatest Covers of Detective Comics from the '30s to the '50s

if you were editing the article about early Batman comics.

So what happens when an article is discovered that is based on primary sources? Very often it is largely or completely rewritten to get rid of the stuff that is not found in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH policy when you take various primary sources and compile a list of something that cannot be found all together in one source. For instance, the Underworld Unleashed sections "Superheroes who accepted Neron's offer" and "Superheroes who rejected Neron's offer" should be based on something written in secondary sources, such as a book about Mark Waid's writing style, or something similar. Instead, from the very beginning in 2005, the article has violated SYNTH, by compiling lists of characters, and a lot of your work continues that problem. Binksternet (talk

) 08:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you hate me or something? Now you've removed the Action Comics team-ups from DC Comics Presents! And please don't tell me I need to find a secondary source as a reference. Where am I going to find one that deals with that subject in this day and age? Please tell me that if you're so smart! You know those issues are similar to DC Comics Presents! Everyone knows that! It's comic book history!Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The kind of work you do will be very much welcomed by the folks at https://comics.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page, and all the related wikis devoted to comics. But on Wikipedia, the founding policy is to summarize secondary sources for the reader – not to synthesize new information from primary sources. Wikipedia's answer to a lack of secondary sources is to omit the information. If secondary sources are not writing about it, it's not important enough. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The section you quoted in your revision of DC Comics Presents says it's all right to put number symbols on comic book issue numbers, so I put my previous version back. Also, what's wrong with putting the collected edition books in black italics? Every comic book article on here has done that. Take a look at any one of them and you'll see it. Next, what's wrong with putting the word "The" in the character names? That's how they're referred to. However, I'll go back and revert Shazam! back to Captain Marvel, even though it's listed as Shazam! on the two issues' covers where he appears. Finally, two issues in this series do have multiple characters teaming up with Superman, but to save space, I lumped the characters in each one together and referred to their issues only once, since that's all that's really needed, plus it avoids confusion. Besides, in the "Whatever Happened to...?" section, two characters are lumped in #28, so your alteration of what I did to those two issues seems, to me, hypocritical.

I really hope I don't have to do this all over again for once and that you'll see that this way is right in the long run. I've done nothing wrong in this case and do not deserve this ill-treatment from anyone.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mats Löfving, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a radio interview with Swedish police chief Mats Löfving was described as "a bombshell"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mats Löfving. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mats Löfving), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I did nothing wrong. Clicking on Funk in the Psychedelic music template directed you to P-Funk, which is a group, not a genre. I was trying to fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:F47E:5B35:8067:73AA (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In light of this and this, please consider opening an SPI and ask for a sleeper-check. The checkusers will be non-committal on the IP itself, but they might tag and bag sleepers. One reason they may decline is that this IP address belongs to a school system so there may be a lot of false positives. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion to the guy, to find another wiki to keep him busy. I hope the suggestion works. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. Could you take a look at the article The Emancipation of Mimi? I fear that MariaJaydHicky is genrewarring through various IPs [1][2][3] (they're all from UK). The most recent one in a edit has removed every genre leaving only R&B [4]. Thank you. Blueberry72 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to improve the article on Garth Ennis, which I found to be very well-cited but disorganized. One thing I noticed is that Ennis is currently in the Critics of Christianity category. While it is true that Ennis is critical of Christianity and religion in general, he is not what you would call an career atheist; he doesn't do lectures on atheism or write books dismantling Christianity or that sort of thing. Basically, he just writes comic books. Some of them reflect his mistrust of religion and blasphemy is a recurring theme in his work, but I am not sure if that's enough to deem him a critic of Christianity. A while back, Nick Cave was added to the critics of atheism category, but was removed because, while Cave has criticized atheism and positive religious messages as a theme in his songs, he's essentially just a rock musician. He doesn't make a career out of criticizing atheism like many Christian apologists, he doesn't publicly debate atheists, etc. Therefore, there's not sufficient cause for including him as a critic of atheism. Am I correct in this assessment, and if so, would the same hold true for Ennis? If so I can remove him from the category. I just ask because I am unsure and I see you editing a lot of the articles I look at so you seem to know your stuff.Lynchenberg (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You have a good case for removal,

WP:SECONDARY

source is cited doing it.)

You can point to the George Carlin page where atheism and the atheist category have been repeatedly added and just as often removed because, even though he pinioned religion and religious faith in his comedy, he did not ever say "I am an atheist myself", and he did not speak out as an atheist.

The guideline for removing categories, any categories that are not strongly supported by verifiable article text, is

WP:CATDEF. You can quote that guideline when you remove stuff. Binksternet (talk

) 00:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks!Lynchenberg (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You were the one who removed the instruments parameter from glam rock so I assume you removed from others as well. My question is why? JJULE (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

JJULE, at the time, it seemed like there was consensus for the removal across all musical genres, but further discussion raised some questions. The parameter has always been troublesome in that very few editors adding to it were taking the information from WP:Reliable sources, and it was not supported by cited article text in the great majority of cases. Instrumentation of a genre is often complex whereas the infobox is intended for fast, easy answers.

If you would like to have the instruments listed in the infobox, please start with a section about instruments in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Dear User:Binksternet, it's been a while since I've crossed paths with you on Wikipedia and I hope that you're doing well! I appreciate that you restored the content that was deleted at the Society of Saint Pius X article. I'll try to also expand that further soon. I hope you have a great day and thanks again! With regards, Anupam^Talk 13:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and expanded that section. Feel free to ameliorate it in any way that you find suitable. I think that The Atlantic article covers a lot of things about SSPX that could be added there. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 14:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I visited that article because of the recent block of another Esoglou sock; I was working to roll back some of the sock's disruption. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I made one edit on a page which you reverted; no one's involved in an "edit war", Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The edit made me think it was a continuation of edit warring from someone else.[5][6] The dancer label has been removed here by Almostangelic123 and here by myself. The motive is that Bush's dancing is always connected to her own musical performance, that she is not known for making choreography for others, or for dancing the choreography of others. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry bro this loon just accused me of 'abusive behaviour' because I explained a basic tenet of music and (whilst not having the power to do so) threatened to ban my schools net portal. The dudes unhinged. I've passed his post history to an admin so they can take a look at his behaviour and see if this is the kind of crazy they want on Wikipedia. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Bink. This is a LTA IP previously blocked by Materialscientist. I have brought it to their attention here. Robvanvee 07:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I know we disagree a lot but I wanted to thank you for restoring the Stanford part to mentions of the Hoover Institution. FYI, there was a discussion about it here [[7]]. Springee (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet. The initial R in the name of the sockpuppet (secret code), who has notably edit on Grand Chase [8] compared to others, see the SPI archive. Not only that, s/he also focused on Maroon 5, Linkin Park and other rock band articles. Can you open the SPI? 2402:1980:82A7:D3F2:D61F:C7D1:1382:AD2A (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

he is back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=990135564&oldid=990063452

The duck quacketh but it hasn't been declared official by the game warden yet.

