User talk:Binksternet/Archive39

Andrewbf?
Yet again, not sure but is this Andrewbf? Making uncited changes at House Music - IP Location Mexico - 187.194.63.128

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC))


 * You are never wrong about this guy. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance again please...
Hi Binksternet. I could use a 2nd opinion with this editor. They claim to be in Electric Wizard and keep replacing sourced info with unsourced info, like this. I took the time to explain their mistake on their talk page but would appreciate your input here please. Thanks.  Rob van  vee  11:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like an easy solution is to remove the disputed bits, as they are not critical to the story. Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks as always.  Rob van  vee  15:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Me again. Is Wikia considered a reliable source? I'm referring to this edit specifically. Cheers Binksternet.  Rob van  vee  14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. My question has been answered! Cheers.  Rob van  vee  06:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Nationalist lobby"
Not true. Did you look at the sources? Two of them are "liberal/progressive" sources, according to their WP articles, not Japanese "nationalist" sources. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Asahi Shimbun, which is used as a source, is one of Japan's most liberal newspapers. It has been attacked by Japanese right-wingers for its reporting on WWII comfort women. Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself who first referred to Vietnamese prostitutes-for-military as "comfort women"? Who is the actor here? It's nationalist Japanese who are trying every trick to diffuse Japan's guilt for instituting the massive WWII comfort women program. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear.. Andrewbf again?
Sorry, Binksternet, but IP 201.175.132.27 is making un-cited changes to pages such as Acid House and Disco. IP location Mexico...

(Etheldavis (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC))


 * I think here's another one Special:Contributions/201.141.153.43. 123.136.111.47 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

IP edit follow-up
Thanks for looking at recent edits by and other preceding edits. I was about to ask you to take a look when I noticed you had already started. I had started reverting, but honestly I was having trouble deciding whether I was looking at good-faith edits or not, so I'm glad to have someone checking who knows the articles' history better than I do! – Wdchk (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I have to stop for a bit but I'll start up again. There are a few IPs doing the same stuff, but from very different parts of the US. I'm trying to restore to a point before any of the disruption. It's going to take some work. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another band member timeline discussion
Hey there. You have contributed to a discussion like this before, and I would like you to come join the current one happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians that may finally result in a standard for various items related to band member listings and timelines. Thanks in advance for any contributions you may have! — DLManiac (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift: 'Country pop' genre
Taylor Swift's earlier music clearly fits within the 'country pop' genre and was played on both country and pop stations. I would also argue that Swift's earlier music is more pop than the music of Shania Twain, which has a stronger country sound, and yet 'country pop' is listed as a genre for Shania Twain on Wikipedia. Let's be consistent here: She is even listed on the Wikipedia page for "Country Pop" at the beginning of the 2010s paragraph under the heading for "2000s and 2010s."

"In the 2010s, Taylor Swift and Lady Antebellum have achieved success recently, including winning numerous Grammy Awards. Taylor Swift's 2010-release album Speak Now and 2012's Red had become top charters in multiple charts, including the Top Country Albums and Billboard 200; both of those album sold 1 million copies in their debut week sales, opening 1.0 million for Speak Now and 1.2 million for Red. On Red, Swift also incorporated some elements of dance sounds such as dubstep into her music and worked with pop writers/producers Max Martin and Shellback on several tracks, including the hits "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", "I Knew You Were Trouble", and "22", which were more favored by pop radio over country radio; by the time of her subsequent album 1989, Swift had abandoned all attachment to country music and aimed her music exclusively at the pop market.[4]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_pop

Nstott (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is all true and not your personal opinion, then a reliable source to back up your claim should be easy to produce, if you cannot produce a source for your change it will not be allowed.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a music genre. Does that really require a citation? If so, why were there no citations for the other two genres listed? And I didn't merely add text but a link that acted as a citation in and of itself. I looked at the page for the music genre link added before making the edit, which lists Taylor Swift. Isn't Wikipedia a good enough rederence for itself?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_pop

Here are other references:

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=131070169&m=1

http://www.amazon.com/Taylor-Swift-Country-Maker-Culture/dp/1467702390

Nstott (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
 * Your other two sources are reliable, though: An NPR article, and a book about Swift. They support a genre of country pop. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on non-charting singles
You have reverted my edits on The Chainsmokers and Martin Garrix discography, removing all non-charting singles, simply saying there's "no need". I have asked questions on their each of their talk pages, both of which have yet to be answered, so I figured I would approach this with you directly.

