User talk:Binksternet/Archive48

I posted a response to you earlier (accidentally in Talk, not here), so instead of receiving a respectful response from you, like your previous contribution, I was the unfortunate recipient of an intrusive, arrogant reply from a domdeparis and an accusatory Shellwood. Had they taken the time to read my response, they would have realized I was being neither "vandalizing" nor "biased", as suggested. All I am trying to accomplish is to have the link to The Outlaw page removed from Jeff Howell, and accurate information and photos entered in its' place. Of course it should be included as a relevant link, just not as the Wiki Page that depicts "who/what" Jeff Howell is. That's just a brief moment in his life.

I also don't think it was necessary to get a lecture from domdeparis about being allowed to enter our own biographical information, due to "having a conflict of interest". I don't mean for this to sound confrontational. It was an observation. I noticed your Wikipedia page is written in the first person. Is it permitted or no? , I just happened upon it when trying to figure out how to message you on this talk page, and noticed that it appears to be personally written, so, since I was just scolded for doing that, thought I should ask.

This is what I initially responded to you: Thank you for your inquiry. I have just been made aware that the link to my husband, Jeff Howell (formerly of The Outlaws, Foghat, Savoy Brown, to name a few), goes directly to The Outlaw Wikipedia page. This is incorrect, and mainly irrelevant to his personal biographical content. An assistant attempted to add more pertinent information for us by quickly cutting and pasting more appropriate content from Jeff’s personal website, www.jeffhowell.org, until it can be more extensively addressed, but it has been changed back several times without confirming whether the content is correct or inquiring why we have attempted to change it. I am not fluent in coding and providing references, etc., but will provide the required information after learning how to include it. If you could provide any assistance in this area, it would be most appreciated. If I have been blocked to edit information, kindly remove it. I am only trying to remove an inaccurate link from my husbands personal Wikipedia page. Not change the Outlaw page. How can this be accomplished? Can you assist? Thank you LindaJhowell (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So, since this writing, I understand a little more about the fact there are "rules" for Wikipedia, however haven't had time to review everything I obviously need to know. I'm a busy person. What I do know is I don't need some little gnat of a man (not you) to be condescending and know-it-ally with me. Perhaps if he had been more supportive and intent on providing accurate information, I wouldn't have gotten the response he felt necessary to give. Thanks for any support you can provide. (I have no idea if I'm doing the following correctly)LindaJhowell (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)^[1]

LindaJhowell, I have a few answers for you...

• "My" Wikipedia page is a user page, not a true Wikipedia article. You're right that I wrote it from a first-person point of view, but that's not allowed on real Wikipedia articles. User pages get some leeway in terms of how they are written, especially for veteran editors. I wrote it up after a 100 thousand Wikipedia edits and six years of participation, which firmly established the fact that I was here for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia rather than trying to get some free publicity.
• Real Wikipedia articles should be written mostly from WP:SECONDARY sources, written by people who are not personally involved, the material published in magazine articles, newspapers, books, established and reliable web publications, etc. Real Wikipedia articles are also more formal, using last names instead of first names.
• It looks like you have never been blocked. I am not an administrator, so I can't set or remove a block.
• If you want to ping me on your talk page so that I am directed to respond to you there, you can include the following code (copy and paste the part inside the quotes): "{{u|Binksternet}}". To make it work, you have to sign your name at the end of your message, using four tildes in a row like this: ~~~~ ...Just now I used that method to ping you.
• So now for your concerns. You would like the wikilink for Jeff Howell (musician) not to WP:REDIRECT to the Outlaws band article. As a temporary solution, I redirected it to Jeff Howell, but that is a circular link which isn't quite the right way. Perhaps it would be best to have the Jeff Howell and Jeff Howell (musician) links deleted so they appear red, and don't go anywhere. Another option is for the Jeff Howell (musician) link to redirect to the Foghat band page. You tell me which option you prefer.
• I'm sure it would be satisfying to have a Wikipedia article about Jeff, but I looked around for some reliable publications talking about his life and career, and there aren't any. Every biography on Wikipedia needs to have notability established by the General notability guideline or the Basic criteria for people, but musicians have their own notability guideline at Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Basically, Jeff would have to have a charting single or album, or to have released two albums on a major label. It looks to me like those requirements are not met.
• If I'm right and Jeff is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then your user page should not carry the same information that would otherwise be in Jeff's article. There's a policy called User pages that look like articles which says don't do it. It's possible to copy and paste that text to Draft:Jeff Howell, with the understanding that you will be working on the biography, but with so little written about him in reliable sources, I don't think that your time would be well spent doing that. Old, unfinished drafts get deleted, and there goes your work down the drain.

