User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

It's Ugh not Uhh

https://music.apple.com/it/album/ghetto-d-remastered/721278963

Make em say ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 176.246.102.133 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The original is Uhh, as seen at Billboard charts and the the original artwork on the CD single. Your remastered version doesn't change the past. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Don Cartagena - Entertainment Weekly Review

I was updating a review 4 the Fat Joe album from a magazine article into a WEB article. I was making it a WEB reference.47.17.47.199 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We talked extensively about your URL updates. You must stop removing the name of the magazine from the citation. If you remove the name of the magazine while you update the URL, you are not improving the citation. I will continue to revert your edits if you continue to remove the name of the magazine. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

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 the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

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) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to reach consensus

Would love your thoughts on this thread concerning track numbering for LPs! —The Keymaster (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Your recent editing history at The Rutles 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; read about 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theenglishman124 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about 200.88.93.75 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. WP:AIV is for blatant vandalism. Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ugh...

...the track list vandal is back again! One of the pages edited was the article for Lifehouse's self-titled album. This article is one of the vandal's main targets, switching the track numbers for "Blind" and "You and Me". Thankfully, I've already reverted this edit. MusicDude2020 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yucky behavior. I don't see a clear preventive path; I guess we just keep playing whack-a-mole. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added that article to my watch. Another particular target for this vandal is the article for Gavin DeGraw's first album "Chariot", in which they also mess around with the track listing. I've also added that one to my watch MusicDude2020. (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

More eyes

Just a heads up. Could help keep an eye on these two users.

• Nikeja (talk · contribs · count) - (My edit summary) - Mass removal of rock genre in spanish songs, no discussion, no consensus to do so.

• Bob3458 (talk · contribs · count) - This user is adding Category:American male comedians, Category:American female comedians on articles of people who are funny, but don't or has ever done stand-up.

An extra set of eyes will help. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dang. People! Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Dalida

Hello Binksternet;

The poll on Dalida's talk page wasn't about her being an Egyptian-born, which is a well known fact. It was about whether her Italian nationality should be included or not.

Also sources quoted within the talk page further prove how her Egyptian link was important to her, it wasn't just a country "she was born in", she was raised there too and called it her homeland. The intro seems bit misleading.

{ "She was Franco-Italian, born and raised in Egypt." Georges-Claude Guilbert (2018). Gay Icons: The (Mostly) Female Entertainers Gay Men Love, page 52.

"Egypt-born Italian singer and actress who acquired French citizenship upon marriage in 1961." Juliana Tzvetkova (2017). Pop Culture in Europe, page 26.

"A cosmopolitan artist, born in Egypt into an Italian family, Dalida built a career in France and internationally." Evelin Lindner (2010). Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security, page 161.

"Egypto-Italian pop icon Dalida". Sofian Merabet (2014). Queer Beirut, page 13.

"Egyptian/French popular singer. Dalida was born in Cairo of Italian parents..." Jennifer Uglow (1991). Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography, page 145.

"Egyptian-born French-Italian singer Dalida..." Andrew Hammond (2005). Pop Culture Arab World!, page 130.

"Dalida was an Egyptian/Italian/French singer and actress..." Ruby Boukabou (2019). Art Lover's Guide to Paris, page 215."}

And here's an official trailer of a French documentary done by Paris Match, also featuring her own brother:

Dalida l’Egyptienne : les premières années [1]

Fragrant Peony (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet; I am tagging you for the second time since you ignored my first message, and asking you to please explain your content removal as your edit summary was inaccurate. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The article has a standing consensus formed back in May 2022 by discussion on the talk page. The consensus dealt with this exact issue. You have not changed the standing consensus, not even by adding a couple of new links. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

Binksternet - I made some changes to the Wiki Entry for Strictly Rhythm which you then immediately removed whilst I was listing my references. Please advise on why you reverted. Strictly USA - IT Dept. 24.191.199.253 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The tone of this addition was far too promotional. See WP:TONE. I also removed the non-notable artists from the list, following the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE. You cited discogs.com many times, but there was no listed reference. In any case, discogs.com is unreliable and cannot be used. It fails WP:USERG because anybody can log on and change the information. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. I'll double check the artists you removed but I'm pretty sure their tracks are everyday recognizable. Lastly, could you please elaborate on why you took the updates to the history section down? 24.191.199.253 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wild Thing