Firstly, on the Martin Garrix singles. "ITSA", "Keygen", "Registration Code", "BFAM", "Torrent", "Error 404", "Just Some Loops", and the newly released "Poison" are all confirmed singles by Garrix. I hardly see how their lack of chart entries negates their statuses as singles. I mean, look at Owl City discography and the singles section. Confirmed singles from him include "Beautiful Times", "Verge", and "Deer In the Headlights"; none of those singles entered any charts.

Also on The Chainsmokers' singles, you reverted my edit of adding "New York City" as a single, again for lack of chart entries. If the sole criteria for a single release is simply if it charts somewhere, then The Chainsmokers have only released two singles in their career. If you're going to blindly remove non-charting singles, "New York City" definitely should not have been the only song you removed.

Forgive me if I have a rude tone, but these are some issues I've been having, and I'm not getting any answers. So I am asking you directly, what is the full criteria for a single release? Please answer me when you can.--Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think a table of worldwide chart results is the right way to present the singles that have not charted. Entries like that take up space unnecessarily. It would be better to list them plainly, not in a table. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Available?
Hi Binksternet, I wonder if you still have DuPont on your watchlist, I seem to remember that you did. There is an SPA relentlessly going at it, and it seems there is no one around to watch over the article (besides, by default, me). Perhaps you could advise?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not on my list, but I'll look at it later. Nice to hear from you! Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Binksternet!   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I made too many reverts today and have to now revert the mention of controversy in the Lede, violating WP:LEDE. So, I'll do that, but I've been wondering about asking for the page to be locked.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Digital amnesia
You took the action of changing this article to a redirect. The term is used by Kaspersky Labs for what has been called the Google effect. I would appreciate any appropriate action being taken in the form of a hatnote or disambiguation page, but I'll leave that up to you.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you don't respond, I'll take that to mean I can take the action on my own.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the old version and the deletion discussion, a hatnote isn't really justified but a disambiguation page may work. Numerous sources, most apparently the same story in different papers, referred to the Kaspersky study. I would use a hatnote if the other term were significant enough, but for now this looks like the best idea.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible Andrewbf return?
An involved Mexican IP 201.141.153.43 as block evasion by Andrewbf return. He involved focus on Katy Perry. 123.136.111.47 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of Garage rock article
I was wondering how everything looks so far with the Garage rock article review. Do you feel that I have now addressed all of the necessary things in order for the article to now achieve GA? Let me know if there is anything else you need. Also, I am curious to see what the approximate time frame looks like for the remaining phases of the review. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I ask you to please not loose patience with us at Garage rock article. I realize that Ghmyrtle and I have had had to work out several issues.  If I had been able to anticipate that situation, I would have started the nomination a week or two later.  I can assure you that we are fine now.   We have been working together for a long time, and though we have occasionally run into little bumps, there has never been a situation where we have not been able to work things out--we have a great deal of respect for each other--and I can say that the article is better for having had our two uniquely different styles and perspectives, as well as that of Sabrebd and others, such as TheGracefulSlick.  I ask you to please not loose sight of the value of what we have put into this article.  As for my own situation, let me say that I have put my heart and soul into this article, so if I seem a little skittish, it is only because I (like Ghmyrtle) want the article to be the best it can be.  My dream is for this to become a world-class article--so this magical genre can be presented in full breadth for the whole world to enjoy.  But, I have learned that a major expansion of this size is a time-consuming and arduous task, sometimes even heartbreaking--in ways I could not foresee.  I ask you to please understand and not give up on us.  We may not be perfect, but we are good bunch of editors and I think we have built a wonderful article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the article. I've been slowed in my Good Article review mostly by real life interferences, and only very little by the continuing development of the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. And, I hope everything goes well for you--I'm sure things will settle at some point.  By all means, take your time--no rush at all. I just thank you for taking the time to do the review--I know that article has a lot of text to comb through, so you've been really generous with your time.  Best wishes with everything! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to do the review. Happy Thanksgiving! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Looudness war page..
Hi Binksternet

I have > 1000 CDs which I have ripped to 13000 FLAC files. I have also analyzed all those files using flac analysis software.

Some of my albums were quite big sinners when it comes to "Loudness war" or clipping, and I did find some of those in the Loudness war page on wikipedia, but a number of the worst albums when it came to clipping was by Kanye West, includeing the worst of them all (with a margin), My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

Thus I added it, linking to results created with the MasVis software, which is the referenece software for measuring these problems as far as I have found out.