I'm sorry people here were rude to you. I hope you get some kind of satisfactory result from the conflict. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet and LindaJhowell I think that your reaction is symptomatic of why conflict of interest editing is so strongly discouraged. I don't know if I am the gnat that you are referring to but you should be a little more careful about the way you refer to other editors, civility is very important here sometimes more so than IRL because edits stay in the history here. I don't think that I or any other editor was intentionally ride to you. The messages on your talk page are automatic template messages that can be added to help users better understand Wikipedia. They are sometimes impersonal but never intentionally rude. If an editor is editing in a way that is problematic and potentially against policy than a "lecture" is important. The trouble is that despite the notices posted on your user page you continued to edit in the same way hence the need to continue the messages about policy. I hope now that you have been able to take the time to read them your editing experience on Wikipedia will be a happy one for you. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.240.4 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

*yawn*. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just now seeing it myself... Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And it's back again today - these edits have been reverted, using the same one as they did two days ago. Iggy (Swan) 18:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm looking at it now. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

At the moment I've logged in, I have spotted the same IP address editing - I have filed in a sockpuppet investigation titled as the IP address which has been blocked indefinately, since there has been persistent block evasion by the Kent IPs. I know others have been spotting them but not as quick as me today when logging back. Iggy (Swan) 20:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I’m writing to ask if you might be willing to contribute a vote on the Articles for Deletion page for Jesse Waugh. The vote already took place based on the article’s current sources, but certain people seem to be determined to get it deleted. Thanks either way. 81.44.32.50 (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(re the Jesse Waugh Afd)104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please assist me in rangeblocking this IP user? Or protecting the articles it targets? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the IP is now blocked. Of course this is the same long-term abuse person who uses lots of IPs from Cancun and other places in the Yucatan peninsula. I was waiting until I saw this person making up shit, like adding unreferenced genres, before I did anything. Today's stuff was just small changes in appearance. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But is there a way to range-block this person? The user hides unreferenced genre changes as well as template changes in the pretext of correcting the article, which is actually disruptive. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What I have made wasn't an original source, it truly is a DLC for both games, here's Just Dance 2015 citation , and Just Dance 2014 citation,

My removal was based on WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It's not enough that a fact is true. It also must be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the guidelines! DJ FunkFunk 10:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djfunkfunk (talk • contribs)

An editor add this genre in the article, is the album is psychedelic music? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Telegraph in the UK said "It is psychedelic in the sense of its colourfulness and warped interior logic, rather than in reference to Sixties rock." So, yeah, reviewers are saying it's psychedelic music, but they are not saying it's the old familiar stuff. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi you have recently accused me of edit warring on the page of the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat, I was only reverting your vandalism. Miles Copeland Jr was a key figure during the coup:

"Roosevelt told Zahedi that former CIA official Miles Copeland was the most qualified person to assess the situation in the country. If Copeland decided that nothing could be done, then there would no point in attempting a coup." (Page 58, Politics of Confrontation: The Foreign Policy of the USA and Revolutionary Iran).

Miles Copeland, who was dispatched to Iran by Roosevelt to make a logistical survey in preparation for the coup, sheds further light. Having arrived in Tehran, Copeland discovered that CIA operatives had already charted the routes that the demonstrating hordes would have to take, and pinpointed the targets that anyone organising a coup would (...) (page 116, Covert Action in the Cold War: US Policy, Intelligence and CIA Operations)

So please stop your mindless vandalism.

VendixDM (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You are showing that Miles Copeland Jr was there doing his assigned job during the 1953 Iranian coup. Nobody is questioning this. The reason I'm removing him from the infobox is that he is not shown to be a commander or leader of the coup. Instead, he is described as an analyst. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Then why don't you go ahead and remove Shapoor Reporter as well? Copeland had a similar role, probably even of more importance. He should be listed.

VendixDM (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did just that after seeing your edit summary.

You know, the roles of both Reporter and Copeland can be described in the article body. My only point here is that they should not be listed in the infobox as commanders. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, you have flagged me for edit warring on the "Chicago" band article. I was not the editor on the initial changes, I merely added sources to justify the edit that guitar be added to Neil Donell. There is a sourced article associated with those changes. Can you review your decision to revert my edits based on what was added. I have no intention of being part of an edit war, I just wanted the article to reflect the correct information based on sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you with the other guy. Most of your changes are okay. I'll comment further at Talk:Chicago (band). Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

please report this scam website to your superiors http://wikiprofessionalsinc.org ≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.134.75.212 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing the smooth jazz article to suit your jazz purist POV definition. Smooth jazz isn't solely a pop music genre. It is a jazz genre influenced by pop and R&B. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