Oh, and the duck has found a brand new song to add to his current playlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

An administrator silenced the noise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.170.187 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw you had made a comment on Talk page for Kamala Harris on 22 August 2020, asking "If your aim is to highlight progressive, intellectual and political themes, why is there nothing in the biography about the Rainbow Sign in Berkeley, a community center of Black activism?" FYI I have started a page on that cultural center: The Rainbow Sign. It will benefit if others can expand and integrate it into Wikipedia, perhaps mentioning in the Harris article if appropriate; I am reaching out in case you or others have time/interest b/c my time (and knowledge) is limited. All the best --Presearch (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the page! Nice work. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your revert pop up in my watchlist and was curious how you came up with it being a block evasion? The basis of the paragraph you removed has been in the article for over a decade, granted none of it is sourced. --Michael Greiner 04:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I worked backwards from this edit which popped up on my watchlist, the IP making a pretty significant, disruptive change without reference. I saw right away that the IP range –

List of Mexican-American communities showed the same stuff from the same IPs, but there was also a litter of indeffed users, a bunch of them pointing back to a sockpuppet case page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary

. The blocked users I saw with suspicious names and behavior are listed below.

• Suburban mexican Gypsy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cher Lloyd Mexican stan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palmdale 9999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gipsyfornia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gypsy Mayan queen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Desert cocoa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cali kush (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gypsy Aztec (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palmdale California Covina boy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Playboi Carti Mexican fan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palmdale Mexican (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

In July and September 2019, these socks were confirmed by checkuser, but the oldest account wasn't immediately clear. The checkusers settled on HipHopVisionary which was registered in April 2015, but I think it started five years earlier, in April 2010 with Mike D 26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Mike D 26 also used some IPs from the Southern California desert, including Special:Contributions/71.102.21.238. He said he lost his password, so the username was blocked. Mike D 26 and all of the socks and IPs perform many little edits in a row, using the same style. They are interested in several different pools of topics including hip hop/pop music and the mixing of cultures and ethnicities.

Hope that helps, Michael. Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I have read and now I have checked the page you referred me to

Cheers, man. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow! You have made *so* many articles! So cool! Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Everybody does their part. My part is 0.0037% of Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi-I still feel the adding the Category: Military personnel from California was appropriate and neccessary. According to the article he served in the quartermaster corps of the United States Army. The category should be reinserted to the article. Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Pflueger was in the quartermaster corps during WWI, but his fame did not come from that. I think the issue is related to the discussion about whether

WP:CATDEFINING asks us to limit categories to those which are "commonly and consistently" used to define the topic. I don't see sources consistently talking about Pflueger's military service. The source cited in the article was written by Timothy and his brother Milton. Binksternet (talk

) 18:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. Categories are needed for the readers to navigate through to find information; that is why I added the category to the article to make it easier for helping the readers to locate the information that is needed. Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD, I wonder how many people navigating our categories of military people would be helped by seeing Tim Pflueger or Mel Brooks. The great majority of those people would be looking for people famous for military accomplishments... Unless the category was Category:People who served in the military but are famous for something else. You would get a lot of performers and creative people in that one! Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet Thank You for your comments; I make the edit in good faith and was trying to make easier for the readers to find information. I did look at your user page and you had an interesting career. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am an African American expert on Diana Ross, both as a solo artist and member of a group. Why would you needlessly make an edit to my contributions without contacting me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataMine2020 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I contacted you on your user talk page. I removed your work because you used too much praise in your wording, saying Ross was among the "most successful American singers and fashionable artists of all time," which is not supported by references. You emphasized her costumes without referring to a published source. You listed names of influenced artists without citing a published source. You introduced typographic and style errors, including the

MOS:THEMUSIC

.

Wikipedia is built on

WP:SECONDARY sources, so it does not matter whether any editor is an "expert on Diana Ross", or just a person who can read the sources and summarize them succinctly. And anybody is allowed to edit at any time, without "contacting" the last person. Binksternet (talk

) 02:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. But I'm sorry, you have misquoted my edits as well as important facts related to Ross. While I will agree to make edits on sources related to Ross' costumery and fashion legacy, you continue to blanketly (and subjectively) revert my work without proper or needed scrutiny. Namely, you mistranslated my quote regarding Ross' recording success, which is heavily supported by several other, well-known references. In my published edits, I correctly included Ross' 1993 "Guinness World Record" (title) as "The Most Successful Female Artist In History". Guinness World Records documents and celebrates superlative achievements that are the best in the world. So my citation of Ross' then achievement was verifiably factual. The article on Ross, as it is currently written, only minimally cites Guinness "recognized" Ross, "in the 1990s". The article glaringly fails to accurately report Ross definitive "title" (record), therefore by extension, the contextual height of this achievement, particularly for an African-American female, is unjustifiably lost. Besides necessary superlative, a Guinness record is, alone, considered definitive by measure when it is given. Please note, I plan again to edit Ross' article to properly scope her individual achievement during the many stages of her career and will take care to avoid typographical error and to continue to insert sourced data supporting my contributions. DataMine2020 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I am trying to add a cover version of Baby One More Time to the section called Covers. I took your advice and trimmed it down to one sentence simply stating there is a new cover, who it is by, and referencing an article by a reputable music magazine. You are accusing me of starting a war. I am simply adding one line about a cover version to a page with a large section about cover versions. There is nothing describing the song other than the genre of the new version, and it contains the date of release, names of artists, and as I said, a link to an independent magazine article. I would appreciate if you would reverse your deletion (is that even possible), or at least respond to acknowledge that, purely for informational purposes, it is valid to add the new version of the song to this page. Thank you. Erik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikCali (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The guideline

WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. We don't list every cover version that exists. You must show that the cover version has been widely observed to be significant to the topic. Hazel is not notable enough for an article about her, nor is Dunisco. The song has not charted, nor has it gained widespread notice for any other reason. I'm afraid the earmilk magazine article you cited is not enough to prove that the version is important to our readers. Binksternet (talk

) 02:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The way someone can find out about new versions of songs, is precisely the purpose of the section Covers on the page we are discussing. Discovery is a big deal today, and one place to discover, is Wikipedia. To say that the version isn't notable enough, effectively panders to the establishment and big corporate money, rather than the philosophy behind Wikipedia. I first posted that Spotify placed the song on a specific playlist for Dance Covers, but that was also deleted by you. I am not going to continue to discuss this matter with you, other than express my disappointment in your need to police the arts the way you are doing. And on behalf of whom? Who are you representing by doing so? It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikCali (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's remarkable how an accusation can reveal the insecurities of the accuser. You have declared on your user page that you are a music agent, responsible for promoting artists. I have no such conflict of interest. You accuse me without evidence of representing someone else when it is your actual job to do so.