The recording date was already in the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wild_Thing_%28The_Troggs_song%29&diff=next&oldid=1135763212&diffmode=source

you edited it without note or source. Tillywilly17 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous recording date was wrong and unreferenced. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s why

I had put Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana as the main recording artists on Hannah Montana: The Movie (soundtrack) because of the way the current soundtracks in the series are written. They all specifically write when Hannah Montana sings and is the main artist. Hannah songs 7 songs on the soundtrack and Miley does too if you count The Climb (Pop version). I’m not leaving this message to ask you to ask you to change it back. I kind of just want to hear your opinion on that topic since you seem to be a longtime high standing wikipedia user who would have a well-rounded opinion on it. 47.223.46.42 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess you don’t check your talk messages ever, it’s okay. I forget to check my notifications sometimes too. All good, man 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.46.42 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which instructs us to establish the real world as a frame of reference, first naming real people rather than the fictional characters they portray. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

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 translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

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) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Dancing in the Moonlight

Please, stop reverting my edit in that article. I'm a veteran user editing as anonymous and I know about the rules. You're creating your own rule to deem the addition of the album in which the song is originally included as unimportant, while there is nothing in the rules concerning that or you're not pointing it out. I've already provided a reliable source from the official website of the song's original author, so I don't see anything that prevents me from adding that information. 170.244.28.2 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You are adding unimportant trivia to the first paragraph. Stop it. Binksternet (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. The writer's own website is a primary source.

The first paragraph is for the very most important facts. An album that didn't sell well is not important. Binksternet (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Bruh, this project has created so many non-sense rules that I will eventually give up contributing here and pretend it doesn't exist at all. 170.244.28.2 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, do whatever you wish. But every encyclopedia in the world prunes out the unimportant stuff to leave only the core material. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll simply let the articles related to music be messed up and not bother to fix errors I find, that way I won't waste my time with edits that will eventually get reverted. 170.244.28.2 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@170.244.28.2 Heya, just a random patroller here. I don't believe the album should necessarily be in the first paragraph, merely because it doesn't seem like it fits, especially in the suggested format. Regarding using the primary source, I think that the artist pretty much knows in which albums did he release his songs, so I don't think WP:SECONDARY is justified here. Anyway, the album should be placed in the infobox though. Just my two cents. Bar Harel (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Luckily for us, WP:PRIMARY even states that exact case to be honest:

For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label

Bar Harel (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Place it in the infobox then, but not in the introductory paragraph. 170.244.28.2 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand anything about records, but that makes sense. I've added it in to the infobox. @Binksternet, after all it is your field, what do you think? Moreover, when a single is later released as an album, should the album be included as part of the infobox or not? I believe yes but I do not know for sure. Bar Harel (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Black British People revert

Hello! Thanks for explaining why you took out the mention of BLiM. Would it work if I added different citations? I am nothing to do with BLiM but just think it is a great initiative and worth mentioning under the music section. I am not very experienced and this is the first time an edit of mine has been reverted so I am eager to understand if I can improve the mention. Thanks. Balance person (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is find an uninvolved WP:SECONDARY source talking about BLIM. You would summarize that and cite it. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice. I hope I have now followed it correctly. Let me know if it is still not right? Balance person (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous! That's exactly it. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ...but...Well, it seems that somebody is still not happy as it has been removed again! I don't know why. Balance person (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Omaha Beach

I have nominated Omaha Beach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Imperial Age

