Archives

Archive1 - Aug 2007 – Jun 2008, Archive2 - Jul–Nov 2008, Archive3 - Nov 2008 – May 2009, Archive4 - May–Jul 2009, Archive5 - Jul–Aug 2009, Archive6 - Sep–Oct 2009, Archive7 - Oct–Dec 2009, Archive8 - Jan–Feb 2010, Archive9 - Mar–Apr 2010, Archive10 - May–Jul 2010, Archive11 – Jul–Oct 2010, Archive12 – Oct 2010 – Jan 2011 Archive13 – Jan–Mar 2011 Archive14 – Apr–Jul 2011 Archive15 – Aug–Oct 2011 Archive16 – Nov–Dec 2011 Archive17 – Jan–Feb 2012 Archive18 – Mar–Apr 2012 Archive19 – May–Jul 2012 Archive20 – Aug–Oct 2012 Archive21 – Nov–Dec 2012 Archive22 – Jan–Feb 2013 Archive23 – Mar–Apr 2013 Archive24 – May–Jun 2013 Archive25 – Jul–Aug 2013 Archive26 – Sep–Oct 2013 Archive27 – Nov–Dec 2013 Archive28 – Jan–Feb 2014 Archive29 – Mar–Apr 2014 Archive30 – May–Jun 2014 Archive31 – Jul–Aug 2014 Archive32 – Sep–Oct 2014 Archive33 – Nov–Dec 2014 Archive34 – Jan–Feb 2015 Archive35 – Mar–Apr 2015 Archive36 – May–Jun 2015 Archive37 – Jul–Aug 2015 Archive38 – Sep–Oct 2015 Archive39 – Nov–Dec 2015 Archive40 – Jan–Apr 2016 Archive41 – Mar–Jul 2016 Archive42 – Aug–Sep 2016 Archive43 – Oct–Dec 2016 Archive44 – Jan–Mar 2017 Archive45 – Apr–Jul 2017 Archive46 – Aug–Oct 2017 Archive47 – Nov 2017 – Feb 2018 Archive48 – Mar–Jul 2018 Archive49 – Aug–Oct 2018 Archive50 – Nov 2018 – Apr 2019 Archive51 – May–Jul 2019 Archive52 – Aug–Nov 2019 Archive53 – Dec 2019 – Apr 2020 Archive54 – May–Jul 2020 Archive55 – Aug–Oct 2020 Archive56 – Nov 2020 – Jan 2021 Archive57 – Feb–April 2021 Archive58 – May–Aug 2021 Archive59 – Sep–Dec 2021 Archive60 – Jan–Mar 2022 Archive61 – Apr–Aug 2022 Archive62 – Sep–Dec 2022 Archive63 – Jan–May 2023 Archive64 – Jun–Nov 2023

Hey, I think I did something wrong on the One-Hit Wonders in the United States page. Way down at the bottom in the "sources" section, I added Wayne Jancik's 2008 book. (Yes, a physical book that I own) This was so I could create an sfnp out of the citations referencing the book. But when I tried to insert an sfnp for the first entry using the book, (Joan Weber) it came out wrong. It said that there was an error and mentioned "multiple targets". Next, when I hovered over "Jancik (2008)", my book citation came up. But then another issue came up. The entry is the very first entry in Wayne Jancik's book, and is on Page #2. But when I hover over "Jancik (2008)", everything was correct, except the page number was listed as Page #4. (This all happened as I was editing in the source editor and checked the right side (visual) after making the change. So I never officially made the change.) I read the "Template:sfn" page that Wikipedia has, and I am 95% sure that I did everything right. But something is just not working! I need help! Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the proper page number 2 for Joan Weber and page number 4 for the next entry, the DeJohn Sisters. Even though there wasn't a problem I could see, I breezed through the refs, trimming the unnecessary "page #" text. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! :D Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just remade the mistake and published it on the page to show you what happened. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the problem now. I think it will correct itself after you change every instance of Jancik 2008 article citations to the sfnp version, and after you put a full Jancik 2008 cite in the reference section by itself, without a page number. That single reference will be the one target which all the sfnp cites will be pointing to. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I will try that! Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is all fixed now! By the time I got finished doing what I had been working on for the day, this guy by the name of Wham2001 had fixed it all up! So I thanked him. :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit and give me a edit war warning? Reverting the edit didn't help anybody reach a consensus and arguably just contributed to the war even more. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 03:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now is the time for you to argue your case at Talk:Ancient astronauts. Start a new topic and support your argument with sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if nobody responds then what? I can reimpose the edit? — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People will respond. Your removal of text cited by three sources is a problem unless you show critical problems with interpretation of all of those sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bink. Just a heads-up. A user that both you and I have warned has ignored the warnings and is continuing to make unsourced genre additions to album and song pages (usually "dance-punk").—The Keymaster (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That new song is on my watchlist now. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that was making ungrammatical and confusing edits at "Theoretical key" has mucked it up further and changed its name. I'm fine with regular old edit reversions etc., but I don't know how to go about undoing this mess. Thought you might be able to help sort it out. Thanks. Special-T (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Regular old" edit reversion is the quickest solution. And I moved the title back to its former more concise version. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Holm jeanne bio.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

small size and low resolution; replaced with File:Jeanne M. Holm (NASA).jpg and no longer used

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering out of curiosity why you are revering ALL of my edits of the category "American people of English descent"? There are sources provided in many of the articles (though I accept not all) that give information about their English ancestry. Why has it became a controversy with the adding of the tag? Is there something wrong with being of English descent? Most of the colonists and their descendants WERE of English or other British descent at the time. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are violating WP:CATDEF. That's why.

I'm of English descent, so that's not it. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address this question. You said: Most of the colonists and their descendants WERE of English or other British descent at the time. You are quite correct. Because "most" were of such descent, saying so doesn't help wikipedians define or compare to others of their time. We utilize categories in order to help define the reasons the subject is notable. For example, if we could prove a subject always wore boots, saying so in a category would not help us define the subject one iota. I have blocked User:HockeyFanNHL until they accept this as the way we categorize on English Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wnat to discuss the inaccuracy of the genre for nevermind post punk I find the source to be unreliable as the songs don’t have a single post punk sound at all Thecure8985 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what we think it sounds like. Robert Christgau said it was postpunk. Wikipedia goes by what the published sources say. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions you deleted are widely considered Halloween songs by the categories description: "The following are songs which deal directly with Halloween, or deal with related themes and have appeared on a widely released Halloween compilation album."

I could easily find sources to reference this. Djaymiller (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATDEF is what you should be looking at, not the text of Category:Halloween songs which is not a guideline or policy. The songs are only going to get the "Halloween song" category if you can show that the category is definitive to the topic, that observers commonly and consistently remark about how this is a Halloween song. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

"Obsession with Jason Momoa"? Corp smell-factories would KILL to sell that fragrance. (Heck, my significant other would kill for me to wear such a fragrance.) BusterD (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I knew the thread title was asking for colorful comments. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain this is the first time I've ever used the words "awesome," "thread," "title," and "ANI" together anywhere on Wikipedia. So it's fine day. Best. BusterD (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beyerdynamic M 160.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet,

I saw your comment on my edit on My Chemical Romance. I personally disagree with your reversion, however I do not plan on reverting it back nor making any similar edits in the future because you are a much more experienced editor than I and mainly because most active editors on wikipedia seem to agree with you.