Wikipedia has a policy section at

WP:PROMO that lays out how the encyclopedia is not intended to help promote stuff. You are asking for the opposite. Binksternet (talk

) 02:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bink, I wanted to bring something to your attention and ask for your advice. I noticed many years ago, on your user page, that you detailed your experience with Legolas and their hoax editing history. I came across something recently that may bare a small resemblance to this, and I am seeking advice for how to handle it properly. I suspect that a user by the name of Tease Pillar has been adding false charting positions to many R&B/hip-hop music-related articles. Since I am, to my knowledge, the only user who has contacted them regarding this, I am somewhat reluctant to call them out explicitly. I have reviewed two of their articles that they nominated for the GA process, quick-failing both of them for not meeting the criteria and citation concerns. This user just greatly expanded the article The Way It Is (Keyshia Cole album), and I'm concerned that their edits may indicate a history of deliberately introducing false claims in their work. On The Way It Is, the "Charts" table, with the exception of the 2 US positions, seems to be mostly fake and deliberately incorrect. And just a few moments ago, they nominated it for the GA process. So I'm curious, do you have any advice as to how to proceed with this? And also, do you see what I'm seeing? I truly want to believe that this user has good intentions, but I am not convinced. I guess, how can I determine where to draw the line between lazy editing and blatant hoax-creating? Any help would be appreciated. Have a nice night, Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

I will take a look at the problem you describe. I warned Tease Pillar six weeks ago about adding purposely false information to Keyshia articles. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I did not know this would play out as quickly as it did. They seemingly just admitted to deliberately falsifying information on my talk page. Carbrera (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

Actually, there were only 4 fake chart positions I actually added to the article. The other ones either came from real charts and PDF files. Please do not get the wrong idea and yes I did used to add fake chart positions to Wikipedia articles and I extremely own to that. I just do not want to be attacked nor blocked for it. I also made the article a long while ago at the time where I was adding fake charts to give articles bigger sources. I also recently deleted every chart position that I feel was false and not reliable with the sources. Please do not attack me on this Binksternet and understood I have stopped doing that please! I really do not want to get blocked or punished for any of this so please understand that and I mean it that I have changed and I will no longer add incorrect info on any articles. Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:11, December 4, 2020 (UTC)

Tease Pillar, it's a bigger problem than "I will no longer" do that stuff. You need to own it by going back and correcting it.

Some corrections to make:

• You put bad chart positions into The Rain (K. Michelle song), and now the hip-hop chart entry must be removed as false. The Ghana chart should go, too.
• You put false chart positions into Can't Raise a Man. For instance, Hot R&B is not 13, it's really 23.
• You put a false chart position into the song article
  Supahood
  . Don't fix it, I'm redirecting the song page back to the album article.

There's a lot more of these for you to fix. Your damaged reputation will improve if you fix them all. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I understand. Thank you so much for calmly explaining this to me. I am very relieved now because I actually thought you and Carbrera were gonna go to drastic measures to get me blocked over this. I will not falsify anymore information and I will fix every mistake I have made on each article. I only added fake chart positions if I were desperate for more sources but now I understood everything. Thank you so much and I hope that the other user can learn to let this go too. Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:41, December 4, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting ready to go "drastic" on you, but everything will turn out better if you fix the problems you caused. I can see you have started doing so. I will keep watching. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right. I also wanna assure you that a few of the international charts I added for The Way It Is article were actually accurate and the sources behind them were found from deep web searching. There are two other chart positions (Scotland and Ireland; link to Ireland was broken) that are not real which I have now deleted but I seriously can assure you that there is nothing else to worry about on it. I also wanna let you know that I worked my literal ass off to remake the article and once it is finally reviewed I will also take time to go and check if I made any errors. Please know that and I really will make sure I make constructive edits on Keyshia Cole articles as I want to get her a GA nomination on almost all of them as I feel I have so much potential to really do something for the R&B/hip-hop-related articles on here and I want both of you to understand that and not go off on me over those mistakes I made in the past. Thank you! Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 02:16, December 4, 2020 (UTC)

So, Tease Pillar is now blocked indefinitely for continuing to insist on the fake sources they fabricated. Carbrera, let me know if you want to divide up the repair work in some manner. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd gladly do that with you. I went through a majority of their edit history the other day but I honestly don't think I fixed everything. Their account is only about 12/13 months old so it should probably be a faster process. Carbrera (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

You've got some big stones, metaphorically at least, to blow off (deliberately?) the talk page discussion and then accuse me of "edit warring". The reason I took out the whole sentence about the UDC's supposed monuments to the Klan "until recent decades" is that the information is only worthy of being in the introduction if the UDC actually did keep building monuments to the Klan "until recent decades". Yes, if they'd assiduously been building monuments to Klansmen in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, right through the height of the

Okay, so your argument was that it was undue emphasis for the lead section. You might have chosen to move the bit, with corrected text, down to the section about the KKK. But if we are following the

WP:LEAD guideline assiduously, then something in the lead section should be telling the reader that the UDC was connected to or promoting the KKK for at least two decades starting in the 1910s. The KKK was a significant factor in the history. Binksternet (talk

) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

I saw that one of my edits was reverted, and I was quite puzzled when the reason for the revert didn't match my edit. Then I looked at the edit history. :)

The only edit I did was a minor one – to correct the punctuation of "Samuel R. Lloyd, Jr," to "Samuel R. Lloyd Jr.," and I think that got blown away when you reverted all those other unhelpful edits. I don't want to risk getting reverted again, so I was wondering if you could restore that one small edit on my behalf? Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm all for following

MOS:JR. I tweaked the text to remove the commas around the name. Binksternet (talk

) 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great! 1980fast (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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 looks at the war in Ukraine