Hello! Please note: Manuele di Ascenzo is a permanent member of Imperial Age and is Italian. Also, on the EU and US tours the band played with Tim Schaling (NL), Ryan Thomson (UK), Kublai Kapsalis (TR) and Jens Hendriks (NL). Please stop calling this band Russian - it is a rare example of a truly international Metal act. 95.12.124.189 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A band is usually considered the nationality of the place where it was formed. That nationality rarely changes with new members. The defining sources are media observers, as usual—WP:SECONDARY sources. If they say the band is international, then you can cite the media. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit-warring: see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The length of the block has been influenced by the fact that numerous other blocks for shorter periods, from 2008 onwards, have failed to stop you from edit-warring, despite repeated undertakings from you not to continue. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: That seems... excessive. Looking at the diffs you provided, it appears the anonymous editor had been previously blocked for three months for adding unsourced genre information to boot. Not saying unsourced additions are carte blanche to revert with impunity, but we generally prefer simple facts like that to have some attribution when the article body doesn't specify a "genre". —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed we do. However, the fact that we prefer something doesn't absolve an editor from following the policy on edit-warring. JBW (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is, we have an anon editor likely being disruptive, and this editor was reverting it. Subtle vandalism (repeated insertion of unsourced content) is, to me, almost as bad as blatant vandalism. At least blatant vandalism is so obvious any reasonable editor would know to revert it on sight, but subtle vandalism (changing numbers in articles for example to be orders of magnitude different, but by slightly moving a decimal point for example; or adding unsourced genres that look innocent enough even when they may be completely wrong) can linger for years unnoticed. I'd argue this was akin to reverting vandalism. I'd also strongly consider going over WP:BLOCKLENGTH, blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Even if you disagree about the subtle vandalism, this is still excessive for what you're trying to prevent, especially considering the last block was over a year and a half ago, and no recent discussion appears to have been held to at least ask them to stop. And with WP:PBLOCK being available, a full block is (again) excessive and unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying my comment at ANI here: A revert of unsourced genre at Caifanes (album) on 6 Feb, then again on 15 Feb, then on 17 Feb, then on 21 Feb = edit warring? This is chilling for editors who watch over articles that are frequently the target of similar disruptive/unconstructive/unsourced additions and often find themselves repeatedly removing the same disruptive edits. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Just found out about this and had to comment. I have to agree with Schazjmd, mostly because I constantly deal with similar situations where users add unsourced genres to articles repeatedly and think they can just come back and add them again if they're removed for violating this site's core policies. All challengeable material requires a citation, and genres are no exception. It's not our fault if the vandals refuse to acknowledge our existence and treat Wikipedia like their own personal Fandom, and blocking Binksternet for this long is way over the line IMO, especially if he was just reporting one of the countless disruptive editors we have to deal with daily. I honestly can't comprehend how this constitutes "edit warring". ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: For those who'd like to opine, I'd encourage folks to put their comments in the ANI thread. I believe the entire process would benefit more if we comment there. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Buster, I just read this and it puts a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Editors such as Bink (or you or I) with a long history of working endlessly to improve our encyclopedia, and doing it all for free, should really be seen as in a different light than drive bys and such who take up so much of our time that would be better spent adding to and improving what we've got here. Buster, you can see below where I just asked Bink for help and now I come up and find this... It is discouraging... Sectionworker (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. JBW, I don't see how blocking me is protecting the wiki. When the block expires, I will return to editing, but without a constructive discussion about what behavior of mine should cease. You could have simply initiated such a discussion without blocking me, something along the lines of "veteran editors are overstepping their bounds by policing unreferenced stuff on the wiki", and we could have talked about what was best for the wiki—what I should stop doing and what I should start doing. I'm a trainable guy; I listen to reason and weigh evidence with the best of them. We could have done this without the drama, and with lasting results. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Bink. Would you be interested in having this copied over to the ANI discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, be my guest. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ping me if you need more middlemanning, though another tpw might beat me to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked because I am not a threat to the wiki. My months of intermittent activity reverting the occasional genre-warring of the completely unresponsive IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E70:1210:0:0:0:0/64 culminated in this report I made to ANI, describing the problem, which is how I thought these things should be handled. If veteran editors are not allowed to ease the workload of of admins by policing unsupported edits at the article level, and bringing persistent problems to ANI after they reach actionable levels, then I will stop doing that. Whatever the case may be, I am a reasonable person, and I will change my behavior to fit community consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