So you can maybe just convince me, I'm curious if you can explain your reasoning to me.

When I said that MCR cancelled their tour because of lockdowns, you responded with "the pandemic is the root cause", you seem, therefore, to agree with my statement at one level, but believe that it's more accurate to give the 'root cause'.

This reasoning seems troubling to me. For instance, when we talk about the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we don't say it was because of Pearl Harbor, we say it was because of the dropping of the atom bomb, even though the attack on pearl harbor was the 'root cause'. I think my edit made the page more accurate. There were things done in Sweden that would not have happened in the US because of differences in lockdown, when they both had the same pandemic. Attributing something to the pandemic and not the lockdown I think is obfuscation.

Please let me know where you think my reasoning is spurious. SonsyEpicMap (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I got from your change was COVID denial. Lockdown happened but the virus didn't. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not what I meant at all. Maybe I should've been more specific in the comment, I just wanted to improve accuracy. SonsyEpicMap (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have a problem with the edit? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still have a problem with it. You tried to move Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education to a lockdown name, and you tried to move Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on domestic violence to a lockdown name. Neither one of those moves survived community input. I don't think the community is as ready as you are to blame lockdowns rather than the pandemic. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. SonsyEpicMap (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you've reverted my edit on The Weeknd for poor writing, so I wanted to ask you if this one was moreso appropriate: "He is credited as a major figure for the progression of R&B in the 2010s, also being regarded as a prominent artist in contemporary pop music". If it's not I would please ask you to tell me what other parts should I fix. Thank you DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep the falsetto bit, per WP:LEAD. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I think that the falsetto bit should be removed. It is nowhere to be found on the LA Times source provided for it. I don't know if it comes from that other Medium source because I'm not even going to read that, it's an amateur publication that I'm surprised it made the lead of an important article like this. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are available: Insider, USA Today, The Washington Post, Vox, Hollywood, and Rolling Stone. It's a thing. Let's not bury it. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing Scatterbrain in the spinoff section of Ludichrist's infobox and removing Ludichrist in the spinoff section of Scatterbrain's infobox. It's a fact that Scatterbrain was the name that Ludichrist went by in the 90s which DOES MEAN that Scatterbrain was a spinoff of Ludichrist. 66.74.136.178 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet,

On the Great White page, I have uncovered and fixed up an old instance of reference link hijacking / vandalism dating all the way back from 2014: diff.

This is just crazy to me, how this vandalism went by, sight unseen, by hundreds of other editors, for over 9.5 years straight.

My suspicions first arose when I saw a citation titled "Great White Shark Attacks On Humans Caught" in the references list. I was like, how could a video about shark attacks be used as a reference in an encyclopaedia article about a rock band? So I started digging through the page's history, for clues. And that's when I discovered the two instances of vandalism the two references went through, from Feb and May 2014. The moment I discovered the original references it all started making sense to me, all of a sudden. Ahh, the official statement on the website definitely lines up perfectly with what's written on the article.

I just wanted to know your thoughts on this if you have any, since music articles are a big focus for you, and this is the first time I've ever seen vandalism linger on a popular Wikipedia page for nearly an entire decade. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hate it. Good work ferreting it out. That kind of stuff creeps in far too often, because we let anyone edit but there's never enough fact-checking and oversight. There will always be a small percentage of bad actors coming here to push their agenda. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet,

I had a look at the latest instances of IP sockpuppetry from the user that we suspect to be Andrewbf, and found that a good majority of them actually come from this IPv4 /16 range, 187.147.0.0/16. Since the last ANI report made on this was not successful and convincing in getting admins to take action, I have created an SPI report for the 187.147.0.0/16 range:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf

I have provided as much evidence as I could, based on comparisons to previous blocks, usual latest habits, and subject interests. If you have anything to add to the report, that would be great too, since you seem to know a lot about this long-term genre-warring abuser. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll compose an update for the record. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Binksternet: & @AP 499D25:, I recently saw these two massive edits from anonymous IP from 189.174.22.63 (talk) Merida Yucatan Mexico, Special:Diff/1192790641 The Miracle of Love & Special:Diff/1192790106 Walking on Broken Glass, that might be of interest, which I had reverse it back (hopefully if i'm not wrong) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You got it exactly. That's Andrewbf in action. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The range behind that IP appears to be a /19 to me: 189.174.0.0/19, I'll keep an eye on it and if disruption continues, I may file a report at the SPI above again. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry can you help me on still putting the band nightmare under gothic rock as the genres for the band under multiple genres have been labeled as gothic rock and it serves a right to be under a main genre for the band 2600:381:CBA0:28CA:F0B3:53D9:4EEA:5E9F (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already added gothic rock per AllMusic. User:Carlinal took it away.[1]

You have been using your registered username User:Thecure8985 to change music genres based on the wrong things. Per WP:EXPLICITGENRE, the genre must be named explicitly in WP:Reliable sources. Per WP:V, the band's genre should come from sources talking about the band's genre, not from sources talking about album or song genres. Your edit summaries tell me you have been judging the genres yourself in some cases: "because the song literally has disco and dance rock sounds". You need to stick to the sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am a member of the band Lucid Nation.

Regarding removal of Nomy Lamm and Lucid Nation from riot grrrl wiki article due to lack of citations in a particular section.

For Nomy Lamm: https://www.theolympian.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article243592937.html

https://www.mopop.org/about-mopop/the-mopop-blog/posts/2020/april/watch-riot-grrrl-retrospectives-riot-grrrl-is/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26891193 The Riot Grrrl Collection

For Lucid Nation: https://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/tamra-lucid

https://www.rookiemag.com/2011/11/girl-germs/

https://www.enmu.edu/about/news-and-events/enmu-news/general-news/2563-starring-in-her-own-life-get-to-know-dr-chelsea-starr (see her reference to having: "produced a single for Los Angeles Riot Grrrl punk band Lucid Nation" and her dissertation: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chelsea-Starr/publication/305469453_Riot_Grrrl_dissertation/links/578fd98a08ae64311c0c78e2/Riot-Grrrl-dissertation.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/44226488/Activate_collaborate_participate_The_network_revolutions_of_riot_grrrl_affiliated_music_worlds

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3175311 "Riot Grrrl: Revolutions from Within"

Thank you for any assistance you can provide and happy new year! Theinfinite314 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With this pair of removals I trimmed the Riot grrrl article down to just the stuff that was supported by cites. The band Lucid Nation was removed, but it had not been described in any detail with cited sources. Instead, Lucid Nation was just one band name in a list of bands that were supposedly associated with the movement. The unreferenced paragraph had been fact-tagged for three years before I removed it.

Such a removal is in line with the guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is supposed to tell the reader what is important about a topic, not what is peripheral or trivial.