No, USA Eagle01, you are not a "new" editor. Rather, you registered a new username a month ago but you had been contributing for a long time with IP addresses based in Los Angeles, and some of those contributions contained copyright violations. For instance, your contributions in August 2020 at

WP:MULTIPLE by continuing to use the same range of IP addresses and your new username at the same articles, for instance at Hispanic and Latino Americans, Climate of Mexico, 2010s in music, History of science and technology in Mexico, Flor Silvestre, and Mass media in Mexico where you have edited logged in as USA Eagle01 and logged out as Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1805:CA4C:0:0:0:0/64. Please stay logged in. Binksternet (talk

) 06:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I thought you may want to review this relatively new music genre article. It could do with revision from more certified editors such as yourself. There's some edit warring over genres being listed as stylistic origins, but I think the ones referenced at PC Music#Sound and influences should be added as the label is synonymous with the style. Thank you, 5.65.18.60 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you have not yet expressed your concerns at Talk:Hyperpop. That's the first step. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem? Came Go Go Ron Ron Long (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I only get one? Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That one didn't last long! BilCat (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There should be a way to place bets. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia can sell it's naming rights to Bally's! It might become a new type of online betting. :) BilCat (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What's the coin of the realm du jour, WikiMoney or Space Cash? Step right up, place your bets.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I hear that some people are using dinosaur stickers for currency, so that's an option. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Singing in the Rain, could you please read the comment that I left on the talk page and take the songs out of the plot summary? I am the one who actually put the songs in the plot summary part of the article in the first place, they were not there for years prior. I put them in in May of 2020 because somehow I managed to miss that they were already listed below the cast in their chronological order. I was trying to undo my own edit when I took the songs out and I don't see why someone else has a problem with it honestly. I thought I had done it before but I apparently forgot to. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Parenthetical names of songs in the synopsis of a musical predates Wikipedia by decades. I don't have a problem with song names presented in that fashion. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to report a discussion on this page. First I removed the unsourced genres and replaced for sourced genres, then user Fruitloop11 reverted saying that it has no consensus, then the discussion was going on (see the whole discussion here).

The user even left a message on my talk page saying that I was hounding their edits.

As far as I know, I did nothing wrong, I just replaced the unsourced genres for sourced genres (something I do all the time). I just want to keep my edit.

I await your reply.

Thanks, --Marcos FTO (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I already brought the issue to the admins. No need to try to gain support against me--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course they will see that you reverted four times in one day, violating 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

3RR isnt strictly enforced and I already pointed it out to them.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Interesting viewpoint. There's always going to be some admins that disagree with your take on it. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Cheers backatcha! Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, somebody using multiple IPs from Meridian, Mississippi, to edit war.[9][10] Doesn't look anything like a new editor. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Funny how the complainant went there to complain about Binksternet rather than talking directly to them or taking it up on the article's talk page... Seems like slightly sophisticated behavior for a new user yeah... Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Right. The person using this /64 range is fond of jumping in to the fray and reverting folks, sometimes leaving a horrifying personal attack in the edit summary. Not such a fine contributor. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

X

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

Best wishes to you and yours! Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 00:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC))

All the best in the new year! Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There is now an RfC [11] on Beyoncé talk, this time pertaining to the lead of the article. I'm notifying you here since you're involved in the discussion. Israell (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, feel free to weigh in as the discussion is still ongoing. Israell (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, thx for weighing in. The discussion, as explained by an editor, is not about the authenticity of her songwriting but about whether or not it notable, and it is—moreso than actress, for instance. We are now running in circles 'cause some editors will just ignore all the compelling points made, and one of them insists to make it all about the authenticity of her songwriting and allegations, and it's time for that debate to come to a close. I and others have made a great point Beyoncé's songwriting is notable. Feel free to weigh in again. Israell (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and all of the other season's greetings! I seem to be having a bit of difficulty with an editor on the

With that said, should I let the editor move to the list format, particularly since they have done the bulk of the work on the article (and there could be OWN present) or would you like to offer a suggestion on the article's talk page to help sway the editor? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since the decision to bullet or comma the lists was taken first by this other person during their creation of the article, I wouldn't push the point. The decision was made, and now the article has a style. Both options are valid in our style guide. Me, I think commas keep the encyclopedia editing process more approachable for first-timers. And every reliance on wiki markup uses a tiny bit more processing overhead, so in the old-fashioned manner of moon-shot engineers, I try to keep processing to a minimum. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you making inaccurate updates on Yolanda Adams’ page? Blackandeducated (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What I'm doing is keeping the language from violating the

WP:PEACOCK guideline, and keeping the tone from being too promotional. I'm stopping people from saying she was the "best" gospel singer, named by Billboard, when the list by Billboard was simply showing sales success. That means she was the top-selling gospel artist, not the "best" gospel artist. Binksternet (talk

) 16:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we managed to work together to sort things out on the BLM article, so I was hoping we'd be able to do likewise on the line in the White Supremacy article. In short, our dispute revolves around this line, "The comic book super hero Captain America was used for dog whistle politics by the alt-right in college campus recruitment in 2017, an ironic co-optation because Captain America had always battled against Nazis in the comics, and was created by Jewish cartoonists", and I just don't think using the term 'Nazis' when the first half of the sentence talks about "alt-right" promoting is accurate, since the alt right does not necessarily mean Nazi. In fact, neo-Nazis are said to be a minority in the alt-right groups https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/11/23/the-difference-between-alt-right-and-neo-nazi-explained/37424923/. Plus, Captain America fights actual Nazis, whereas any Nazi ideology in the alt right spectrum would in fact be neo-Nazi, and that's not QUITE the same thing. And your added wording of "had ALWAYS battled Nazis" isnt quite accurate as he only fights against Nazis for a part of his comic run, not even a majority of it.

I thus propose the wording "The comic book super hero Captain America was used for dog whistle politics by the alt-right in college campus recruitment in 2017, an ironic co-optation because Captain America had been known to battle against far-right ideologies including white supremacists and Nazis in the comics, and was created by Jewish cartoonists." This most accurately addresses the comparison itself as well as the character's comics run.