On reflection I have decided that blocking you was a mistake. You did not handle the situation in the best possible way, but what you did came nowhere near warranting a three month block. JBW (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you JBW for unblocking, and for the nice email. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you two are good. Both of you obviously had the pedia's best interest at heart, and it's heartening to see fierce wikipedians clash (acting merely in AGF) while doing the right thing. Clear edit summaries, like big elbows, help others understand what we're thinking. I often find it frustrating that people just can't read my mind and do exactly what I expect them to do... BusterD (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there Bink! You know me by my long time name user:Gandydancer. I thought of you because I remembered that you have an interest in music and are from California. My daughter married into a San Diego Mexican family, the Solorzanos. One of them, along with two others, started a band a few years ago, Thee Sacred Souls, and it quite suddenly took off and has been rapidly becoming quite popular. Daptone Records signed them on and they have made one album. They've been on both the Kimmel and Colbert late night shows. They've appeared nationwide, always to sold out crowds. Even when touring Europe they sold out to some shows in England. They have a writeup at NPR[10] , the San Diego Union Tribune [11], and the Sandiego Reader [12] Do you think that this is enough popularity to satisfy WP rules for band articles? I've done a lot of editing but I've never done one from start to finish without help. What do you think? Sectionworker (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Bink is clearly otherwise employed today, but I remember your work. I've looked at your three sources and they look pretty compelling, but perhaps not quite enough. If you wanted to start the process, I'd start by creating a draft using the WP:AFC process. Build your page from the found sources then find more. I'd be glad to help if I can be useful, at least until good Binksternet returns to keyboard. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with BusterD. The local San Diego stuff is just not large enough to establish a nationwide presence, and the NPR link is obviously band-generated publicity, the same exact text appearing multiple places on the web. What the band needs to satisfy WP:GNG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdveNL2LX0&list=RD9PN_-fY7hL8&index=3is in-depth WP:SECONDARY coverage from two national publications. Or to satisfy WP:NBAND they can chart nationally or get a prominent award. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How lucky I am to have such knowledgeable and helpful Wiki friends. I guess that we have to wait until they get on the charts. They have a good label and it seems they have a good manager, but now we need to see if their music vibrates on the right chord that causes an emotional response to a large number of music listeners. Here is the song they did on the Colbert show: [13] Sectionworker (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, the Solorzano musician is the one playing the bass but they can all switch around and play any instrument. Sectionworker (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by Dealer07

Banned User:Dealer07 is once again evading their block, this time using the Greek IP Special:Contributions/2A02:587:1E4C:9600:5974:C67A:B31B:B8E8. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

All edits reverted and currently waiting for a response at AIV. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

why did you say that symbol doesn't work, that symbol is predominantly used hinduism and should be denoted by ࿗ ࿘ whenever used for hinduism

and why is the hienrich shliemann source not working on lead section but it does seem to work in names and etymology section 3rd paragraph?? i want to cite 351 page but it is not working in any way RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The symbol you brought in appears as a rectangle to me, which I assume means that it appears as a rectangle to many others. It does not appear as a swastika. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for your concern, the character code was maybe conflicting with your version of browser. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Still not working. Those symbols appear as rectangles, and now you have added more of them. This is going the wrong direction. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In mine it is working perfectly fine i think it maybe some problem with your browser. let me try again. now i will add character code, please try agin in some time. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Uncited material in articles

Hi, Binkerstreet. Please do not add or restore uncited material to articles, as you did with the uncited material that had been moved from the LP record article to its talk page, which you restored with this edit, and without citations. You've accumulated over 437,000 edits here since 2007, so you should know by now that material on Wikipedia generally needs to be derived by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation.

That is the standard for inclusion of most material in articles, and not editors' declaration that "this is super-obvious", which is both subjective and untrue, as all or most of that information is highly-detailed, technical and/or historical information which is not "obvious" to the typical or casual reader, and is precisely why it needs to be derived from sources, and not editors' personal knowledge.

These policies and guidelines, which includes the practice of moving uncited material to the talk page after it had been fact-tagged for some length of time, was upheld in an extended series of discussions last year, which culminated in this one, in which administrator NinjaRobotPirate made it clear that my implementation of the relevant policies & guidelines was correct when he closed the discussion, saying, "Further relitigation of the same points is unlikely to be helpful, and the relevant policies have been repeatedly explained." You can ask him if you wish to corroborate this. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You apparently took away a positive outcome from NinjaRobotPirate's closing statement, which only mentioned "relevant policies" rather than prioritizing the policy WP:BURDEN. The opposing policy, WP:PRESERVE, is also relevant, and was a major anchor in that lengthy discussion.

This talk page message of your is unnecessarily aggressive. I don't intend to "relitigate" the past discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this until now.