If someone wished to represent Nomy Lamm or Lucid Nation as important to the topic of riot grrrl, they would want to cite sources saying just that, especially uninvolved observers describing one as central or foundational. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blink 183 Angels and Airwaves look familiar to you as a potentially older sock group? Besides the couple of naming cues (song and artist names predominantly), seems to focus on pop, country, and a side of classical music. Izno (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. That is a helluva sock farm.

Nothing leaps out as familiar, but if I uncover something I'll ping ya. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an IP establishing a location? Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sock puppeteer named User:Dylan Florida that combined names of musical artists in the same manner as Stabbing Westward Creed and Elton John Billy Joel. I bet the checkuser missed Dierks Bentley Joe Nichols who was also active at 1993 in music, and is probably a sock of Dylan Florida. Other Dylan Florida socks were Billy Ray Cyrus Keith Anderson and Tim McGraw Faith Hill. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida/Archive. Location for this sock farm was Australia, mostly Sydney and Brisbane with a little bit of Melbourne. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I thinks that's the one. Izno (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You left me a message about being biased on Atatürk.

It was not bias, the previous text was biased.

The Ottoman genocide on Armenians is broadly discussed on the page, but someone put in on the front page as of Atatürk had something to do with it. People who quickly read about Atatürk will think he was complicit in the genocide, thus throwing filth on his name.

If you read the rest of the article you will see he was not complicit, but not everyone reads it and the people who want to ruin his name know this tactic... that part does not have to be on his front page as it is not something about him.

In regards,

CptBearguy CptBearguy (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal saw the Armenians as a direct challenge to Turkey's existence, and he fought to save Turkey by wiping them out. This is a major element of his life and career. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomsbury textbook The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide (ISBN 9781610696883) says that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was "the founder of the Republic of Turkey, and the consummator of the Armenian Genocide." You will find this on page 83. The editors of this textbook are saying that the Armenian Genocide was the brainchild of others, but Kemal carried out the action of genocide to make it happen. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even fact checken that source? Mustafa Kemal Atatürk criticized and punished the people who carried out genocides against Christians.

People think everything that happened was done by a lieutenant-colonel, because he became the first president. CptBearguy (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require fact-checking of sources like that, especially when it's such a broad summary of scholarship. We do, however, require balancing all the best sources to come up with our own best summary of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the backup singers on this song and several others when Dawn was a fledgling group. Toni WIne, the songwriter on Candida, was a close friend and a back up singer like me. Jay Siegel of the Tokens was singing too. ANd often refers to us as the Early Dawn, There are contracts through AFTRA documenting those sessions and I still get singer royalties for them through AFTRA AFM. On Dawn's first album, there are liner notes that credit the aforementioned. Rgrean (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was looking only at album liner notes, they would be frustrated. The original 1970 edition of Candida doesn't have any performer credits. It just says "Special thanks to Tony Orlando." Re-issue copies of that album from Razor & Tie have liner notes written by Hank Medress in September 1996 saying that the original performers were Tony Orlando, Telma Hopkins and Joyce Vincent. Of course he is skipping ahead in chronology, jumping over the complicated parts, even though he was the producer and would be expected to tell the whole story. Sad.

On the other hand, books about the topic agree with you, listing the backing singers as Robin Grean, Toni Wine, Ellie Greenwich and Jay Siegel on vocals for the song "Candida", with lead singer Tony Orlando supported by Phil Margo on drums, making it almost a full Tokens date. The song "Knock Three Times" was Tony Orlando on lead, Robin Grean, Toni Wine and Jay Siegel on harmonies. This is laid down in Jay Warner's book, American Singing Groups: A History from 1940s to Today. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime last year, a user called RockabillyRaccoon made some unsopported changes to the Rap rock template, and you never did anything about it. I tried to fix them, and you immediately reverted what I did! What gives? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C8FF:8BB3:7DF9:BBB4 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, RR was not blocked. You made this combination of edits, adding punk rap and emo rap. As usual your additon was completely unsupported. RR's removal of your addition was correct. On June 20, you added a bunch more stuff to that template, and on June 21 your IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C5A:417F:794E:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for six months. The next month you were blocked as Special:Contributions/47.36.25.163. You definitely have a problematic record on Wikipedia relative to genre-warring. I will continue to remove unsupported stuff that you add. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding some genres, and since punk rock is definitely a subgenre of rock music, punk rap actually has basis in this template. (I guess I can kind of understand the removal of emo rap, though; I've heard some emo rap songs, and I heard no rock in them. However, I can't help wondering why emo rap is called that if it has no elements of emo.) 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:78FC:976E:4C43:DA65 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go, trying to figure it out on your own. You should be citing books or experts on the web. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that RockabillyRaccoon was a sockpuppet, right? Why are you trusting their edits? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:78FC:976E:4C43:DA65 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RR is a real person with some faults and some strengths. Their edits were not 100% wrong. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't change the fact they they were a sockpuppet. On most sites, aren't edits by sockpuppets usually seen as untrustworthy? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:17C:611C:1056:89CB (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you undid my edit on Five's Got the Feelin page, I only corrected the release date with was the 8th June 1998, Yes it may have been released in Sweden on 2nd June 1998, But Five are not a swedish group, they are a British group so it should be the UK release date which is 8th June 1998, not 2nd June 1998. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first release is definitive no matter where it was released. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently seen your 'talk' message. While I come to understand the issues with editing disruptions there is actually some sort of mistake. I'm not this "SonicClub" user that you were referring to, when it comes to the edit on Tweetie Pie, it was more or less acted more as a "good faith" edit. I hope this clears up any sort of misunderstandings.

- User talk:104.246.96.227 11:23pm EST, 8 Jan 2024

Okay, thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Hi. The background section of the article has nothing to do with a negative comment from a critic reviewing the album following its release. That comment should be put on the reception section DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't restore the "idiotic" quote you will be blocked. It goes directly after Chris Brown talking nonsense about his title concept, which is in fact idiotic. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it might be idiotic in your opinion, but it's not an information that should be provided on the background section of the article still, because it has nothing to do with the background of the album. It should be mentioned on the critical reception part of the article. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make an official complaint about Jkaharper, every time a person's death is mentioned in Wikipedia, despite having a source on it, he always has to go and deliberately remove the person's cause of death such as a short illness as he did with Annie Nightingale. It's vandalism and I for one am getting fed up of it. Please can you stop him from doing this habbit because this is childish behaviour. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more tendentious editing than outright vandalism.