My aim is to fairly represent published sources. What's your aim? Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

Could you please have a look at and maybe respond to my suggestion on the Prince Talk page? Thanks in advance DJ FunkFunk 17:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djfunkfunk (talk • contribs)

Will do. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Templating Gwillhickers didn't improve either the Thomas Jefferson article or the collaborative relationships among editors so necessary to building the encyclopedia. Besides being offensive, the template was flat wrong: he wasn't trying to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy. Your edit summary here was also unhelpful. You asked for other opinions on the TJ talk page; I gave mine, which you may care to think about. I hope you choose to reconcile with Gwillhickers. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The template I placed on his page was the wrong one. I didn't notice until later that I had not placed the intended warning against potentially violating the three-revert rule.

Regarding collaborative relationships, I have given up on Gwillhickers. He drove Brad101 away from the Jefferson article because of all the stonewalling and strident declamation. When faced with opposition he makes no apparent effort to understand the other side. He does what he wants to do until forced otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind responses here and there. YoPienso (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not edit-warring. I took the matter to the talk page and you failed to respond. I have deleted your message. PlatinumHeron (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Have your first Barnstar! I love your continuous edits. ―YoloMaxi ☎ (contribs) 21:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh heh... Looks like you're having fun with this. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts in deleting unsourced things. ―YoloMaxi ☎ (contribs) 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for shout out! Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly did I vandalise ?.2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:88D7:947:A2AF:6ECB (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You did not follow the guideline for maintenance template removal, which can be seen at Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Removal. You have been repeatedly making unconstructive changes to the Super Sentai article, using multiple IP addresses to evade scrutiny, for at least three years. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

My IP address keeps changing randomly. What's unconstructive about my edits ?.2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:88D7:947:A2AF:6ECB (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Over and over you have added unreferenced stuff, restoring challenged text, disruptive stuff like that. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Is that right, Binksternet? I took a look at the history of Super Sentai and was struck by how many different IPv6 addresses there were, all beginning with 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01. If you're referring to those addresses, they can easily be rangeblocked without danger of collateral damage, if you explain a little more to me about the disruption. Or are there other kinds of IPs as well? That would make it harder. 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:88D7:947:A2AF:6ECB, if you can't help your IP changing so frequently (it does look a little unusual), I'd really recommend you to create an account, so that you'll have one talkpage, where people can communicate with you. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

PS, mind you' I'll be going to bed in a little while, but I can come back tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

If you want me to back away from the article, just say so. 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:88D7:947:A2AF:6ECB (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, this person has been using other IPs beyond the recent IP6 ones, for instance Special:Contributions/86.190.193.47, Special:Contributions/86.183.24.6, Special:Contributions/109.150.162.73, Special:Contributions/86.152.12.242, Special:Contributions/109.146.66.160, Special:Contributions/109.150.34.60, Special:Contributions/86.177.115.42, Special:Contributions/109.147.114.57, Special:Contributions/86.146.75.66, Special:Contributions/109.147.181.201, Special:Contributions/86.131.175.43, Special:Contributions/109.150.172.3, Special:Contributions/86.181.72.82, Special:Contributions/109.147.114.11, Special:Contributions/86.181.73.233, Special:Contributions/86.181.73.222, Special:Contributions/81.132.109.76, Special:Contributions/86.131.175.135 and Special:Contributions/86.136.129.83. In this case, our friend from Lincolnshire has restored challenged text with old fact tags still in place. Other times the person has removed unreferenced text, so that positive behavior should be weighed in. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Oooh. Well, I can't really do anything about all those IPv4s, sorry. Quite a few of them seem to be dynamic, too. Are you sure that's all one individual? Anyway, they've offered to back away from the article if you say so; do you want to accept the offer? Bishonen | talk 21:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

Not really. There are plenty of other editors making unconstructive changes at that article, and this person helps rein those in. Besides, there are other articles of interest to this person, so the best option would be if our friend can adopt more constructive behavior, for instance citing sources all the time. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then. I really wish they'd create an account, which would make it easier to communicate with them, but that's something everybody has to decide for themselves. Good night both. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

(tps) See User talk:109.149.4.80. Yes, that's him...those IPs can be seen from August 2017 here and he also had 2A00:23C5:2E16:5701:0:0:0:0/64 range prior to his current one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, the first problem with the 'warning' you placed on my talk page is that there was no basis for it. It seems that you were confused by an edit I made on the FRC page in which I removed language calling FRC an advocacy organization. The edit you referenced did not have the slightest shred of POV to it. It is a simple matter of tax law. A nonprofit organization under IRC Section 501(c)(3) is, by definition, a charitable organization. Such an organization is also, by definition, not an advocacy organization; advocacy organizations fall within the category of social welfare organizations, which are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(4) of the Code. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, FRC is not an advocacy organization. For more information on this topic, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization.