What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that'll work. Thanks for keeping the word Nazis with regard to Captain America's opponents. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Hi, I saw that you were part of the music genres task force, and I have a question to ask about the "verifiability" of escape room as a genre. Quite a few sources - 1234 - go into detail about the way Spotify has constructed this genre and its implications for music-listening. However, considering its limited usage (only used by Spotify), does it merit an article of its own as a "genre" of music? I would really appreciate your input. Esmost ^talk 11:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty strange genre, eh? Less of a musical style and more of a categorization by Spotify of listening patterns. But if you can make the topic stick, more power to ya. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone posted a nickname with no proof of resource on

Stuff like that can reverted per

WP:BLP. Perhaps the biography should be protected if the problem continues. Binksternet (talk

) 02:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A

Thanks. I'll chime in later. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been absent from Wikipedia for a few days due to private Real Life, so I was quite bewildered about your mass revert recently. In order to consider your reasons I have to ask you which has been the factual issue in detail that determined your decision? Well, I do know the rules. Your formal pointing to

WP:CATDEF directs us to list the category only if it is a defining characteristic of the topic. So, Just N, you should ask yourself: are these composers defined by their association with the record label? No. Did they purposely connect with the record label, signing a contract? No. Is the record label discussed in the biography? No. Binksternet (talk

) 23:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you've edited the Bauhaus article before so I thought you'd be a good person to potentially bring in as a third party on this. This concerns some edits Woovee has made to the article, which I've tried to revert but which he keeps reinstating. In the section on Bauhaus' musical style, there is a long list of all the genres of music Bauhaus was influenced by, with equally excessive lists in brackets giving examples of bands who play these genres. There is also mention of the band Joy Division as an early influence on Bauhaus near the beginning of the section. Many of the bands listed in these brackets are not actually supported by direct citations and, as I said, are used more as an examples of the genre than specific bands Bauhaus cited as influences. Later in the section, the book *Who Killed Mister Moonlight?: Bauhaus, Black Magick, and Benediction* is cited, in which if you look it up, David J specifically says the bands Bauhaus related to most in the post-punk scene "were Joy Division, Pere Ubu, Devo, Gang of Four, Cabaret Voltaire, and the Pop Group." That is different from saying they were influenced by them; it's saying they felt a kinship/association with them, which paints a picture of what Bauhaus' sound was like at the time. They may very well have been influenced by Dave and Ansell Collins, Doris Day and Bob Dylan as well, but that doesn't mean they felt that they were their contemporaries or exploring similar areas to them. The context of the later quote *does* say that. So, if we chop the bands listed in half (from six bands to three bands), Woovee is changing the context of what David J wrote. David J is saying "there were six bands we identified with most," and Woovee, for whatever reason, is changing it to say "there were three bands we identified with most." I'll note that am not the one who initially found this source or made the edit adding it, I am a separate editor who has observed that Woovee was changing the context of David J's words, so I reverted it.

In justifying the edit, Woovee said that the issue was overlinking, so initially, I just removed the link tags from the bands already linked elsewhere. But then he just reverted it again with no explanation. If overlinking is a concern, would it not make more sense to get rid of the long lists of bands in brackets and instead just list the genres Bauhaus was influenced by? Like I said, if you read the sources for these genres being influential, a lot of the time (though not always), while the genre being influential is mentioned in the source, the bands are not. Why not take out the information from where it's *not* cited instead of taking out the information from where it *is* cited? Indeed, why is Woovee okay with Jacques Bell and the Clash being mentioned twice in two different contexts, but not Devo, Joy Division, and Pere Ubu? He has not made such a case for that. Instead of engaging with the points I've made, he's instead reverted my edits with an edit saying we have to reach a consensus before I edit the article again, until which time, the articles stays as is, which conveniently, just happens to be the version of the article he wants. He's trying to paint it like I am the one going into the article and changing it and he's reverting it to its original state, but this is not the case. As I said, the article was already written in such a way that the original context of David J's comments is presented accurately. I merely noticed Woovee come in and change that context, and then reverted it.

It is true that I did add another sentence that was not there originally which Woovee also removed, but I don't think he is justified in doing so either. This sentence pertains to Peter Murphy's comments about relating to the Clash and gothic rock not being its own genre yet. It is true I added that bit, but it was because in checking the source on Murphy's comments about being influenced by reggae, this was something else I found and thought was worth noting, as it helps put the development of Bauhaus' musical style in a historical context. Murphy's full quote on the matter in the cited article reads, "We were listening to toasting music all the time, and David brought in a lot of bass lines that were very lead riffs. You can see how those basslines really formed the basis of the music, especially on Mask. We were more aligned to The Clash than anything else that was going around. The Cure and those people really solidified what became goth, I suppose." I shortened it to, "Murphy said that, given their mutual mixture of reggae and punk rock, they were 'more aligned to the Clash than anything else that was going around,' instead crediting bands like The Cure for later defining the gothic rock sound." Woovee eliminated this, first claiming that "wp:trivia. In an encyclopedia, one doesn't include an opinion of a musician, denigrating another band. They are not music historians." It's a big stretch to claim that Murphy's quote is "denigrating" the Cure. An easier case could be made that Murphy is praising The Cure (as just one example) of bands who deserve the credit for solidifying a whole genre of music. But I don't think Murphy is doing either. Personally, I think Murphy's comments read as pretty neutral. He's saying, "Gothic rock as we understand it didn't exist at the time, and we felt aligned to the Clash as we were also experimenting with reggae influences." Even if Murphy was being negative towards the Cure however, I don't think the precludes his comments from being in the article if they're relevant, and I think they are. This is not "trivia" this is painting a portrait of their musical style, which is what the section is about. Music historians, including ones cited in the article, all agree that considering the time period, the term goth did not yet exist. The article itself says the genre Bauhaus helped pioneer would *eventually* be called goth; it wasn't known as goth at the time. Murphy's comments are simply in support of that. I would understand Woovee's comments if we were trying to deny Bauhaus is a gothic rock band and instead call them a reggae band in the infobox, but no one's trying to do that.