However, you removed my changes, with this comment "(Reverted 2 edits by Endian05 (talk): Rv... Self-published source. (TW)) (undo | thank)".

I do not understand the reason for this and reverted your revert. I hope we will not end up in some kind of revert-war... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endian05 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a hard rule called WP:No original research, which is exactly the kind of research you performed. If someone else in the media writes about your research then we can use it. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ed Lee All Over Again
The "manufactured mud" at the Ed Lee (politician) article has has started all over again.] Can you help?

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI Training
Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thanks for putting me into the program. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rats. Conga rats, that is. Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to take this quiz...I'm guessing that the ping didn't work. Hope you are enjoying the holiday.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The ping worked, but I was waiting for more than a brief moment of free time online, which is all I have had for the past few weeks. I expect my calendar to open up very soon. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good. This particular quiz won't take you but maybe three minutes and are survey questions with radio buttons. This one isn't scored and is partially to see who is on board. You can't mess up and no time demands. :)


 * Bink, I really need you to get through the quiz today - or like ASAP - at the latest. I'll be starting discussions of the quiz today and can't really have those discussions cross with your answers, as we need to know where you are at to start the proper training. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Epoch Times
hi, you may be interested to know that the usual editors on the Epoch Times page are trying to remove its associations with the Falun Gong again. Sinceouch2422 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much! I appreciate the gesture and the thought behind it. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution. The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Richhoncho and "Hate to Say I Told You So"
Hello Binksternet,

I often saw you removing unsourced recording dates and unsourced categories from music-related articles. I'm currently having a problem with Richhoncho, an user who adds unsourced categories and recording dates to articles while assuming bad faith at the same time. Can you please let him know that it doesn't work ? He's just trying to bully me, saying he would report me if I continue changing the definition of a song-related category (through "Template:Songyr", which was incorrectly defined) according to a similar category ("Template:Albumyr"). He also fails to understand he cannot add unsourced categories without bringing references. Anyway I think your input would solve the problem (you may answer Richhoncho on my talk page). Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I just realized he also restored another unsourced recording date, marking his edit as "minor", for the album the song first appeared on. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the problem. I have joined in keeping unreferenced information out of the article, per WP:V. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You will have noticed another editor has confirmed that the information is verified on the album article. I will also point out the words "album," "single," and "song" are not interchangeable. It might have helped if Synthwave wasn't prepared to add unverified information to prove a point as s/he has done. Cheers. Are we now all agreed on 1999 songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that Hobbes Goodyear found a proper reference for the 1999 recording year. Good work there... The year of recording does not make a song be categorized by that year. It's categorized by the year of release. Also, a single is a song. Singles and songs are not two completely different things. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. Please read Single (music) and Song, Not forgetting the song category which reads, "Songs written or first produced in" My bold. One is the art the other is the commerce. You should learn the difference before lecturing other editors. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SONG and per what Binksternet said, I disagree with you, Richhoncho. In fact songs are virtually never categorized by year of recording (in this case a specific category with an explicit name such as "Category:Songs first recorded in 1999" should be created) but are always categorized by year of first release and by year of release as a single. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that it is explicitly said : "Year of publication or release is normally a defining characteristic for every song." Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is Hobbes Goodyear, Richhoncho requested my input. I have seen bits and pieces of this edit war on other pages. My two cents:
 * Manually-constructed categories waste more time and effort than they are worth. Personal opinion, of course, but it's why I tend to avoid the topic entirely.
 * Edits should only be flagged as "minor" if small and such that one can in good faith assume that no one would object--typos, broken template formatting, etc. Marking contentious edits as "minor" tends to backfire on the editor doing so, as it suggests to others that the editor is acting in bad faith.
 * Regarding the removal of recording dates, I think that this section of the WP:POINTY guideline applies...
 * If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
 * do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.
 * do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.
 * The removal of recording dates seems to have violated the second POINTY point--in the case I added back, was there actual doubt that the song released in spring of 2000 was recorded in 1999? If so, why not have a look at the Allmusic ref already present in the article before summarily deleting the info? That being said, the best resonse is to follow the first point and provide sourcing for at least one example--it demonstrates a good-faith effort to address the other side's concerns, illustrates your own point, and offers the potential to stop all of the edit/revert loops.
 * As the song was written in 1999 but first came out in 2000, it would seem to qualify for both the 1999 and 2000 categories, according to the written definitions. But, if I were a reader who saw it amongst "1999 songs", I would mistakenly assume that it was first released in 1999. How to rectify? Well, I suppose the correct way is to come up with one or more improved definitions, start an RFC somewhere, gain consensus, and change the definitions (or not). But just the idea exhausts me--I refer you to my first bullet point. My main WP interest is in high-quality popular music, so it frustrates me to see other editors who share this interest frittering away their energy like this. Won't you join me in my categorical apathy? :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hobbes Goodyear and Synthwave.94. The Year of song category says in the text "songs written or first produced in XXXX" (my bold). That means a song should only be in one category year, the year written, or "first produced". It should not be added a second time because it was released as a single, re-recorded or any other event. Adding any date after the first would be silly and lead to songs being listed for each and every year after it was written. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Read again WP:SONG. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which reads, "a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released, and..." Which in the matter of this song means 1999. What is your problem? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No the song was first released/published in 2000 and not in 1999. As I said before songs are virtually never categorized by year of recording. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You say, "songs are virtually never categorized by year of recording." Actually they are NEVER categorized as such. They are categorized by year of creation. As per all the information you have already shown me and now argue against. Step back and think. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they are categorized by "year of publication or release", a "defining characteristic for every song". It doesn't say the year of recording should be taken into account. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the instance we are discussing, 1999 is the earliest year we know the song was written. It is not and has never been a category by year of recording. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The song may have been written in 1999 but it was still first released/published in 2000, thus Category:2000 songs is appropriate while Category:1999 songs is misleading. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only because you can't read "Songs written in XXXX." and refuse to comprehend what the project said (even though you brought it to our attention, so I will repeat for a third time, "using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written,... " --Richhoncho (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "...as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released", which makes Category:2000 songs correct. The example provided under the list also says : "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" by The Temptations was released in 1971, so it is in Category:The Temptations songs, Category:1971 songs and Category:1971 singles". Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The year the song was brought to the public is the only year we are concerned about in most cases. By far the majority of cases. Only in rare circumstances will a song be significant because it was written or recorded but not published. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is covered by Year of single. May I remind you that they are song articles. Not single articles, not album articles, or, indeed, recording articles. Please check wp:songs talk. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If you were correct then the Category:songs by year would not belong in Category:works by year. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Herb Caen
What do you think about GA? Would make a great DYK too: "... that before he died Herb Caen said, "If I do go to heaven, I'm going to do what every San Franciscan does who goes to heaven. He looks around and says, 'It ain't bad, but it ain't San Francisco' "? (I'd rather say "just before he died", but that puts it over the limit.) EEng (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. I guess "... that Herb Caen, near death, said" would fit, but it sounds really morbid.