The second problem is that instead of asking for clarification for an edit I made that confused you, you placed a 'warning' on my page that had no basis whatsoever.

I would ask that you please remove your 'warning,' take a look at Wikipedia:AGF and Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, and refrain from jumping to conclusions about my edits without communicating with me first. SunCrow (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No and no. I was not confused by you removing the bit about FRC being an advocacy organization. Rather, I saw in that removal a non-neutral bias. If you remove it again, the warnings will escalate. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were confused by my edit, but you apparently are not willing to extend me the same courtesy. That is unfortunate. The 'warning' will be removed, my edit on the FRC page will stay, and I will be watching carefully to see whether you make any further tendentious edits. SunCrow (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The new sock smells like a Aussie sock and have a very distinctive editing style. Soft pop (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Same poor English writing skill, same focus, same style. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, and speaking of that, it looks like the user name "Leavemehere" is Littlemixfan! too. And I believe that the edit summary says it all. Raritydash (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. It looks like both users are blocked already. Raritydash (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. I've reported Tha Industry as a promotional username. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I should have remembered to do that. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel that the revert of my deletion of Britain First from the "British Fascism" section was appropriate. Whilst it is true that Britain First is a far-right, ultra-nationalist organisation, it does not fit with many of the core tenets of fascism that distinguish it from other far-right ideologies. Britain First barely has an ideology at all, and with its focus on the issues of "free speech" and "radical Islam," it sits more with the alt-lite/alt-right "ideologies." Websites that label it "fascist" do so as an epithet. If Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced, then we should assess things as we see them, and not falsely label groups as something they are not.

King Flib (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:Britain_First#Fascism. We follow the sources in this regard. The sources observe Britain First to be a fascist organization, despite their denial. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet - I notice that you’ve done a lot of editing of the Robert Palmer page including trying to sort out the issues caused be the San Diego hoaxer. It looks like references to Palmer's supposed first wife and children stem from this hoaxer. Historical articles and articles from reliable sources all only mention one wife and two children. Thanks - Canberra8649 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good information. I'll take a look at the most reliable sources when I have time, and remove the other stuff. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again! Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

I was reverting modifications of a french contributor (92.93.201.39) that has altered the genres of music/artists of english pages. You have also done the same thing in the past. He seems pretty active on frwiki too, so I have to take care of his modifications... Can you leave him a message adapted to your practices and tell him to stop in the future? Thank you in advance. Lofhi (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. You have deleted or modified information pertaining to the articles James Fetzer and Harry Oldmeadow. You have not explained your reversions of these sourced edits which have been made in accordance with elemenatary principles of wikipedia. Threats pertaining to 'Edit Wars' simply will not hold. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In adding "Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus" based on a primary source, you are edit warring with several other editors who have a valid complaint: that the holder of the Distinguished McKnight University Professor chair cannot be "emeritus". To quote: "Recipients hold the title 'Distinguished McKnight University Professor' for as long as they remain employed at the University of Minnesota." Having left the university in 2006, Fetzer gave up that title twelve years ago. He remains of course a former holder of that distinction, which was awarded to him in 1996, and was applied to his title for ten years.

The biography Harry Oldmeadow sports a huge, ugly template declaring multiple problems, yet you focus on small changes such as putting "perennialism" into the first paragraph, even though nothing in the article says his focus is on perennialism. This is a violation of the WP:LEAD guideline.

I'm keeping an eye on those articles after seeing your combative behavior. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to sound rude but if you have ever worked (or studied) within a university you will know that the title 'Emeritus' is a title given to certain retired university professors considered to have given distinguished service. Such an assertion is not 'combative' but rather very elementary within the confines of university bureaucracy. Fetzer's title can be confirmed in looking at his University of Minnesota web page. 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.90.157 (talk)

Fetzer's bio page at U of M Duluth was written by his wife. I put more trust in the University's own assertion, "Recipients hold the title 'Distinguished McKnight University Professor' for as long as they remain employed at the University of Minnesota." Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I have to admit that I might have caused a misunderstanding here. This might have caused 82.27.90.157 to remove the Whois template, which I personally would not have removed. However, the template's documentation also explicitly says:

Please do not use this template on the talk pages of evidently good-faith constructive IP users, since its wording could be misunderstood as implying the IP's edits are problematic. Restoration of this template is not exempt from the edit warring policy, and editors who repeatedly restore it may be blocked to prevent further disruption.