I can see why you might be peeved, but your own work has been questionable, for instance this combination of "peacefully" contrasted by your clunky addition of "battling". Awkward composition. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's done it again, he's reverted your edit now as well, this is edit warring and the only way this is gonna be stopped, is if he's blocked from editing. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as per WP:EUPHEMISM. "Brief illness" is not a cause of death. You would not find "illness" listed under cause on any death certificate. Everyone who dies of natural causes dies of an "illness". This is Captain Obvious level stuff. Non-encyclopaedic language like "passed away" or "died from an illness" should be avoided. --Jkaharper (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You violated WP:3RR in doing so. The information conveyed is that her illness was brief rather than lengthy, which you had no reason to remove. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you should state that brief illness led to her death, but was not the cause of her death. I agree with Jkaharper 91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your wrong, a brief illness was the cause of her death. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting my changes I made few years ago, you have showed your point of view - the abortionist one. If no other point of view expect the right one is welcome, that means the only one existing is the "right one", which is not neutral by definiotion. I intend to edit the page adding lacking information. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are considered promotional, non-neutral. Your edit to Maafa four years ago was not neutral, which is why I reverted it. Michelle Goldberg made a comparison to Hitler and published it, but you tried to negate that comparison based on your own unpublished analysis. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As part of your routine disruptive editing, you recently violated the 3RR on the Chris Brown article to continously revert and include an infobox image which happens to be a clear copyright violation. Im sure this violation and the ensuing temp block resulting from it will not stop your egregeious edit warring (considering you have numerous blocks for the same behavior on other articles) but neverthless Im leaving this message here to simply ask you to take interest in content as opposed to engaging in edit wars with individuals just for the sake of being disruptive. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on "local inclusion criteria"? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The page uses media statements for inclusion criteria. It does not use chart statistics. If the media say an artist is a one-hit wonder, then we list them. The page states this explicitly: "Each artist listed here has been identified by at least two publications as being a one-hit wonder in the U.S. Some artists listed here have reached the Top 40 on the US Billboard Hot 100 more than once."

This inclusion criteria was established six years ago by unanimous decision at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. The discussion was the result of years of bickering about chart stats, and it was also part of a big merger. For no good reason the topic had been divided into seven decades covered by seven different pages. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if an act that was initially listed as a OHW on this page ends up having another hit following their listing, they ought to be removed from the list because the sources that were initially used are outdated, because they were made prior to the second hit. Example, Willow Smith, who was removed from the page in late 2021 following her hit "Meet Me At Our Spot." It is highly likely that there are two or three sources claiming that an act is a one-hit-wonder when they actually aren't, as they may not be entirely familiar with an artist's legacy/reputation and/or they may be looking at the artist from the perspective of their most well-known song, even if they did have a hit later on in their career. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your logic—we should not rely completely on outdated references with incomplete data. I'm sure such an argument would have leverage on the talk page when discussing a particular artist. In a case like that, the artist could be discussed in prose as previously have OHW status. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Is this Dealer07 again? They seem to be taking exception to a perfectly good image, with a bizarre rationale. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Dealer07. Closely related IPs have been doing the classic English/British thing.[2] Maybe we should block the /40 range, although some collateral damage would result. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weinberg has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am only sending you this discussion because i see that you have an abuse of authority, and i believe you do not have knowledge about rock music, i am a professional and an expert in the genre even if you do not believe me, if you ask me for a reference, you cannot always have them, i have already had experience with other users who have deleted articles in accounts previous to mine and even having evidence of their existence, i will simply ignore it due to the effort i have made and you seek to ruin it for me, Greetings. DarkWorld305 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the deal. Wikipedia is based on WP:Reliable sources, not on individual editors who consider themselves expert. It doesn't really matter that you are a "professional" with experience. Per WP:No original research, your own analysis and conclusions do not have any leverage here. Wikipedia users like you and I are supposed to summarize published sources so that the reader gets the most important facts. You should be looking at the literature and helping to relay that to the reader.

You added a "trip rock" category to Hooverphonic[3] without any published source saying that Hooverphonic was "trip rock". You were edit-warring over material at Monkey3. You created some unlikely categories which are now under deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet,

I just thought I'd let you know that I have filed an SPI case on the User:Christeningchristina account and User:104.181.148.164 IP address, over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. I noticed that the newly created Christeningchristina account repeated the same edits more or less on the Psychedelic rock page, and had the same tone/'aggression' in the edit summaries as did the previous socks of Dcasey98 this month. Though I'm not very good with the specifics of the language they use in the edit summaries due to being unfamiliar with this user, so I just wrote down one similarity I saw, which is that one of their favourite words to use is "British appropriation" or similar.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. You got the job done. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Just curious why you're removing all additions to the "In Popular Culture" section of the wiki on A Fifth of Beethoven. Considering one of them has been added three different times, I'd say there's some argument for notability, and certainly more notable than a 40-year old usage by the Irish Defense Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookpolice (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence:

• "The song also features in the series finale of Marvel Studios' Loki Disney Plus series."

If this appearance of the song is significant to the topic, then the media will have made an observation about it, and we can cite the source. It must be a human writing about how the appearance was memorable, not a bare listing of songs appearing in shows. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm pretty inexperienced and so I'm hoping you can help me understand what I should have done differently when I added this song's appearance in the movie Blaze. so that I know for the future. I thought I was pretty careful, specific, relevant and additive. However I noticed you later removed the entire section on the song's appearances in movies due to poor sourcing. These were edits from November 2022 (mine) and December 2022 (yours). Thank you so much. Thornstreet (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This passage in the AFI Catalog shows that one of the appearances of the song (the one performed by Bonnie Bramlett aka Bonnie Sheridan) accomplished three things: 1) it advanced the movie's plot in a humorous way (allowing Earl Long and Blaze to consummate their mutual affection), 2) it deepened the audience's understanding of Long and his deep love for Louisiana culture, and 3) it showed Blaze to be a woman who is unfazed, compassionate and quick thinking.

From AFI: Long brings Blaze home with him, and she is shocked he lives in a rundown farmhouse. Once inside, Blaze strips and takes Long to bed, but discovers he is impotent. Blaze solves the problem by playing her guitar and singing ”Jambalaya.” AFI Catalog Thornstreet (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition back in 2022 was accompanied by a citation to IMDb which I judged insufficient to show that the song appearance in the film was significant. Usually, these things need WP:SECONDARY sources with a human author to show that they are important. Secondary sources are definitive on Wikipedia. Basically, if the media have commented on the song's appearance in a film, it's important.

Your AFI link here shows that the song is more than incidental to the plot, but there's no author to cite. AFI staff wrote it anonymously. Perhaps you can locate a magazine or newspaper review of the movie which calls out the song as important. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that really helps clarify the standard for edits. I’ll see if there’s anything that’s individually authored, as you suggested. Thornstreet (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, perhaps this isn't a big deal, but I added a bunch of new people to the OHW USA list yesterday. And when I added Jud Strunk, I accidentially wrote simply, "Jud Strunk" instead of "Added Jud Strunk" for the thing where you gotta briefly summarize your edit. Once you publish your edit, the "explanation thing" can't be changed, so I just wanted to clear that mistake up. I'll try to be more careful when typing out my edit summaries. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about a mistake in your edit summary, you can make a null edit (adding or taking away a space, for example) and rewrite your intended edit summary. It's not required. Just a courtesy. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks! Imma see how that works. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Barrett 2011 source contains a few entries that we have not yet listed. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was aware of that. I will add them at some point if no one else does. Oh and by the way, if you don't mind, check out the 2000's section of the list. I recall scrolling through and seeing disqualifying sources for some of the entries. I recently had to replace a bunch of sources for the 1990's entries. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting all updated music Certifications? What are you trying to accomplish? Those edits are all Reliably Sourced. 197.87.135.187 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the sourcing for Danny Ocean and the FIMI website said Gold, not Platinum. I looked up the sourcing for Songbird (Fleetwood Mac song) and the BPI website said Gold, not Platinum. Since I looked the first time, the BPI website has been updated to say Platinum. So now your edit on that song can stand. It appears you are getting ahead of the sourcing, perhaps from social media or inside information. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BPI updates their website every Friday. EVERY edit I made was updated today. I am not sure of the other edits you blanket-reverted.