 * I think the article is far from GA right now. It will take a lot of work to get it up to that standard. One of the biggest problems is that most of the book biographies are by Caen himself. Only Barnaby Conrad has stepped forward to write a third-party biography, and we don't represent his book at all in the article. If the thing is going to be brought up to GA level then Conrad will have to be the main voice. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-remembering the GA criteria. Take another look at Good_article_criteria and maybe What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not -- what criterion isn't satisfied? EEng (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * EEng (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rules, human judgment, and double standards
Editing is not just about enforcing technical policy violations. (If it were, editors could be replaced by computers running on algorithms.) Editing requires human judgment. You're showing a lack of judgment by spending all day hounding and threatening to ban noobs who--acting in good faith--commit trivial, technical policy violations. (For example, adding an (accurate) genre to the page for a song without providing a reliable source.)

Your persnicketiness is (ironically) contrary to WP rules, per WP:IAR. It is also hypocritical. There are many occasions where you've added, approved of, or acquiesced to edits that technically violate some policy. Steeletrap (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Without naming specifics you are trolling. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not ask for whom the 'trap trolls, it trolls for thee? Anmccaff (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you
...vandalize other articles, you will be blocked. I'm not joking. You removed primary sources without any good reason. Terms appear first in music magazines like SPIN, Reflex and other print media. And they are absolutely reliable. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop removing sources. Read the WP guidelines. Magazines, journals etc. are absolutely reputable. Furthermore, you don't have to decide what's "poor". This is your POV. Nothing else. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Last warning. If you want to start a war, go on. You will have a tough time. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read the sentence? It's not about the start of a genre. It's about a genre term whose use started in the '80s. The sources prove that fact. Nothing more. So stop your edits! --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey
Hi, the recent picture I uploaded of Del Rey is NOT copyrighted. It is a snapshot of a video I uploaded of Del Rey performing when I saw her in Mansfield, Massachusetts, at the XFinity Center. There is no copyright on it, as I VIDEO TAPED AND GOT THAT PICTURE. Also, the picture is snapshotted from her performance of Brooklyn Baby. I put it back up, since I'm allowed to upload images without copyright. Maybe you should read up on your facts and check my YouTube video before you attack me. Thanks. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I got some good news, and some bad news. The bad news is that stuff -is- copyrighted.