I hope this explains and solves the problem. Thank you very much for all your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You removed this album from two different pages, and I can't seem to figure out how to undo it. I've never had to cite a reference to add an album to a discography before. The album is plainly visible in the discography of Jethro Tull's website as a Jethro Tull album: http://jethrotull.com/discography/. It's also marketed as a Jethro Tull album on the Amazon.com website: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_16?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jethro+tull+the+string+quartets&sprefix=Jethro+Tull+The+%2Caps%2C135&crid=1BNFL0VUY0WWV. Please restore.Divamanhughes (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I brought back the The String Quartets to the discography article, while we are discussing the issue. However, it appears to me that the album is more about Ian Anderson and the Carducci Quartet than it is about the group Jethro Tull. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, you might see this editor's revision anyway, but is it correct to add a parent that doesn't have an article to the infobox? I thought we only mentioned notable ones (i.e. with an article) in the infobox. Ss112 06:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, only notable relatives are listed by name in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

World Wisdom - America's leading publisher of Perennialist literature - describes Traditionalism: Religion in the Light of the Perennial Philosophy (2000) as 'an authoritative introduction to the perspective of Perennialism'. Martin Lings called it 'an excellent introduction to the Perennialist perspective' (page xi, The Underlying Religion). Indeed the book received the University of Sydney's Medal of Excellence in Research award. All this seems to jar with your claim that the book has 'very low prominence'. Do you have some specific reason why the book should not be recommended? 82.27.90.157 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I looked at the book on Google Scholar and saw that it received a very low number of cites from other authors. You added two books to the "Further reading" section, and one of them by Martin Lings was cited by 16 others. The Oldmeadow book was only cited by two others. More than that, you appear to be promoting Oldmeadow, so I am looking hard at your Oldmeadow-related contributions. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If citing a scholar who is regarded as an authority in his field is promotion then I am guilty as charged. But if you forgive me for being frank I don't think this is really the issue. Harry Oldmeadow is a very well known scholar within Traditionalist Studies. It is simply untrue to say that his work has very low prominence. On the other hand he is just a little old man who writes about religion. Why should you be so concerned? I think rather the issue is that you have some personal animus towards me since our Jim Fetzer altercation. Fetzer is a divisive figure. I understand that. But whatever it is it is not about scholarly disagreements. Your recent reversions of my other edits related to The Traditionalist School - unrelated to Harry Oldmeadow - demonstrate this. For example, you undid my link to The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of The Times, a work by Rene Guenon. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Any idea who Special:Contributions/The_Lotto_Genius is? They were quite prolific before self-destructing, and didn't seem like a newbie. - BilCat (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

BilCat, this is what I wrote to get him blocked. It's Hoggardhigh who you have already tangled with. He appears to have been blocked in the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:F0CA:DA00:0:0:0:0/64 – a range where you reverted his disruption multiple times. Hoggardhigh was indeffed a year ago. On July 23, 2017, he edited through an Alabama IP, Special:Contributions/172.56.5.211. A handful of other US southeast states have hosted his IP location. He keeps returning to the Pournelle chart article; all those 172.58 IPs are him editing from Florida/Georgia/North Carolina, and you called out the sock User:Who Are Those People in the edit history. So you've known this guy for a long time. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK. He didn't tick the usual boxes that Hogg usually ticks, so I didn't catch that it was him. - qBilCat (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

given that the user a final warning (but recently removed). Any disruptive edits after that, make sure to report it. 183.171.123.78 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Britain First is not a fascist political party. They openly denounce fascism and there is no indication they are. The only truth is that they have been labelled as fascist. Now that is quite different from being a fascist. Wikipedia should not be biased in any way. Correct the wording, please. Let the article state that the group is far-right and many people call it fascist, instead of stating that they are fascist. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Lamm did in fact play Hammond organ on "Lowdown" and Terry Kath used distortion and wah-wah on his electric guitar on that song. This cannot be negated by listening to the song. Giving such ambiguous words such as guitar and/or keyboards may create uncertainty about what type of guitars or keyboards were used. 1.43.34.138 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Listening to the song and deciding who played what instrument is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. If you have a reliable source listing the personnel and what they played, then bring that to the article. Binksternet (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The "home studio" where The Who recorded "Won't Get Fooled Again" was in fact Stargroves, Mick Jagger's country home in Hampshire. 61.69.205.223 (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

