User talk:Binksternet/Archive58

Michael why are you dismissing alt-pop? Its a term that has been used time and time again over the last few years, mainly in regards to young teen pop stars. A term shouldn't just be used over and over again on this site and then take you on a wild goose chase...not should it be redirected from google into the wrong information. Instead of creating articles for random people who you may love (for example Jean Rodríguez^[1], Brown Meggs^[2][3] and Lady Tambourine^[4] all which don't mean that much over here as they are not very TOTP-worthy) it might be better if you sorted out the alt-pop problem by starting an article about it or expanding an indie article to includes these alt-pop artists...seeing as its modern, its of the now and its a phrase that loads of writers are using when categorising modern chart acts as (and as a lot of these acts seem to come from America you should have no problem with it).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's how I would have stated your case:

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

— Suddenly Succinct in Salford

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which one of these sources described the genre of the album explicitly . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Binksternet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts Nine years! ...

Precious

Nine years!

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

You wrote to me recently:

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

So here is my response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lard Almighty User:Binksternet

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

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello/Hi, Binksternet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.