NinjaRobotPirate indeed agreed that my application of policy was correct, as did other editors and admins such as User:Daniel Case. If you think this is not true, then simply read that discussion, or ask them. The fact that you quoted only a phrase from Ninja's closing comment does not mean that the overall thrust of their position was not as I described it to you.

WP:PRESERVE states that material should be preserved "if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." The material in question did not.

My message above is entirely polite. It may have been assertive, but it was in no way uncivil, hostile, pejorative, or impolite. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Less important

I see you're going through those annoying mass entries regarding the Universal fire. When I did a similar thing, several people strongly requested me to use a more informative edit summary (as opposed to "fix stupid mass entry" or whatever it was I said.) Going forward, you might want to include a link to a mention of why you're just removing them. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Good advice! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded: would have been helpful over Joe Jackson (musician)‎ – I didn't know the background and I wouldn't have reverted/edited if I had. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I hear you! I was at a loss to explain all of the nuance in a short edit summary, but moving forward I shall provide a talk page link in my edit summary where a lengthy explanation is made. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I will link to this discussion: Talk:2008 Universal Studios fire#Removing single-sentence mentions from musician biographies. Hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Race privilege

I just made a draft article. You seem to know more about Japanese racial privileges than I do. Can you supplement the content? Mureungdowon (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I will look at your work and decide if I can help. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Roadrunner Records Revert

Hi. I had updated the page, citing a reliable source by utilizing the website of the actual label. How does this not fit per WP:LISTPEOPLE? Magnumchaos (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The website of the label does not establish the importance of every possible fact. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia does not aim to publish every fact. Rather, Wikipedia's goal is to summarize the important points for the reader. So Wikipedia is not trying to name every person signed to the record label.

WP:LISTPEOPLE says "a person is typically included in a list of people" if they are notable by Wikipedia's standard. For musicians, the standard is at WP:MUSICBIO where it gives a list of possible achievements that give notability to a musician. Signing with a label does not give notability by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

What is your objection to this edit?

• [14]

If you insist on reverting every edit I make to this article, at least have the courtesy to explain why. 76.11.30.121 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead section should tell the reader why the topic is important. You removed all that stuff and shoved it down into the article body. Instead, the article body can be expanded without draining the lead section of its vitality. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead section should outline the most important facts brought up later in the prose. With your revert, literally nothing in the lead is ever mentioned again in the prose and thus the MOS isn't being adhered to. I'm merely attempting to expand the article, citations and all, and you are being quite unhelpful. I truly don't understand where you're coming from here. 149.36.49.145 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, so this is where we're at. You wouldn't allow me to add to the lead because it wasn't in the body, so I tried adding it to the body. You then wouldn't allow that because you feel it "drain(s) the lead section of its vitality". I then attempted adding it again to the body in a new section but NOW you don't like the sources. Do you see the position you're putting me in? Nothing seems to be able to satisfy you. What can we do to make you happy here? Please work with me. 76.11.30.121 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked up your sources and they didn't say anything about Boz working with Steve for two albums before leaving to have a successful career. Martin Strong's book doesn't say that, and AllMusic doesn't say that. So you were composing your own text, then falsely saying it was supported by those sources.

The text you wrote is not wrong. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize published sources. You violated WP:No original research by choosing the facts and emphasizing something that no other writer has emphasized about this album. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's odd, you had no apparent issues with sources the first three times you reverted. You gave a list of different BS excuses before settling on sourcing. 76.11.30.121 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Dude. A lot can be said about how Steve Miller and Boz Scaggs were in high school together, and performed in bands together off and on for years prior to the album in question. Multiple authors have described this relationship in books and magazine articles. But you are choosing to insert one sentence not supported by the cited source. When you drained the lead section of important facts, that was wrong and I said so. After that, you putting your one sentence in its own section was clumsy writing style. And you citing sources that don't support your text was wrong, and I said so.

A much better way to expand the article would be to describe how Miller went about getting the album together, starting with assembling a band. Try reading more sources about this, for instance Avram Mednick's book, the book about Contemporary World Musicians, and the Encyclopedia of Classic Rock. The Texas Monthly has two relevant articles: one from 1978 and one from 1974. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

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: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

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) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding “La Marseillaise”

Why are you removing the lyrics to the French national anthem every time someone tries to restore them to the article? Don’t those deserve to be in the article like every other national anthem having their respective lyrics in their article? Charmeleon64 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than point to other articles, you might want to look at Wikipedia policy, as seen at WP:NOTLYRICS.