Interestingly, I'll also note Woovee allowed the part about Bauhaus feeling an association with the Clash to stay (despite the Clash, like Devo, already being mentioned in brackets as an example of punk rock) but specifically wants the part about the Cure expunged from the article. I don't know what the point of changing the context of David J's comments is, but based on what he said about Murphy "denigrating" the Cure, I think Woovee has some vested interest keeping anything he perceives as negative about either The Cure or gothic rock as a whole out of the article. I think reinstating his edits/reverting my edit were done to that end, and that's why he ignores me when I raise these points and instead tries to make claims like "wp:trivia" or "wp:overlinking" or "wp:consensus." I think if he truly wanted to reach consensus, he would have left the article as it was for now, gone to the talk page, and rebutted my points. But even after reverting my edit, he has still not left a case on the talk page. Therefore, I think if I make this case again on the talk page, he's just going to continue ignoring me as he has done thus far. I think the plan is to make it look he's the one following Wikipedia etiquette by claiming we need to reach consensus, but to ignore the talk page in the hope that I just give up and let him have the article the way he wants it. I think this is to protect what he interprets as negative statements about the Cure and/or gothic rock from being included in the article (which isn't even what's being done). Instead of letting this go on, I'd like to bring you in as a third party so we can get an objective, third point-of-view and reach consensus.Lynchenberg (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You've expressed yourself very well here; I think you should take your concerns to the talk page. I don't see any evidence that Woovee will ignore a talk page discussion. So far, Woovee has argued in the edit summaries, but I'm sure moving the dispute to the talk page will help clarify for everybody. It will also leave a lasting record to inform future consensus. The

WP:ONUS

is on the person who wants the article to contain disputed text, so it's your responsibility to start the discussion.

I agree with one of Woovee's comments but not the related action. The remarks by David J and Peter Murphy about the band's relation to the genre are not definitive, as musical genre should be supplied by third party analysis. (Two examples that come to mind are Primus that absolutely hates the funk metal label, and Tupac who said repeatedly that his music was not gangsta rap.) But our readers will be interested to know what the band considers their music to be, and where they place themselves in the development. I disagree with the removal of the bands named in a list for that reason, and because the removal changes the meaning, misrepresenting the statement. The comment about the Cure was appropriate, too, and should stay in. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I've made my case on the talk page now. Feel free to add your own comments if you like. Lynchenberg (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

Ha, I can't top that. Up in my office I have some vintage...forgot the brand, big old two-way speakers from the 1980s. I did replace the crossovers. I have a big fat QSC (GX3 or 5, can't remember), and an old Boss 6-in-2 mixer. I really need to replace that with a regular Hifi preamplifier, but they are so expensive, and there aren't that many brands that make them, it seems. Having that kind of mixer for stereo music really isn't very helpful. I'm wondering if I shouldn't try to get something on Ebay--any suggestions? I'm also looking for a new CD player. My buddy gave me this studio-quality TEAC, but it simply quite working (TEACs have a habit of doing that, it seems). I actually need two--I'm thinking about a Yamaha or NAD (in the $300 range), but I need another one for downstairs, preferably a cheaper one. I had a few of those Sony CD/DVD players; they all just keel over and die after a few years. (And yes, I have a record player too, though not a good one--please don't tell User:78.26 it only plays 33 and 45...) Drmies (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

heh heh heh, when Drmies and I say “crank it up!,” we mean different things.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• BTW this is the studio my buddy runs. I helped a bit in the construction--it was very exciting. I can't wait for COVID to be open so I can finally became that master producer with the hits coming out his fingertips. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Love this custom metalwork at your friend's place. Montgomery! Where the angel is from.

By "regular Hifi preamp" do you mean something with volume and source-switching knobs but no amplifier built in? I'm afraid I don't have my finger on that pulse. If I was forced to buy a preamp and CD player today I would probably go with Yamaha stuff, as the CD players are good, but I don't think they make a non-amplifier preamp for the masses. The ones I see for sale are like $10,000: cra-a-azy. You would probably be getting a receiver/amp instead. The problem with a receiver/amp sending signal out to your QSC amps is that there isn't a proper balanced output. They usually have just speaker outputs. You would have to pad speaker level down to line level with a resistor network; a reduction on the order of 100:1, bringing 50 volts down to 0.5 volt. You can roll your own or buy a premade circuit.

You must have a reason to replace the Boss BX60 mixer; perhaps it's ageing and misbehaving? Otherwise, it seems like a pretty good fit for a few inputs going out to your chubby QSC amplifiers. I have a similar setup in my home office, a Mackie 1402-VLZ taking various inputs and directing them to my powered monitors, the Slovenians.

One reason to get a more modern preamp is to incorporate streaming services and Bluetooth and USB inputs. Me and the missus like to stream Spotify at home, on a newish Yamaha receiver, especially since I'm paying for the ad-free Spotify service. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha I DONT WANT NO STREAMING SHIT, and it's for a very Protestant reason: I don't want instant access to everything because I think I don't deserve it. A nice receiver would work for me too; whatever it pumps out will be loud enough for my study, and sometimes they do have pre-amp outputs. Yes, I do like Yamaha; I got a CDX-3 way back when, when CDs first came out. I bet it's still playing--I think at the time I had Miles Davis, Star People, and Joe Jackson, Big World. CDs were very expensive in the Netherlands.

The problem with the Boss is that the pots are creaking and I can't get to them to clean them. And I mean all the pots, very irritating. That Mackie is a bit too big for me, haha, but I do have a Behringer with I think six inputs. I might just use that one, which has been laying around waiting for my kids to start a music career.

The custom metalwork is awesome: it's a guy called Vincent Buwalda who makes that, here in town. Nice guy, and he's working on some crazy machine now--it involves metal and relays and motors and moving parts, it's really cool. The studio's inside is pretty cool as well, all the woodwork--and dude, the stuff he has...there's a 24-track tape recorder, a Minimoog, a Hammond... Very cool. Oh and Neumann mikes, old Sennheiser preamps, all kinds of great old machinery. Anyway, thanks for the note; you helped confirm some of my thoughts. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

...that I RfPP'd Costa (surname) for temporary PC. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You just remove everything without actually reading it i see, the sources of Under My Skin clearly say post-grunge and alternative rock album with a whole bunch of other sources stating nu-metal, why not listen to the album and read the sources instead of just changing it to something different,Under My Skin is a Post-grunge/Alternative rock album with nu-metal influences, not a pop album por a pop/post-grunge album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.7.128.211 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see alt rock in the sources. The Guardian said it was pop. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you please help with this guy who keeps removing Aerosmith and Steven Tyler from the list, he also keeps adding very poorly sourced content and has left a message on my talk page showing his instability. Category adder :D (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this note what you were thinking? Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's perfect, thank you!! Should I keep you posted if he continues to remove them from the list? Category adder :D (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am watching the situation. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Be Here shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ChipotleHater (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bionic (Christina Aguilera album); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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