But, even IF Songbird was true, why did you revert everything I added? 197.87.135.187 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I lost trust in you after I failed to verify two entries in a row. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bink. I have a question. Apart from ambiguous links, what has the Switzerland-located IP done wrong? 113.210.105.117 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw too many style mistakes, so I reverted the whole edit. The Swiss person added slashes between names in violation of MOS:SLASH, and they put single entries into the hlist template which is designed for multiple entries. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've seen and personally dealt with several different kinds of LTAs before, ranging from trolls, to vandals that game permissions to edit protected articles, to persistent disruptors that attack other users, to umm MRY... But I've never seen a vandal as stealthy yet incredibly destructive as this one!! Ugh what a big pain in the rear this looks like to deal with. I ran my mass-rollback tool on some of the music-related edits from the /40 range that appear to be Hanoi-like to me, but unfortunately rollback does not do range reverts, i.e. if they make two edits but both are from slightly different addresses, it'll revert the last individual address to the previous one, rather than revert all edits from the range.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this vandal's disruption is difficult to fix. They travel from Vietnam to the Philippines and back, so the IPs are all over. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Stix1776 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to whitewash Furr which is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. Cut it out. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's group was signed to the Electra label in 1995, but were dropped months later, and did not release any music under that label or in that year. What exactly constitutes as active? All the members made their musical debut under Columbia in 1997 and all the other members' pages reflect that. If Kelly is considered active as of 1995, shouldn't all their pages be edited? 166.194.204.14 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "active" to be engaged professionally, like making money with music, or touring, or any recognized work building the career. Signing with a label is "active". All the signees should start with 1995. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant members of the group with unlocked pages have been edited; you're going to have to change Beyonce's page, she is locked and the only member left to have signed in 1995. 166.194.204.79 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Binksternet, I see you haven't edited your fellow Knowles yet. Do I have to create a separate edit request for that? 166.194.204.79 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Bink- I received a reverted edit from you saying not to use a Podcast as a citation

My edit's aim was adding details to an author's history that I felt was missing. These details, (may it be his early personal life or the career pathways he has taken) are significant to his overall writing career and do not appear in his current page. It is extremely rare to find secondary information (as you suggested) about writer's backgrounds; as non-fiction writers tend to be interviewed about their subjects, and not themselves. The interviewer in this podcast actually asked the author about his background and career story...that publicly revealed a significant amount of information that I was adding to his page. Please reconsider that these facts are not in dispute and really should be part of his story.

This is the first time I have attempted to edit a Wiki page, so I am new at this. I ask for your help, please. To your point about taking out the "trivia" (i.e. which hospital he was born), I can just say he born in London etc, and keep his schooling there (I get your point)..... (by the way, no need to use foul language when making your point, I don't need the aggression, thank you). But the rest of the data that I included should be allowed as it enriches the page and his story.....of which is directly from the source himself. Would that help in reconsidering my edit please?

Thank you

JerseyRingo (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biography in question has been targeted multiple times by single-purpose accounts wishing to insert personal details that have not been published.[4][5] One of them used WP:PEACOCK wording to puff it up.[6] Hence my frustration. The new podcast appears to be a runaround attempt to get this stuff back in. The podcast doesn't change the fact that these details are unnecessary and excessive. WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes to mind. It's also vain and preening of Mark Lewisohn to keep trying to pad his bio. Wikipedia biographies are not the place for people to write about themselves as in a personal website.

Each major section of a biography should be founded on uninvolved WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources can be used to fill in appropriate detail. There are no secondary sources writing about Lewisohn's personal life. That makes his personal life unimportant with regard to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply... Please let me be clear, I don't know about these Wiki politics...I am not associated with Lewisohn or these past attempts you reference (nor am I that interested in all this). I guess you are doing your job.

But I will say that Wiki's rebuttal of my improvements for this entry make me feel that I should stop attempting them. Not a lot of encouragement here for new comers.

However, I would ask that you consider the entries given to the world-leading authorities on other major topics and judge if Lewisohn's is inadequate by comparison....that is what got into action in the first place.

Also, please consider how many other Wiki entries cite Lewisohn as a source of knowledge and information. For example, as there is already an entry for the school he attended, (Pinner County Grammar School), which lists past students who have attained a public postion.....I am at a loss to understand why it is deemed irrelevant for Lewisohn's name to be added, and for this to be cross-referenced in his own entry. It seems only logical to me. My attempts to improve his primary entry are not being done for helping his vanity (I have no idea if he cares!) but as an admiring fan of his work, I merely take time out of my day to ensure that the information in terms of the important books and other projects he has created or assisted in.

...in the big picture, I don't think my (or anyone's) motivations should be a criteria. I thought helping the content with accurate or comprehensive information is the aim of Wiki. I ask that my learning, or misunderstanding how to go about this, should not be viewed in such a syndical way. JerseyRingo (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more understanding if there was any source for Kingsbury Maternity Hospital, which there isn't short of speaking to Lewisohn himself, or his family, or digging through UK birth records. The hospital does not appear on his website or in the cited podcast. My best guess is that you are getting your information from Lewisohn. That realization was the end of me being nice. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much luck to you...sounds like you have a challenging job and you try to do it well.

I guess my curiosity got me into a Wiki vortex that I didn't realize was there, along with some history baggage that I was not party to.

I respect anyone who works hard at what they do, like you seem to. But this is just a hobby for me, I really don't have the deep motivated interest to debate.... and as for the hospital, its simple. I remember him saying this in a theatre presentation a few years ago and the name of the hospital stuck with me because I knew some people who were treated there at one time. I assure you, I wasn't sent to do this by anyone. Just me and something to do on the weekends.

This was my first, and it was quite an experience. With this unexpected harsh environment, I'm not sure I'd try to contribute again...nor donate, for that matter.

I wish you all the best, and as your work brings you in touch with the public, I encourage you to be "nice" to anyone who walks into your life....Be big...we should never: "end of me being nice."

Life is too short and people need your support, even within a volunteer environment like this.

"Peace and Love, as Ringo would say. JerseyRingo (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I changed some information for the release date of the debut KISS album. If you read Behind The Mask (the authorized biography), it clearly states the record was actually released on the 8th of February, NOT the 18th. You can keep out my addition about the discrepancy behind the release, but I implore you to keep the changes about the 8th being the release date. CJEntertainment101 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs like the one you cited fail WP:USERG, especially when there is no author named. A brief look around Google shows many high quality sources supporting the release date of February 18, 1974, for the first Kiss album. You would need a very, very strong source to change the date on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's mission is to summarize the literature about a topic.