But nobody talks about the album as being a home-studio album. If nobody says the album is a home-studio album, then it is not a defining characteristic, and in order to follow the guideline at WP:CATDEF, we don't list that category. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, I thought to go to your talk page because of the issue that an anonymous user is repedetly putting the Eagles and The Rolling Stones as pioneering glam metal bands. It is an unsourced addition, but if I repeatedly delete it I could get blocked, so I was wondering if you could revert his edits and try to protect it from the addition of the two bands. If you could help I would greatly appreciate it, thank you. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Already keeping track of that. If I see it, I'll revert it. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is listed on the page for this song as being the instrumental credits for the song:

Gabriel provided lead vocals and piano.[22] Robert Fripp, Paul Weller and Dave Gregory performed guitar. However, the names of the individual instrumentalists for each track was not included on the sleeve of the album.[29] The guitarist for "Biko" is thought to be David Rhodes, Gabriel's longtime collaborator.[29] A 2016 "listener's companion" to Gabriel's music named Phil Collins as the drummer on the song, Larry Fast as playing the synthesizer, and Jerry Marotta as playing the snare drum.[22]

The part where it says that the album did not list individual credits for each track is false. All of the individuals are listed for each track on the lyric sheet that came with the album. I don't know if represses/rereleases over the years docked that, but on the original Mercury Records release from 1980, it specifies that David Rhodes did play the guitar on this track, that being the reason I first edited that page.

I sincerely apologize for any edits i did not provide reasoning or sources to

Lil google (talk) 9:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The One Hit Wonders list is inaccurate and incorrect. Several acts that are not one-hit wonders are being treated as such. A Flock of Seagulls, Madness, Matthew Wilder, a-ha, Dead or Alive, 'Til Tuesday, and Swing Out Sister have had subsequent Top 40 hits. I propose we go back to using the Hot 100 as the standard for determining one-hit wonders. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You would need to propose a WP:Request for comment on the talk page, at Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States, if you want to change the inclusion criteria. Naturally, your proposal will be judged against the previous one from last fall which you may read at Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria. Note that there was a clear consensus there, which means your effort will be an uphill battle. Your proposal will need to address the concerns about how the strict statistics-based definition of having only one Top 40 hit doesn't correspond very well with the sources calling an artist a one-hit wonder. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is posted. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted some of his edits , but he is going on reverting your contributions. Kpgjhpjm 08:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly vengeance against me reverting his contributions as Special:Contributions/166.182.84.40 and also Special:Contributions/74.42.44.222 who was blocked last September. This guy is a long-term disruption problem, but tonight he's on a crusade. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Turns out it's User:Sugar Bear evading his block. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're an idiot. 74.42.44.210 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And you're blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 19:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding Metacritic's indication of "universal acclaim" be used to verify that this album "was met with widespread critical acclaim"? Editor SummerPhDv2.0 has objected to this, reasons detailed here above the discussion. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do I keep citing reliable sources? What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.107.14 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I filed an SPI report. Can you check it out? 183.171.122.247 (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Giving citation might be better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.107.14 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Don't change the date and then tag it as needing to be fact-checked. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Binsternet,

I just added the Chicago II Live at Soundstage album to this article, and I noticed you deleted all of the live albums. The album in question does appear on the Discography page. Wouldn't it make sense to also leave the live album list in the main article, since some of those albums are assigned a number based on how Chicago numbers their albums. By removing them, it looks like some of the albums are missing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.197 (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the band also counts greatest hits compilations in their numbering system, so no, I don't think we should include live albums or compilation albums on the band page, just to preserve their unusual numbering system, when there is a perfectly good discography page for all of the albums. Feel free to read the relevant guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet,

Thanks for your response to my inquiry. I have reviewed the relevant guideline you provided about generally not including live albums in the discography section of the musician's primary article, and confess I was unaware of this. The only additional consideration I would add is since it states the "primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works," that at least Chicago at Carnegie Hall might reasonably be considered one of the band's major works. It was one of the best selling box sets of all time (per the Wikipedia article for that album). The Chicago: VI Decades Live (This is What We Do) four CD and one DVD box set of all new material from the band's entire history might also be considered a major work based on the scope of the project. This band probably has more official live albums than most groups, who might only have one live album. I think including at least some of the live albums in the main article here might be warranted, but will abide by your decision either way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Carnegie Hall live album is already discussed in prose in the article body. The prose has redundancies; it needs some work. But I consider the prose discussion of the album to satisfy the requirement of summarizing the major works. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to use just one IP and i didn't vandalized nothing. --189.216.123.94 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

When you add something to Wikipedia like this, please cite a source. If you use a reliable source, and summarize it accurately, your changes will be good. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Richard Scarry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Binksternet. You reverted and said it was block evasion. What block do you think this person is evading? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say that Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1406:C0D6:6859:EA28:9D1F:28A5 was evading the block on Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1406:C18F:452B:55F5:67BC:376.

