User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

John Bonham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Input at FARC

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

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

Battle of Nanking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting my edit in the US Armed Forces.

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

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

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

A Barnstar for work on Kurt Chew-Een Lee

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

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

All-caps in Japanese artists name

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

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

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

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

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

SPI

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

Gallup has the wrong numbers

Binksternet,

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

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

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

Sockpuppet hoaxer

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

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

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

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

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

Who Was That anyway?

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

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

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

SPI case

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

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/IamHarmonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Earth Creationism

Dear Binksternet

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

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

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

September 2014

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

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

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Björn J:son Lindh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Björn J:son Lindh''' (born Björn Johansson Lindh; 25 October 1944 – 21 December 2013,<ref>[http://www.svd.se/kultur/bjorn-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to In This Moment may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to After Saturday Comes Sunday may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |last=Ye'or |first=Bat |publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press |year=2002 |isbn=9780838639429}}</ref> A 1956 field report by American Universities staff said that the phrase had been in use for

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

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

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

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

Question

Hey Binksternet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Binksternet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GeForce 700 etc.

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

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

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

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

MJ You Rock My World

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, he is not sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh mai

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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

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

Cabazon Dinosaurs

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

FFS What am I doing wrong?

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

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

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

Promo article on user page

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

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

Re: Please stop edit warring

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

Lil Armstrong

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

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

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

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

My e-mail address is [email protected]

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

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

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

Hi once again.

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

JG

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

I see you're back genre-warring, which is not such a great idea. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

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

Madonna Talk

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

BenefactorDubsta

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

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

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

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

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

Jzyehoshua

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

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

Salsa

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cheeseburger for you my friend!

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

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

Genres

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

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

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

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

Genre tyrant much?

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

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

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

Light my fire

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

User:Gabed123

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

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

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

Ravenkills97

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

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

David Mamet and Cameron Crowe

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

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

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

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

Ygm

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

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

Hi once again.

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

JG

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

Sock puppetry

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

RE: Arena rock/pomp rock

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Talk:Chinatown, Flushing.
Message added 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Physical (Olivia Newton-John song)

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