Picking apart the blog's own sourcing shown in scans of pages and clippings, I can confirm one of them saying that the album is scheduled for February 8. That's from Record World published on Feb 9—see page 19.[7] It does NOT say that the album was actually released on Feb 8. Albums have been known to fail their expected release dates.

Another source the blog uses is the 1994 book Kisstory written by Jeff Kits. It's a very large, photograph-heavy limited edition fan book but it has a few factual errors, according to Brett Weiss writing in Encyclopedia of KISS on page 119. That makes it less authoritative.

So if you were to make an acceptable argument on Wikipedia to change the date, you would want to look through higher quality sources. You might cite the book Going Platinum: KISS, Donna Summer, and How Neil Bogart Built Casablanca Records which says Feb 8 on page 79, and you might cite the book And Party Every Day: The Inside Story of Casablanca Records which says Feb 8 on page 51. I expect that the most success you might have starting a new discussion at Talk:Kiss (Kiss album) would be to introduce a lack of certainty that Feb 18 is the correct date. Folks here might decide that both dates should be listed, with attribution for each date. But it should not be introduced as a controversy, because none of the writers have described it that way except the blogger. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could I trouble you to explain this reversion in more detail? My impression was that it's SOP for artist pages that don't have a qualifier themselves (like "(musician)" or "(group)") to include hatnote links to self-titled works that do have one (like "(album)"), so I've been adding those when I come across one that doesn't already have it, which is rare. Are there exceptions I should be aware of? Cheers!

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, simply did not want to unwittingly repeat a mistake. :)

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with my edit to The Monkees. Please do not allow "your own point of view, or your own personal analysis" to affect how you view edits. My rewrite is more descriptive and more accurate. It changes nothing about the information, point of view or analysis of the article. I'm sure the message you sent is just a copy/paste whenever you undo an edit you don't like, but try not to let your personal opinions cloud your editing.128.151.71.8 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is a whitewash. You are hiding the fact that some Monkees were missing from that particular project. The phrase "varying configurations" does not convey enough information. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Binksternet--do you have a magical place you can pull some sources out of, for this record? It's really good! ;) Drmies (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for something after my work shift today. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope you had a good day! Drmies (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I can't find anything except retail sales websites. This sucks... It's much worse than usual. Nobody has reviewed it except for some unnamed retailer staff in a short blurb. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was afraid of that. I'm sure you've noticed this too: music from the 70s and the 80s seems to have fallen in this pre-internet hole, with articles never digitized or behind paywalls. And I guess Talk Talk's time is just over. Hey, thanks for trying; I appreciate it. PS you're in the recording business? Drmies (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live sound. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome can you get me tickets for... ? ;) Your business has changed a lot since I was young, hardware-wise certainly. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I started on analog consoles which relied on outboard gear. There were never enough compressors on the gig, and never enough parametric equalizers. You had a limited number of these critically important functions, and you would have to decide where they would be patched into the system. The losers in that decision would not sound as good. Your cable loom between the mixer and the outboard gear probably had intermittent problems with worn-out shielding or frayed conductors. Any piece of gear could have a cold solder joint requiring you to punch the item with your fist to get the electrons flowing again. The grounding scheme of each rackmount item was suspect, and you spent an hour every day tracking down buzzes and hums.

When digital mixers started becoming popular for live sound in 1997–2001, I was super happy. Now I had compressors and parametric filters on every input and output. Robotic assembly ended the poor soldering jobs. Grounding schemes improved after years of industry discussion about what was best. These days, a buzz or hum is rare. And I can walk up to someone else's console and load my show from a USB stick, saving an hour of setting up the mix. No more heavy copper snakes between the stage and the mix position; all you need is some CAT6 cable. Oh, and the loudspeakers sound waaaay better. Everything is better now. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Hi,

Thank you for clarifying your changes, but I do not agree with placing a nationality/national identity if this is disputed between countless sources. There are many claims for and against this, especially that Zamenhof's legacy in Russia is meagre and that Zamenhof was both a citizen of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Poland formed in 1917. Erasing his legacy in Poland would be most unwise. Furthermore, I think this needs to go to talk and a Wikipedia:Consensus should be reached. I have restored the original version where nationality is not addressed. Moreover, there was a discussion on L. L. Zamenhof page a while back. Any revert from now on would constitute edit warring. Merangs (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose to have your preferred version in place while you put handcuffs on me?

I looked at the Zamenhof talk page and saw no such consensus. Kwamikagami expressed repeatedly that Zamenhof identified as a Russian Jew. Jack Upland argued against over-emphasizing the Polish aspect. Feketekave argued against emphasizing any nationality at all. JorisvS said Zamenhof was natively Russian Jewish. Some people argued for listing Polish nationality but they didn't have enough policy backing or numbers to form a consensus. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that Z was 'Polish' later in life, by nationality if not by ethnicity, and in our articles on them we claim that his children were Polish (I think that may have been their native language). I don't know how much he identified as Polish, though he appears to have raised his children as Polish-speakers. (I don't know about Yiddish or Russian. They may have picked up Polish from their peers and used something else at home, I don't know. Z may have switched to Polish as his daily language after moving to Warsaw, and used that with his children, again I don't know.) He didn't think of himself as Polish when he created Eo, though, and Poland got its independence only months before his death.

Requiring a discussion for a contested edit is not "placing handcuffs" on you. WP is a collaborative enterprise, and for that we need to collaborate. There was a famous (and interminable) debate at around this time as to what was a Turk. Nationality is not a straightforward concept.

@Merangs: — kwami (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: - Firstly, you are creating an edit war by imposing changes onto an article that was seldom modified for years and that is not healthy. I really do understand the contribution and the motivation for seeking the detailed truth about this, but here the problem is much deeper and goes beyond Wikipedia. Secondly, was he a Litvak Jewish or Russian Jewish now because the narrative keeps changing per your comments. I am attempting to create a neutral consensus here and not aiming for a 'Polish' outcome at all, though this was the narrative for a century and was taught at schools. Merangs (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is that it's not healthy to continue hosting a slanted viewpoint that has been in place for years. A good example is the recent series of corrections made by one motivated editor to articles about Germany in World War II to counteract the influence of sources which promote the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. That work is stellar.[8]

Z was ethnically Litvak Jewish. Z was proud of his Jewish heritage, but he did not spend any time worrying about his ethnicity. He considered himself Russian Jewish because his family was in close association with the Russian government who was running things in the area. He spoke Yiddish and Russian natively, and learned Polish later. This is formative stuff. Beyond that, his thinking was transnational and international. He did not promote Russian interests or Polish interests or even Jewish interests. His family was focused on integrating with non-Jewish society. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z tried to create a unified Yiddish as well as Eo, so he was certainly concerned with the Jewish community. He spoke Russian natively (well, probably Belarusian, which is still considered a dialect of Russian where it's spoken inside Russia) and was a promoter of Russian literature. But yes, he also appears to have picked up Polish at a young age, and pre-Eo orthography shows a Polish influence.