If you're asking has this person registered a username, I don't know.

I think we could benefit from a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1406:C0D6:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a block that covers both, like one on Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1406:C000::/54 ? The block on the single IP ending in 376 was issued by User:Ohnoitsjamie for three months on April 19, and it increased the duration from a prior block on the same IP issued by User:Widr. If we decide to block the /54 it would have to be for three months if it is to do much good. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea. :)

Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I see you have reverted unreferenced changes to the Satanic Rites article regarding the demos influence on black metal. I have added a couple of sources and completed the sentence in the lead that had been left cut-off for well over a year. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Binksternet (talk)

Why accuse me of vandalizing Wikipedia? I was only correcting every detail about everything I see in the story of Don Bluth's All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989), and on the history of its home video releases. The original VHS release on August 28, 1990 includes a commercial for Boys & Girls Clubs of America featuring the late Dom DeLuise, and a trailer for Rock-a-Doodle (1991), another of Bluth's animated films. Plus, I know Jonny Quest vs. The Cyber Insects (1995) is an American television film produced by Hanna-Barbera, but it was animated overseas by Fil-Cartoons in Manila, Philippines. So did the closing credits told me, Fil-Cartoons appear to be responsible for associating with Hanna-Barbera on its other animation projects including The Pirates of Dark Water (1991–1993), Young Robin Hood (1991–1992), The Addams Family (1992–1993) and The Halloween Tree (1993). So... WHAT'D YOU THINK I'M AT?! A TRIAL AT SOME KANGAROO COURT?!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published knowledge, the summary part being not all the less-important details, and the published part being, you know, published by a reliable source rather than a person such as yourself watching the end credits and guessing that a subcontractor is associated with the larger company. If it's not published, we don't include it. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to agree, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is terribly mistaken. According to the end credits, nearly all western animation in film, television and home entertainment were either outsourced or subcontracted to Asian animations studios, just like many of Rankin/Bass' stop motion and hand-drawn animated productions which were animated overseas by the Japanese studios. Seriously, an example detail is that there were no source of overseas production on the pages about Warner Bros. Animation's Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and The Batman vs. Dracula which were both animated by the South Korean studio DR Movie. If I were you, I'd need to re-expand each page in western animation with every production detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against having this information, I'm just asking that you find published sources such as this one that talks about how Rankin/Bass set the stage for cheaper production of American cartoons by outsourcing its animation to Japan. If you can find sources like that for your Batman examples then you're in business. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 11:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Amusing or disturbing, depending on your viewpoint. That person is clearly not cut out for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you removed an infobox track listing with the summary "rv infobox bloat, unimportant". I personally feel that these are of limited value and contribute to "bloat". This was discussed when infobox song and single were merged, but there was no consensus, due mostly to one holdout (who was later blocked as a socket puppet). Is it time to revisit the issue? I think several editors would still support removing them. FYI, this is the current guidance from the template documentation page. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's time to revisit the issue. How many songs exist which have their album position as a significant fact? Very few, and those few would be well-served with a prose description of why the song's track listing position is important. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you or JG66 be willing to take the lead on this? I've got a few other template issues I'm dealing with right now. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ojorojo. Binksternet, I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying about the partial album track listing in infoboxes. In the past, I've supported the inclusion of a (hidden) full track listing in the infoboxes, because I believe that is at least informative – to show the song's place in the context of the whole album – although not in articles where there's already a navbox containing the full track listing. I think (and the discussion to which Ojorojo links above is one example) consensus probably veers more towards doing away with any sort of listing, and I wouldn't be opposed to that. Whatever it takes to remove those partial lists with just the preceding and following tracks. JG66 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at the new discussion: Template talk:Infobox song#Make it go away -- partial track listing. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you or JG66 think a RfC is needed? It seems that since thousands of articles may be affected, more notice should be given. Here's an example. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