All of the other national anthem articles should be examined to see if their lyrics are short examples with commentary providing context, or full lyrics without context. Full lyrics without context should not be present per NOTLYRICS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rules have a place on wikipedia, but so does convention. If almost every national anthem page has lyrics by convention, it is probably for a good reason, and so they may be exempt to NOTLYRICS by convention. I believe it is the rule that should be changed, not the articles. NOTLYRICS should specifically exclude national anthem pages.

I believe it is more important for Wikipedia to be as helpful as possible, instead of bureaucratically following rules like NOTLYRICS without considering if it makes an article truly better or worse. You are holding these policies as if they are divine law, but in reality consensus is more important than policies.

Here is why I want the lyrics to the French national anthem back:

1. Multiple users reverted your deletion, but you are the ONLY one reverting the reverts. This suggests consensus is keeping the lyrics in, and you are the odd one out.
2. The lyrics are not in copyright.
3. The article is more helpful, and thus better quality, with the lyrics compared to without.
4. All other national anthem pages pretty much have lyrics. This contradicts policy, but convention can overpower policy sometimes. Why would we want Wikipedia to strictly follow dumb policies at the expense of article quality?
5. I have like to reexamine NOTLYRICS as s policy altogether. Perhaps this policy should be modified or even removed as a restriction of Wikipedia article content.
6. I know you are a long time editor and have made many contributions. However, you have no more authority as the rest of us (other editors), even if your support is a wikipedia policy. If everyone else disagrees with you and wants the lyrics back, you do not have the right to overpower the opinion of the majority, even if it contradicts policy. Wikipedia is a place governed by consensus, after all.

Please reinstate the lyrics to the French national anthem as soon as possible, and do not remove the lyrics from any other anthem either. Thank you. Royal Cannon 2630 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint. Let's wait to see what the community says about changing NOTLYRICS to exclude national anthems. A weak point in your argument is the bit about setting different versions of lyrics side by side to allow the reader to compare them... The encyclopedia exists to relay comparisons of that type to the reader, comparisons found in WP:SECONDARY sources. It doesn't ask the reader to make their own comparison. The core policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also a factor here, of course, as text is presented without context, discussion or analysis. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, FYI I have written a proposal to change WP:NOTLYRICS. I guess we can probably just wait and see what happens from here. Royal Cannon 2630 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Adherence:

Shortcut

• WP:ADHERENCE

Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have occasional exceptions. However, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded or sanctioned even if they do not technically break the rule.

Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined through consensus.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content_changes:

Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.

Keep in mind that the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. Editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice. It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page.

As explained below, you may update best practices by editing boldly or by working toward widespread consensus for your change through discussion.

If you persist in removing lyrics to natiomal anthems, I will change the NOTLYRICS policy so you can no longer use that as justification for the removals. Royal Cannon 2630 (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Romero and Savini

I don’t know who you are or what your beef is, however, several of us are part of a film club that likes to occasionally contribute from our Colorado theater group space, which doesn’t make us a disruptive user or even the disruptive user you are implying. Hence, AGF. We can’t police others who use this cafe IP as the computers are public—- allowing everyone from our audiences, local artists, customers and even the homeless access. Otherwise open a proper SPI instead of playing an inquisitioner here, rather than you starting with the premise that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Everyone sounds like everyone online long enough if you’ve been doing this for too long.

As for the contributions, it’s not “defamation” if it’s true and well documented as Savini and Romero’s scandals have been in the book cited by author Lee Karr and the several witnesses interviewed including fx guru Greg Nicotero. Otherwise should we also WP:CENSOR the Bill Cosby article or even the Donald Trump page for facts about their documented crimes and abuse? Give the readers the information and let them decide instead of WP:GAMING as you are. Otherwise the rest of your whining falls into the realm of speculation, hyberbole and matters of personal taste about what constitutes a long plot or meaningful contributions. For instance, Cronenberg and Romero are deeply “philosophical” storytellers so that’s an essential part of their art and contributions. To exclude that is to deny essential notable information for the reader.