The problem with nationality is defining it. If you mean ethnicity, then no, he was not Polish. If you mean citizenship, he was only Polish in the last months of his life. If you mean region, well, it all starts getting rather amorphous. — kwami (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment on "he did not promote Russian interests or Polish interests or even Jewish interests", and as such "generating" a nationality or national identity in the Esperanto article is not necessary if this topic is so sensitive and debated. In a way, I do not think that us, a handful of Wikipedia users, even should approach this topic with contradicting bibliography and force an outcome as it will just create more hostility. Merangs (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that he was a Jew, only whether he was a rusa or pola Jew. But he wasn't a ruso or a polo, and citizenship can be robustly cited. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the game, but Z's bio doesn't even say the word "Jewish" in the lead section. I can see there was an RfC about it in 2021, but dang. It's awful to hide that fact. What a crime. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking out 'ophthalmologist' and 'Warsaw'. His notability is Esperanto, so that should be the first thing mentioned. We might say he was 'a Russian-Polish Jew', but that can be discussed later. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been removing bold from some music articles quoting MOS:boldface, I looked at it and don't really see how it pertains to line-ups sections of some articles. Just wondering what part you've been interpreting as the guideline for that. Mewhen123 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at MOS:NOBOLD which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text" and "Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms." The bolding in band lineups was being used as form of emphasis to introduce new band members. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Tupac's page it was removed that he is a symbol of activism and fight against inequality. I have various professional sources that demonstrate his work as an activist (in fact he was also a very influential activist), can I send them to you to edit the page? Tupac in addition to being a rapper, was also a very important activist Pier1999 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is he consistently described as an activist in books and the media? Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example when a star was dedicated to him in Hollywood, he was described as an activist and a revolutionary, as well as being a culturally influential rapper. I also contacted various academic scholars from various countries around the world, who have done various studies on Tupac. I can pass you all the sources, Tupac did a lot for the black community in the 90's. Pier1999 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

obviously however, various books have been written about him which also talk about his work as an activist and there are many media articles that describing him as an activist Pier1999 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I send you the sources? I could improve Tupac's Wikipedia page. It is important that it is written that he is a symbol of struggle and activism against inequalities, because his life was also based on activism. I saw you removed Tupac from the activist category, but that's a mistake. Pier1999 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to show me sources, but those sources won't erase the great mass of sources that call him a rapper. A rapper who puts out music about social injustice is not necessarily an activist. Tupac spent very little time building up the community, examining political policies or organizing social movements. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://thehilltoponline.com/2018/03/28/the-black-kennedys-how-the-shakur-family-bridged-rap-and-politics/?fbclid=IwAR3iJD_SQvDyr1tr4UPseU4y2t9gpy83QYPvv2rtXpbkeP6I6gg0uzyzgGc "With his 25 years on Earth, Pac proved that rappers are the minority’s true politicians as he did more for the live of blacks than any president before or after his existence. Not only did he facilitate a gang truce during the 1992 Watts Riots while creating a code of conduct for gang relations which is still followed to this day, Pac also contributed to numerous community activism movements." This Is Justin Cohen for Hilltop (Washington’s Howard University newspaper) Pier1999 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true, Tupac was very involved in activism. Pier1999 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have other articles always written by academic scholars that demonstrate Tupac's great commitment as an activist however. I suggest you find out more Pier1999 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2002/01/27/in-search-of-hip-hops-tupac-shakur/ I'll quote this article from the Chicago Tribune, it's an interview with Michael Eric Dyson, he is an academic scholar, one of the most important in African-American history. He also wrote a book about Tupac: "Holler If You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur." "Tupac, like King and Malcolm, was martyred, so he had that impact. He was also hugely influential when he lived–controversial, to be sure." In another part of the interview he says he was lecturing on the three icons: Martin Luther King, Tupac and Malcolm X. Like I said: Tupac was an influential activist Pier1999 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually give student newspapers less weight, and the writer at The Hilltop doesn't say explicitly that Tupac was an activist. That's also the problem with Dyson's book, Holler, which does not label Tupac an activist. The Chicago Tribune source doesn't even carry the words "activist" or "activism", so I don't know why you would list it.

More explicit sources are this one about Ben Westhoff’s book Original Gangstas, and Karin L. Stanford's piece in the Journal of Black Studies. The latter source acknowledges that the mainstream media do not classify Tupac as an activist even though some of his life's work was essentially political and social activism. Which means that Stanford's scholarly article about his activism actually supports the idea that the majority of literature about Tupac does not categorize him as an activist. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/148529.Tupac_Shakur_ "Acclaimed for his writings on Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as his passionate defense of black youth culture, Michael Eric Dyson has emerged as the leading African American intellectual of his generation. Now Dyson turns his attention to one of the most enigmatic figures of the past decade: the slain hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur.Five years after his murder, Tupac remains a widely celebrated, deeply loved, and profoundly controversial icon among black youth. Viewed by many as a "black James Dean," he has attained cult status partly due to the posthumous release of several albums, three movies, and a collection of poetry. But Tupac endures primarily because of the devotion of his loyal followers, who have immortalized him through tributes, letters, songs, and celebrations, many in cyberspace.Dyson helps us to understand why a twenty-five-year-old rapper, activist, poet, actor" Pier1999 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reality in Dyson's book, as the description also says, Tupac is described as an actor, rapper, poet and activist Pier1999 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More typical of the literature is this piece in The New Yorker which says that Tupac's parents were activists, but he was living the thug life of conspicuous luxury and excess. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/books/review/tupac-shakur-authorized-biography-staci-robinson.html "“Tupac Shakur” is a touching, empathetic portrait of a friend. Even familiar stories achieve new intimacy at closer range. And small moments help clarify longstanding narratives, coloring in the outlines of this well-known tale of the actor-rapper-activist who died at 25." This is an article from the NY Times and it talks about the book that was written by Staci Robinson about Tupac. The only biography authorizes Pier1999 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be on the talk page of the article instead of here? I haven't extensively read the WP:RS on Tupac, but I have read up on him here and there, probably from both mainstream and from academic and higher quality sources. I did see his mother speak in San Francisco many years ago at Modern Times Bookstore on Valencia. I've long thought of "activist" as an appropriate label for him--rather than gangster for sure--but probably more as a secondary label rather than primary labels like "rapper", "artist", "musician", and "poet". Pier1999 has provided some RS above to support that claim. Also, I think what the mainstream media (i.e. NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc.) labels are of lesser importance than what the academic sources say per WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I would, of course, make exceptions for reviewers who have substantial expertise about what they are writing about. Mainstream media treats so many subjects so superficially, they often get things wrong, or they exaggerate or leave out key facts. They love extremes, violence, and promote unreasonable stereotypes. Have either of you seen the film Hype!? Or are familiar with the Liebeck v. McDonald's case? This article (which I found in Google scholar) starts:

According to the book Black Demons: The Media’s Depiction of the African American Male Criminal Stereotype by Dennis Rome, “African American men are most typically seen as criminals, athletes, sports commentators, or entertainers....” (Rome 6).... Since the 1980s, the images that hip-hop and rap artists have created through the media have been solely based on gang violence, sex, drugs, and nonconformity... In the book Hip Hop Matters: Politics, Pop Culture, and the Struggle for the Soul[] of a Movement, S. Craig Watkins described gangsta rap as, “the unfiltered voice of a generation of angry and alienated young black men who inhabited America’s abandoned ghettos” (Watkins 45).