Hello Sir, i would like you to please stop what you're doing ar at least explain yourself more explicitly than "You have involved yourself in an edit war", when you are the one who changes back and forth when there's absolutely nothing wrong with the format, if the format is fine and acceptable and other articles about the same singer have it, and the information in it is still the same, there is not a valid reason for you to go undoing what an another user has done, other than a personal whim of yours, if other articles have the same format on the genre section and you haven't provided any reason other than "involving yourself in an edit war", when there isn't any reason or circumstance for you to undo it, the info is still the same and the format is the same as other articles of the same nature, we all have the rights to contribute to wikipedia, your "preference" or "taste" are not laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.214.12 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you removed my explanation from your talk page, so I know you have already seen it. For reference, I wrote, "

MOS:STYLEVAR says don't go around changing the formatting of articles when both formats are acceptable. You've been violating this style guide for a long time." And you have been using multiple IP addresses from the Dominican Republic to do this. Binksternet (talk

) 15:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because it did not give a reason of why i shoudn't do it if other pages of the same nature have the same format, Christina Aguilera's wikipedia page show her genres in that format and so does her first album, if there is not a problem with the format and the format is acceptable, why do you have to change it back if there is no problem with using "flatlist", all the albums should have the same format then, but as you said if the flatlist format is acceptable too, you have mo business removing it, besides, the info is still the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.214.12 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You need to stop going around and changing the format for no good reason. Your behavior must stop. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mtv Unplugged The Corrs

Sir, you can't just remove edits out of nowhere with no apparent reason other than "it used to look like this", you are removing my own edit, I AM the one who wrote "Celtic fusion" with the cap and then realized that it wasn't supposed to be with caps, because the rest of the genres were not in caps but the first one only, you are just undoing my own editing over and over again, because you think someone else did it, and whoever that user is, he's the one who has to have it right, isn't it like that? Be a little more rational, please, you're just undoing my own editing and you rather not have "celtic fusion" follow the same pattern, just because you think it came out of my guts to remove the caps in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.214.12 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The word "Celtic" refers to the Celts, a group of tribal Europeans who spoke the Celtic languages. The word is capitalized because it refers to this group. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the specification, I myself, was the one who capitalized the letter first but i changed it because i thought ithad to follow the pattern i have seen before in other genre sections before where only the first letter of the first genre was in caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.214.12 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have never used Wikipedia "talk" before, I'm so sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I am Robert Schneider, founder of the Elephant 6 Recording Co., The Apples in stereo, and member, producer and engineer for Neutral Milk Hotel. A colleague pointed out that there was vastly incorrect (in fact, nonsensical — omg like "four-track cartridge" versus using a four-track tape machine) technical and biographical (two official founding members of our E6 collective are omitted from the account) info on the pages for Elephant 6, Neutral Milk Hotel and our "In The Aeroplane Over the Sea" album (which I produced, and added biographical and technical details that were missing or incorrect on the page). They are overall nicely put-together pages, and it's really kind and very much appreciated that people went to all the trouble to construct them, and source it so well. Of course, I understand the policy of editing unverified text — I was trying to figure out how to email this present message when the changes were undone — but please do re-set the changes on those pages in the name of accuracy. This note should please serve as the verification. I am the original source, who was in charge of all and privy to all the details updated. You could index it somehow to indicate that, but also, I was the source for the pertinent quotations in the article as well. And all the info I updated is featured accurately in those sources to my knowledge (although some very specific details are more technical than those interviewers were able to reproduce), so the citations hold — and I am an editor for Wikipedia (math) so you could perhaps consider it an editorial contribution, or call it you interviewing me, if you agree. Thank you for your great work!! —Robertpschneider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpschneider (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a hard policy which a lot of people are surprised to find out about. The policy is WP:No original research. What it means is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a platform to publish things that haven't been published elsewhere. The Elephant 6, Neutral Milk Hotel and In the Aeroplane Over the Sea artcles must be based on published sources, that is, they must summarize the things already published about the collective, the band and the album. Do you know of a published source for the fact that the album was recorded on Otari MX-5050 Mk IV eight-track reel-to-reels? That McIntyre's bedroom was the echo chamber? That the Neumann microphone was bought secondhand? That a Universal LA-3A optical limiter was used for the whole album? If you know where these things have been published, then you can put them in the article and cite your source. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I see — I think that is unfortunately beyond my powers. All those details are in Kim Cooper's book, from which the incomplete/inaccurate technical details in this article are cited. Okay leave four-track cartridge and all that, it is very mysterious and utterly useless :) and will slowly be updated over the years as more resources are published. Thank you! —Robertpschneider