Looks like you’ve been around long enough to know that with such light weight controversy over the meager contributions themselves in the first place, it comes off as passive-aggressively engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS over contributions you maybe don’t like for personal reasons or matters of subjective taste. 2601:282:8100:3BB0:F58C:915C:AD9B:26CC (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing about Savini's supposed PTSD is in the book you cited. Some hearsay is in there about his womanizing, but not strongly supported enough to include in his biography. My "whining" is aimed at protecting the wiki. Your contributions are not. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you obviously didn't read the book, nor did you speak with the author. I've done both, and you are free to do the same. He's accessible and open for questions, his name is Lee Karr. And his exhaustive interviews and documentation show that the controversy was more than "hearsay", but you did get one part right in your rebuttal. Yes, it's "whining". Thanks for being honest about that.

P.S.The powers that be that you are trying to WP:CANVASS ain't gonna block the whole front range or even Colorado for that matter just to support your WP:GAMING agenda. Protect wikipedia? lol... Okay, Captain America. You save the world from that awful first amendment being used to discuss obscure horror movies and their filmmakers. That's your cue btw to cry to mommy, so lemme get out of your way. Peace out, Captain. 2601:282:8100:3BB0:C9DC:FFB0:7107:10B1 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

About Medicine (Shakira song)

I was wondering why you removed the infobox image on Medicine (Shakira song)? Especially since, as the single cover, it meets MOS:LEADIMAGE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken click. I was trying to revert the Colombian IPs Special:Contributions/186.98.12.238 and Special:Contributions/181.235.28.32 but Dangerouspositions got in there before me, and I ended up reverting them by accident. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Electronic Music Genres

Hi. Yes it seems I made a mistake. Someone broke the formatting for the page. It used to be neatly dispalayed across the whole page and now it just has a long list with broken HTML tags on top and bottom. Unsure which version broke it but I tried to pinpoint which one and undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we need music genre links to other languages in the article List of electronic music genres. You added, for instance, a link to Artcore. How does that help our readers? Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of NominationName for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NominationName is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Tiwa Savage

Yemi Alade has also been called the Queen of Afrobeats per this, this, and this. I am going to restore the article to how it was before this dispute started and if you undo my edit, I will take this to DRN. Is the debate you had on the Michael Jackson talk page over?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a zero-sum game. Multiple people can be called by the same title. What is your problem with Tiwa? What don't you like about her? Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Did I tell you I have a problem with her? For your info, I was the one who promoted the Tiwa Savage article to GA status. I am going to be reporting you to DRN. Can you show me where the exact same honoforic title has been used by two notable acts?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You are making up rules that don't exist. You are losing track of Wikipedia's mission, which is to summarize the published sources and relay the summary to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Please address my question sir. How many people should have the same honorofic title? How did those publications, who referred to her as the Queen of Afrobeats, derived at that? Should we just believe them because they said so? I decided to remove the info because it is contradictory and frivolous. Two people should not be called the Queen of Afrobeats; this is confusing to readers.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked a question that did not deserve an answer. We at Wikipedia are not in charge of how many people can be called the Queen of Afrobeats, which is up to the media. In the past, the media have labeled multiple artists by the same honorific—see for yourself at Honorific nicknames in popular music which lists a few multis including "King of Soul" applied to James Brown and also to Sam Cooke, or take a look at "Prince of Pop" applied to Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Harry Styles and Troye Sivan. The proper action here in this case is to tell the reader more of the context of the title Queen of Afrobeats, for instance relaying that fans of Tems and Tiwa's fans have crossed swords about who gets to use the title. (Sources from June 2022.[15][16][17]) But the fact that the title has been applied to Tiwa by a dozen reliable sources isn't something you can erase by fiat. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I just restored your version. Since you've listed a few examples, I am not going back and forth with you. I still think this info is frivolous.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with your response and will probably take this to DRN. We need to move this discussion to the article's talk page. Administrators at DRN will request to see a discussion about this dispute on the article's talk page. Those examples you gave me doesn't justify your point. James Brown is referred to as the "Godfather of Soul" and Sam Cooke is referred to as the "King of Soul". "Godfather" and "King" are two different words that do not have the same meaning. I checked all of those other articles you mentioned and do not see "Prince of Pop" listed in the lede or body. If this info was so important and not frivolous, why isn't it in those articles? Tiwa Savage's "Queen of Afrobeats" title needs to be added to the article about honorific nicknames and not in the article's lede. I do not see this info in the Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Harry Styles and Troye Sivan articles you pointed me to.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion again

Hi Binksternet, this is just a message to let you know that someone undid all your "revert block evasion" edits on articles like We're a Winner (album) and The Fabulous Impressions, see this IP's contribs: Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7E:A9C0:B967:F2DA:25EB:B0BB.