This sounds more along the lines of how I perceive Tupac. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this edit summary before but this user has one edit (at this time) do you recognize it? or do you know a way to track edit summaries? No big deal, but when I saw the summary, I thought you'd be the one to ask :P - FlightTime (open channel) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen that edit summary on my watchlist but on a different topic altogether. Most likely different people use the same edit summary though block evasion could also seem likely. I've tried the edit summary search found at the bottom of our contributions pages and left the username box blank but the bad news is there are no results unless a valid username is filled in. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy the Swan: Thanx for the comment, yeah when I saw the summary, I immediately recognized it, but the account only had one edit. Anyway I know Bink is great at research, hence my post here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary started showing up for lots of people a couple of days ago, including veteran editors. It doesn't indicate this new person is evading a block. Other factors must be examined. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same sort of decade-related edit from this edit from last June, but it doesn't look like block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no accusing anyone of evasion, its just the first thing that came to mind :P However thanx for your time :) - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know if it's the right place to write but there is this user @216.181.9.217 who constantly changes genres in infoboxes. They've been doing this at Anne-Marie for quite a long time now and me and other editors were reverting it to the previous versions but with no results as this person edits it back just hours later. Today I decided to write on their talk page with warning and to let them know to discuss any unsourced changes beforehand but they just completly ignored it and guess what, edited the article again! I saw that person got one warning in February, 2 more from you this month and one from me today. In your last warning you wrote they 'may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time they add unsourced material to Wikipedia'. So I just wanted to ask, can we do something about it now that they are vandalising Anne-Marie's page too? I could be still reverting the edits but I don't see the point in doing it anymore considering that person edits it back hours later. And for context, Anne-Marie is a pop singer (does a bit of dance-pop and had some songs influenced by garage, pop-country, R&B etc.) and that person adds grime and R&B as main genres all the time (and while I can admit some of her early music was influenced by R&B, she never made any grime music). I'd be really grateful if you could have a look at this situation :) Goldlinexy (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a report to WP:AIV. Let's see what happens with that. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. From what I've seen that person got banned for a month but unfortunately just 3 hours after your revision another anonymous edit was made so possibly the same person under different IP address. May I ask you, since I'm pretty bad about all the reporting to administrators etc., if it continues can I report it to WP:AIV just like you did? Goldlinexy (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to WP:RPP and asked for page protection. Sometimes the admins who put pages into protection also block any new IPs who are from the same geographic area and are edit-warring in the same manner. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, thank you. Goldlinexy (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know the latest edit on the SPI above two days ago has already been added in the immediate section above with CU already on. But I think you are already aware this user still edits after the latest edit of the SPI, i.e. after 24 March 2024. Hopefully someone on the CheckUser team can act on it before Iggy Azalea etc. gets edited again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fact was removed about Hank never playing Your Cheatin' Heart live with the Drifting Cowboys because I had no reference. It was told to me by Don Helms, the steel player on the session. That should be good enough. If you don't believe it you will have to dig up his grave and ask him. You don't need to act like you know it all. Steelplayer2022 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal knowledge is not enough. Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable, published sources, not on the experiences of individual editors. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DrKC MD. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Stop selectively removing content I add. It is petty harassment, and I have much better things to do with my time than to deal with your personality issues. DrKC MD (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first contact with you was on March 9 at the Punk subculture and List of political punk songs pages where you added a bunch of unreferenced analysis of your own,[9][10] violating WP:No original research. I don't think my warning to you on your talk page was hostile or "harassment", but it certainly was firm in saying stop doing what you've been doing.[11] From that warning, you reacted strongly to protect your indefensible violations, and you have doubled down by restoring text I removed. I don't see a good end to that path. You might wish to rethink your stance. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DrKC MD, you don't have to issue two warnings in a row to my talk page. Once a conversation is initiated, you can respond at that thread. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm TheTechie. I noticed that you used a {{uw-vandalism4}} for an editor who has been block evading. Please note that it is likely better to not add that they are block evading in the description, as it may make the LTA'er more likely to keep abusing. That is all. If you reply, please ping me, my username is TheTechie. Thanks, thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechie, that note was for others to see, not the sockmaster who is well aware of her banned status on Wikipedia. I doubt she will change her style based on whether there is action at any of her sockpuppet talk pages. My intent was to show interested admins that she had already used a similar username for a sockpuppet, to prove that my 3RR+ reverts at Cowboy Carter were legitimate based on WP:BANREVERT. I was protecting myself from getting blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet I see, understood. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Binksternet, you're pretty adept at identifying whose socks new accounts are. Does Kepin' it FUNKY look like somebody to you? MariaJaydHicky perhaps? Registered today and already saying "stick to the source" a la WP:STICKTOSOURCE and fiddling with genres on Beyoncé's new album.... Ss112 10:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with this claim but disagree with what the user has put on their user page about password which looks similar to another previous user page version:[12][13]. The new user page was created after this opening edit for the section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sockpuppet. I'll file a report if it hasn't been done already. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While i was fixing up the article called This Is It (concert residency) from a few hours ago, but you reverted that article from these 2 edits from IP address.

Can you please double check on that article and revert to the way it should be? If not, please explain why you reverted that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5811:E30A:0:AD28:A16C:8D60:EEAF (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution didn't make any sense, and you didn't cite a source. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another, there's going to be a hatnote. The song I heard on my favorite online radio station may not have been enough of a hit to be notable. Nevertheless, it is mentioned in several articles and I added it to the previous redirect target, but where it is that I added it may be incorrect. You make it sound like the other song is notable, but it doesn't have an article. What do you think?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which "Tonight We Love" can be considered more notable but you changed the redirect target to Party 'Til You're Broke.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm with you now. You're referring to this change from four years ago. My reasoning at that time was the chart success of the Rufus version. I don't know how much success the 1941 Freddy Martin version enjoyed. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

I'm not sure if this was intentional, but these edits of yours completely gutted the middle part of story of the 47 Ronin. including many referenced sections. Please fix up the article. Jpatokal (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two whole sections because they were tagged for cleanup. I looked at the cited sources and failed to see support for the text. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If you claim to have looked at the source (which is available online in full) and found discrepancies, why did you not rewrite the section to match the source instead? Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Binksternet, I have once again, reverted your changes on the Black Sabbath song, Solitude's article, but this time, not without a number of improvements that clearly made the album in-line with the criteria's for noteworthy songs, such as by specifying the song was a B-side to the single, Children of the Grave, has received a multitude of covers and critical acclaim, and several new sources were added. At this point, it seems the song's addition is fully justified, but if you still have any doubts, just take it down again and we'll end it there. Diskyboy (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]