Not entirely useless. Nothing in the Wikipedia policy says that false information must remain in any article. You can remove stuff that doesn't match with reality. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh gosh, almost all of my edits were actually exactly that, technical and biographical changes that updated highly inaccurate info that is also not accurately drawn from the quoted resources (for which I was usually the source, in the musical as opposed to critical/analytic citations), or I corrected typos, aside from a few "juicy" engineering details (which are contained in Kim Cooper's 33 1/3 book though, except maybe the classified ad). I think I don't have the time or energy to redo all that (or really even the interest as the facts are out there on other more authoritative resources, and now the pages' edit histories can be referred to for my details by other authors)— again, it just builds mystery and is part of the fun. We will let it go, maybe save my edits in case future Wiki-historians look back for verified first-hand details. Of course it is a reasonable safeguard against crazy edits. Thank you again! —Robertpschneider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpschneider (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm searching Google Books for some key words in Kim Cooper's book, and I am not finding "limiter", "Universal", "Otari", "eight-track" or "echo chamber" in a bedroom. Cooper mentions the Space Echo device, but I am not finding the bedroom echo. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for checking, maybe those exact words aren't used, like maybe I more accurately referred to "reverb" in Jim's room. Eight track ("8-track"?) is definitely in the book, as is my exact gear list, I talk about it a lot, and using two tape machines for bouncing tracks. It is possible more technical things like limiter and echo chamber were re-described for a lay audience in the book. (It occurs to me that because I described something to an author, also doesn't mean it appears in the final article, but Cooper devoted an entire chapter to my technical details quoted verbatim.) I don't have a physical copy of the book any more so I can't look through it for deets. Recordists can find the details back in the edit history of these pages. Of course those recording details, while true and certainly citable from *some* public sources on E6 and NMH (I have given numerous published interviews over the years, as the only non-Jeff member of NMH involved in both records, and as producer, engineer, fuzz bassist, arranger, keyboardist, etc.), aren't vital but rather informative in an encyclopedic sense — although again, almost all of my updates were not recording errata but useful, correct updates of things that are vital, like tape cartridge is not a recording device; E6 was originally conceived, founded, written/drawn and run by "non-Rustonites" McIntyre and Sidney on equal footing with me, Doss, Hart and Mangum (and there are no other co-founders of E6 as an organization), but they are omitted from the accounts on these pages; so while Koster (who made a big impact on our collective) was certainly not the "first non-Rustonite" in the collective he was accurately "among" the first to join after its initial founding; the horn parts on Aeroplane were written not collaboratively or as some kind of fusion (although correctly, Scott's distinctive style influenced my parts for him, I assume is what that passage referred to as a fusion), I wrote the horn sections for songs featuring multiple horn lines (Holland, Aeroplane, etc.), Spillane wrote his lovely solo horn lines in the " I love you JC" section, and elsewhere solo horn line appears, plus "The Fool" independently but a reader might think I co-wrote it; I wasn't somehow converted to a lo-fi aesthetic, Mangum chose to record his records with me *because* of our shared lo-fi aesthetic that I even wrote into the E6 manifesto, which can be confirmed by listening to say the first Apples EP and all of my early productions (or citing their reviews); things like that which are not accurately represented from the citations and must have crept in as harmless public assumptions/mythology that is not technically contradicted by the quoted sources, but is not accurately reproducing those sources. There is a new book and a documentary about Elephant 6 coming out with details like that this year too; hopefully someone will update it in the future. I had also corrected some typos — when I have time I'll try to re-edit those. Again, if you can please leave my un-done edits in the edit history, I can point future authors/fact-checkers to that history. In the cases of Sidney and McIntyre, there is some historical injustice here as they are widely known as E6 co-founders but are somehow omitted from the Wikipedia account (again, the entries as they stand can be instantly invalidated by any reader with a quick internet search — I would hope to see accurate info on Wikipedia as an editor, as well as an E6/NMH member), which is certainly documented in Kim Cooper's book plus like infinite other public resources. Sorry for the long back-and-forth: I *really* appreciate your time and input so much!!! Keep up your great work! ...P.S. Thanks for your advice, it is helpful in other ways — I had an uphill climb starting a new mathematics bio page some years ago about one of my math heroes, and now I understand why: it contained "original research" too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpschneider (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I want to tell sorry for causing edit conflicts and misbehavior by calling your edit as non-neutral view. I think we have quite different view for Allies of WW2, so I think we can solve it together by talking each other. I think you're right in some point, because major Allies usually have broaden operations outside its border, and China at that time has little operation outside except for Burma and Northern Vietnam. But what I think is that Allies of WW2 is not only military alliance but also political alliance, because they actually made United Nation in 1945. If that perspective, I think China can be placed as major country of Allies. China had participated in Moscow Conference (1943) which was milestone of UN in 1942, and afterward they participated in Bretton Woods Conference, Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and many other conferences to concert the effort with other allies of WW2. Also, if you see Pacific War section, China is placed on major combatant of Allies. What I want to say is, although it seems that China had little operations abroad, its political role is significant, and I think that's the reason why China is placed at major combatant both in Allies of WW2, and Pacific War articles. -- Wendylove (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should be held at Talk:Allies of World War II; in fact, there is a discussion underway on this very issue at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Four label and weight, where 'Big Three' without China is upheld by the majority. Please feel free to add your thoughts in that discussion. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s actually true Mario is a pop culture icon so really there no reason to remove it.

I removed it because it was unreferenced. You need to cite a source. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I know that you've been editing Tarja Turunen's vocal range because somebody keeps adding "Mezzo" in their when it's clearly not her vocal range. I just want to thank you for fixing that for me. That last part of the first paragraph, I re-edited it and put sources to show she is a soprano.

Tarja herself said she classifies herself as a light lyric soprano and there is a source somewhere in her "Singing Style" page where she claims it. Is it okay to place "Light Lyric" in front of soprano? Resist Fallen (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on

WP:SECONDARY sources which define categories and set labels in place. Musicians sometimes state their views, and we can pass these words on to the reader, but we don't change the article categories or labels unless secondary sources also use that term. If you find a couple of reliable third party music reviewers who say Tarja is a lyric soprano then sure, let's categorize her like that. Binksternet (talk

) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On 29 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joe Jackson's 1984 album Body and Soul emulated the artwork of the 1957 jazz album Sonny Rollins, Vol. 2? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"And it's too much like a Crusader and less like Klansman". Yes, and isn't that the whole point? Tbobbed (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We are supposed to be horrifying the reader about racism, not inspiring them to join the KKK. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be doing either. We're supposed to be presenting the topic in an encyclopedic manner. When it comes to Birth of a Nation part of the deal is to show how it attracted the public. A big part of that was to portray thugs as a noble knights. When we illustrate the rise of the Third Reich we use the illustrations that show "Aryans" as attractive, healthy, and productive people to convey why such propaganda appealed to people. Tbobbed (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the illustration that you removed is also the first illustration used in the

Birth of a Nation article. I guess the editors there didn't realize that they were inspiring readers to join the Klan. Tbobbed (talk

) 19:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jacki Sorensen's Fitness Classes logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

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) 03:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A question about pronoun usage.

Hi there. Recently some edits of mine were removed from the section on Quentin Tarantino's personal life due to being redundant and "fraught with confusing pronouns." I restored my edits as they contained different information from what was included elsewhere in the section. However, I want to make sure it is not confusing. The passage currently reads:

"As a youth, Tarantino attended an Evangelical church, describing himself as "baptized, born again and everything inbetween." Tarantino said this was an act of rebellion against his mother, as she had encouraged his interests in comic books and horror films. Throughout the 1990s, Tarantino made it clear in multiple interviews that he believed in God despite being evasive about his specific religion. In recent interviews, Tarantino continues to ascribe his talents to gifts from God, although he expresses uncertainty with regards to God's existence."

I don't know how to make the use of pronouns clearer unless I were to change the passage to something like

"As a youth, Tarantino attended an Evangelical church, describing Tarantino as "baptized, born again and everything inbetween." Tarantino said this was an act of rebellion against Tarantino's mother, as she had encouraged Tarantino's interests in comic books and horror films. Throughout the 1990s, Tarantino made it clear in multiple interviews that Tarantino believed in God despite being evasive about Tarantino's specific religion. In recent interviews, Tarantino continues to ascribe his talents to gifts from God, although Tarantino expresses uncertainty with regards to God's existence."

This reads as awkward and redundant. Is there a better way to make the passage read more clearly?Lynchenberg (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The top example is much better writing, and it's clear as day. The bottom example is clunky and repetitive. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Binkersterent, I trust your opinion.Lynchenberg (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.