 * The good news is you are the right-holder. But Wiki, not being plain stupid, would like you to tell them that before you just plunk it up there, and they'd prolly kinda like some specifics, rather than "own work," which could just mean "I cropped it out of a commercial photo."


 * The other bad news is that Wiki wants you to give up your exclusive rights. You have to license the picture to Wiki, and, generally, every other damfool through them, for all practical purposes.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The photo's EXIF data says that it was taken in New York, not Massachusetts. That's the part that bothered me, knowing the tour dates. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason it says New York, is because I snapshotted the picture from the video I took in Massachusetts. So on my phone, it's registered under New York (I drove to that concert!!). And no, it's not copyrighted if it's MY picture! Omg. Have you ever heard of taking a snapshot of your own video while in a different location (New York, where I live), cropping the snapshot, and then refining it to be more HD in an app? ZachDelRey (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bink, this relates to the criticism I made above: persnicketyness and a dogmatic (common-sense free) application of rules. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it relates to the protection of the wiki from copyright violations. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. The video is mine, therefore the screenshot is too, and I put no copyright on it. This is getting out of hand. I've already been approved of this photo and there is nothing wrong with it. I didn't take photos from the concert - only videos. But that's my video and I can feel free to screenshot a photo of my own video and use it, as there is no copyright. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maafa21
I received a notice from Binksternet regarding two entries I made to the talk page regarding the article on the film Maafa21. I was told that it seems that I am engaging in edit-warring because I have made reversions. I wrote an entry addressing the fundamental fairness and objectivity of the article. This entry was removed. Then I wrote I tried again, trying to center my objections even more on the substance of the article, This was thus not simply a bull-headed repetition (reversion?) of the first version, but an improvement. This was also removed. As far as I can see, these are the only reversions I made. Then I received the notice telling me that if I went on like this, sanctions await me. I suppose that the argument is that academia rejects the thesis of the film, and the point of view that I expressed differs too much from the point of view of academia to deserve a place on the talk page. But let us suppose that "academia" is right and that the film is totally wrong, that it is dishonest history, as one of the critics says. The article remains flawed, because it addresses only accidental aspects of the film's thesis. It is a mere anti-abortion film. The film concerns the broad context of the phenomenon of Eugenics and its impact on Afro-Americans, and is not simply an anti-abortion film. The critics tell us that Margaret Sanger's movement was not racist; but here one has to acknowledge the semantic subtleties. Her movement was not racist (anti-Black) in the sense of having that as its sole obsession. It was a movement which despised "imbeciles": the "culturally inferior" whose supposed cultural inferiority was ascribed to genetics (thus removing the need for any serious reflection on the history of capitalism, colonialism, slavery, "social darwinism," etc. This is not racism in the vulgar sense of the word, but is a refined and more dangerous type of racism which has not ceased to damage our culture.Cklc (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rock band/Pop rock band
So I've noticed on multiple bands' wiki pages recently that there has been some going back and fourth between them being stated as a "rock" band or a "pop rock" band (e.i. OneRepublic, Maroon 5, possibly The Fray.) This has nothing to do with the genre section but in the general descriptions. Both of the former two mentioned had been labeled as "American "pop rock bands", but now both of them are experiencing edits labeling them "American rock bands". Should I edit these back to "pop rock bands" or is this trend in the description that big of an issue that would sort itself out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Binksternet as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with BLP
Hiya!! I keep forgetting how to find the tags for articles like this, could you point me in right direction or apply tag? I can't find a reliable secondary source in the entire page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I put a notability tag on the page. If nothing is done to it for a while, I will nominate it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!


Happy New Year! Binksternet, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Levdr1 lp /  talk  04:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

List of deaths in rock and roll
Still awaiting your contributions on the article talk page... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)