The IP range has been blocked for a week already as I've reported them to AIV. AP 499D25 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandals on Devo pages

There has been a recent string of similar disruptive edits from anonymous IPs on the Oh, No! It's Devo and Shout pages, which I've had to continually revert. In one case (here: [18]), they even dug through the edit history and grabbed an old, unsourced Personnel listing to use as the basis for a nonsense edit about a tour that never even happened. I'd wager these edits are all the same person. Could you report this behavior or perhaps help me to do it myself? Thanks.—The Keymaster (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit too busy IRL today for that. Perhaps Materialscientist could do something about it, being familiar with the case. Materialscientist recently put Something for Everybody (Devo album) into protection because of this IP vandal from Japan. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd bet that's the same person. Looks like this troll is back again today. I will consult Materialscientist on their talk page. The Keymaster (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Did some sleuthing. Yup, it's the Japan vandal again. This person has vandalized almost every Devo album page in the last few months. The Keymaster (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Atomic bombings RfC

I hope you are ok with this addition [19]?--Staberinde (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No prob. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Never My Love

I see you reverted a perfectly good edit to Never My Love. Warner Bros. Records did not release Blue Swede's version. EMI did. I checked Discogs as proof. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

But you changed the Association Warner Bros. to EMI which is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Warner Bros. released The Association's version. Conversely, EMI released Blue Swede's version. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, I could use your expertise. Is there a known problem with audio quality from Apple Music? I ask, because User:Tim riley, an expert on the work of Gabriel Fauré, pointed me in the right direction with a wonderful playlist to enjoy his work. The first album that I downloaded from Apple Music was almost unlistenable; the highs were too high and the lows were too low, and the volume was all over the place. Is this a mastering or normalization issue, or was the version they used bad? I looked online and there’s apparently a lot of different versions of the same recording, if I’m reading this right. Is the problem Apple Music itself, the version they have on the site, or something else entirely? Thanks for any insight. This has only happened to me a few times, and since it’s so rare, I thought I would ask. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I had "sound check" switched off in settings. I wonder if that’s the issue? Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a PC guy, so my Apple knowledge is spotty and secondhand. (I owned a Mac Plus back in the '80s but that doesn't give me an edge in today's world.) I haven't heard about Apple Music issues, and I don't know what the sound check option does.

I just listened to the Spotify version of that 1982 album with Neville Mariner leading, and it sounds marvelous. The broad dynamic range is typical of classical music, with quieter sections and fortissimo moments. The low bass violins sound strong when they are supposed to, but never too bassy. The highs are mellow, not bright. The famous Pavane with its vocal chorus sounds great.

I must assume that a problem exists with Apple's version or your download. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the expert opinion! Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Must ask

Can I ask you something that's not about articles? 67.58.233.86 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No guarantees about the answer. And I'm no expert in time machines, so that's out. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Small bonus question

This is the last time I will pester you: there’s a brief discussion about the unknown producer behind "Justice for All", the pro-Trump J6 song. The question occurs to me, could someone forensically trace and compare the recording to others and find a unique signature common to other producers, assuming it isn’t just some rando off the street? Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think not. The signature of a producer would be extremely difficult to isolate. More likely would be the compilation of a list of songs with matching samples or beats. Even this might be traced to an innocent library of stock sound files, but the songs using them might have a pattern. If the song is entirely organic, i.e. performed live in the studio, I don't think artificial intelligence of today is up to the task. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it. It’s just that the cobwebs in my brain are sticky, and I remember reading quite a long time ago that they could forensically trace the unique hum of a sound mixer or a known frequency common to a specific recording engineer. It’s been a while, though, so who knows what it was that I read. There was also something about the unique signature of the power source that could allow someone to trace the local utility in that region, I believe. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)