At Template talk:Infobox song#Make it go away -- partial track listing, the discussion is clear about partial track listing: nobody is defending it. A formal RfC would only be required if you are seeking more changes than the simple removal of the partial track listing. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Do you want to close that discussion with "Unanimous consensus is to remove partial track listings from song infoboxes". That way, it can be referenced when updating the infobox guidance and when editors object to their removal. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a RfC is the way to go, because, as you say, Ojorojo, "It seems that since thousands of articles may be affected, more notice should be given." It may draw out the process but at least if there's opposition to the removal of a partial (or full) track listing at a particular song article, somewhere down the line, we can link to the RfC, which by definition invites a wider forum than a series of discussions at Infobox Song. The point being that we want to sort out this issue once and for all, and the more people who are involved across the project, the more convincing the decision/outcome is. JG66 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@JG66: I thought it was a good opportunity to address all the track listing issues, but there wasn't enough interest. Anyway, at least the partial listings are gone. May we can see the response and possible problems, then take it from there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Smokepurpp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does this article need semiprotection? I see a zillion IP edits and it appears many of them are getting reverted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you bet. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Especially for your determination in tracking persistent, disruptive sock accounts. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Too kind... Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory about me editing from the State Dept. and logging out to correct spelling errors are both aspersions and is a false accusation of socking. See here: I already said you should have a chance to delete the aspersions, but they're still up there and I see you have been editing since then so it's not an issue of being too busy. Please be advised that if you do not delete the false claims, I intend to seek a remedy to this situation that will probably be a report filed on you. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just as you're free to file a report, I'm free to tell others what conclusion I drew from the editing sequence of you–IP–you working on the same draft material within a short window of time. I noticed that you did not deny editing from the US State Dept IP, instead saying something evasive about Foggy Bottom and weather extremes. (By the way, it's not "illegal" to edit logged out. There's a policy page you can read about the use of WP:MULTIPLE accounts.) My conclusion has not shifted, yet, as no hard facts have come to light to make me change my mind. Feel free to demonstrate to me how I'm wrong... I am fully capable of accepting new information and rethinking my position on an issue. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I said I've never been to the State Dept. For your theory to prove correct, I would need to hack into the State Dept., make my edit (while logged in), log out, add the letter "r", and then log back in. That's your "conclusion"? I don't have to demonstrate why you're wrong. You don't get to just make accusations against other editors and attempt to WP:OUT them without any evidence. Since it looks like you have no plans to rectify your error, I'll notify you here after the dispute has been opened. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The report link is here in case you have a change of heart. Sorry this had to escalate but I'm not going to just allow my reputation to be trampled. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop reverting editors's changes on the Exodus article. Adding information that happens to be correct and is worth being mentioned in an article on Wikipedia is not vandalism. 205.154.222.41 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The source from Ultimate Guitar is unreliable as it was written by a user. The source Metal Insider confirms the widely used term "Big 4" but then plays around with the concept of "Big 8" as conjecture. It's conjecture. The same is happening at Blabbermouth, where they confirm "Big 4" but the interviewer asks a question with conjecture about what might be considered the "Big 8". Chuck Billy replies "I don't see any other bands that were the 'Big whatever.'" So Chuck Billy confirms the Big 4 and denies the Big 8. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you know a lot about music articles, can you check out these contributions to see if they are legit. This ip is making a lot quick without discussion. thanks JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that person around before, editing from Puerto Rico IPs. Most of the changes are good, and the ones that are not so good aren't vandalism, just a non-standard style. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for editing this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Seeza), but I've never heard of such a nickname as "Lil Suavé". I don't know where the previous editor got it nickname, but Sonny Seeza always been known simply as "Suavé". As evidence, I can show for example this photo from the booklet of ONYX's debut album "Bacdafucup" (1993): https://img.discogs.com/9K_q21DLUozO2xyTq1vjJjBzV0c=/fit-in/600x634/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4803312-1446234566-4825.jpeg.jpg Felix Montana (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, even though Discogs.com is not reliable because they allow users to upload images and change the information. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree about discogs, but i'm working with Onyx since 2014 as a blogger, I read many articles and interviews from magazines and websites, i myself create many posts and I swear that I've never heard such a nickname as "Lil Suavé", he always was known as Suavé (from 1988 to 1994) then he change his name to "Sonny Seeza" (while Onyx working on a second album in 1994). As another evidence I can offer his biography on his page on Bandcamp: https://sonseeza.bandcamp.com (Tyrone Taylor (born November 13, 1970) better known by his stage name Sonny Seeza who was previously known as both Suavé and Sonsee, is an American hardcore rapper from Brooklyn, New York and an original member of the hardcore rap group Onyx.) Felix Montana (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly was clunky about what I wrote? I was quoting both sentences straight from the refs. 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:A52A:1086:7A72:6E6F (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? You've been edit warring at that damn article for months now. You have no leg to stand on. But, to answer your question, this edit contained the clunky English, with "already been established" replaced by you to read "already been previously established", which is redundant.

The troublesome aspect of your edits has been discussed many times by other editors, especially on the Super Sentai article. If you keep inserting unreferenced material, written in poor English, you will be facing a rangeblock on your many North Lincolnshire IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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