User talk:Binksternet/Archive55

Plot size
Genuine apologies. I did not intend to do anything incorrect. I just happened to notice the plot literally covers the first five minutes of the film and none of the rest of the story (have a younger sister, seen the film a few times), and in that five minutes worth of plot given, there was a lot of incorrect information to boot. I only wished to put the correct plot story in. I tried to keep it as concise and actually left out several important plot points. I will be more careful in future, though. EEBuchanan (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother
I’ve asked for ANI advice to see if others have some ideas that may help. Meanwhile could you have a look at the recent pointy edits in Patrisse Cullors early life section? Feels like an end run to me. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disco (Kylie Minogue album)
I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion at the following redirection discussion Talk:Kylie_Minogue ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Victoria was born in 1989
Victoria was born in 1989. Sources are her own social media account, high school year book, MyLife etc.

https://twitter.com/VictoriaMonet/status/12803152707?s=20

https://twitter.com/VictoriaMonet/status/13641882103?s=20

https://old-friends.co/class.php?s=54563&c=2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.68.80 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

sholomo carlebach
Hi there ! I've created a talk page topic for discussion on sexual allegations in lead. Please feel free to make a case. kind regards Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD is my case. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Swastika
Your opinion on Swastika is not the issue. The German Hakenkreuz is not the Swastika despite mis-translations. White privilege distortions do not alter the original. The Hakenkreuz is a Christian symbol, there is no evidence of Hitler ever using the term "Swastika." If there is present that. This kind of reversion has made Wikipedia into a platform for White supremacist views which do not take into account alternative readings. Puck42 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In your edit to the Swastika article, you said that Nazis used the symbol to represent Christian Socialism. But Nazis were never socialist, not even a little bit. And they only paid lip service to Christianity. So the Nazis could not be using the hakenkreuz or swastika for the purpose you stated.
 * You used an article in Quartz as your source. The article does not say that the Nazis were Socialist or Christian. The author talks about T.K. Nakagaki, a Buddhist monk who wants to clean up the bad reputation of the swastika and reclaim it for good purposes. Nakagaki writes in his book that Hitler chose to use the symbol with his new interpretation and for his own political purpose. So whatever history was associated with the hakenkreuz or swastika was trampled to make the Nazi symbol. Which means it doesn't really matter what symbol he started with. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Happys - band/movie
The Happys was formed prior to your movie sir. This is not going away I promise only getting started. TheHappys123 (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Not my movie.
 * It's a fine thing to promote a band, but on Wikipedia, bands must be famous enough to satisfy the requirements at WP:NBAND.
 * You've got this piece in the Marin IJ, a local paper, this piece in the Bohemian, another small paper. You need something larger writing about the band. Or a charting release.
 * And if the band had its own page on Wikipedia, it would be The Happys (band), not The Happys which is an article about a film. Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me out do you have an email, I’d like help with this the band has a lot of noteriety, I apologize about the mix up, I think you understand I misunderstood who you were at first, and apologize. The manager of the Happys is a big time manager of Tahoe artists who has managed blink 182, sublime, skankin pickle, three non blondes, monophonics, can we settle on the Happys band on Wikipedia sir. Cheers!! Thank you again excuse the mixup. I read through the criteria a bunch of times and have come to the conclusion that the over grains of sand and awards won by the band, add up to fulfillment’s required of a page, of you dig up articles. Please message me at best convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHappys123 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Genres of ...Baby One More Time ( and Backstreet boys
Hi Binksternet, You have reverted my edit on Britney Spears' debut album, referring it as "disruptive editing". However some sites mention the album of her genre as Trip hop and not teen pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorz12 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Back in the High Life
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Binksternet: Thank you so much for your work on this and the two DYKs below. Work like this makes Wikipedia an absolute joy to read.  —  AjaxSmack  00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What a heart-warming compliment! Thanks backatcha. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats buddy. Was happy to see this today isento (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You, too! Your contributions helped build the thing up. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Unique Recording Studios
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for John Robinson (drummer)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Asdidis ?
Hello ,I remember that you were quite successful in discovering multiple harmful IPs. And that there was a problematic user named Asdidis who did multiple vandalism from different IP adresses, so I am asking can this IP be a typical behaviour from that user? So as you can see there were several changes on Drazen Petrovic article [] where IP: 93.142.66.189 not only changed article but also left discriminating comments against several users including myself on my talk page and also on Novak Djokovic talk page on current RFC, in the meantime he was blocked and I changed the article back to it's original state, minute after the article was reveresed from the other similar IP address :93.136.98.167 .Can you please check on it when you have some extra time. Thank you.-Theonewithreason (talk) 16:43, 07 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will look. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Edd Kalehoff edits
Hi Binksternet,

I've been collecting television music for over 20 years and noticed your edits to Edd's page are not exactly right. I've talked with parties involved first hand pertaining to the Price is Right rights fiasco. Here's exactly what happened, feel free to make your edit correct according to this if you like, even though I understand some guy on Wikipedia without an account telling you "I know stuff because I talked to them!" isn't really a great source.

Edd composes the Price is Right main theme and two other reels of music (the Moog reel and Reel 1) in 1972 as he's still signed to Score Productions. Robert Israel, head of Score Productions decides to change the composer credit on BMI to his wife's name Sheila Cole. While the show airs with only Edds name as the composer, BMI is different making it so only Fremantle (then Mark Goodson Productions) and Sheila Cole get money from the main theme. At this point Edd realizes the problems and goes directly to Mark Goodson who realizes the problems, while they can't change the main composer credit they do give him credit for all other cues used besides the main theme. After that, Edd left Score and went on to go solo composing other themes. "Price" is not the only theme that had been stolen, while it is the most widely known Israel also stole the credits for Card Sharks, Wimbledon, and others, and as well stole from other composers, not just Edd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CE7F:4000:90A0:1BED:A69A:14DD (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Good to know, thanks for the info. Now I can look around for published stuff that supports what you are saying. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you Message me on my Talk page?
Hi there I don't even know you Why did you Message me on my Talk page? i have already apologize to you okay.

Thanks JukeboxMan1990 (talk) 3:52 10 August 2020 (UTC)

UK telegraph FA
It's been some time since you left comments at Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1. Thanks for doing that, but would you now please revisit this, look at my responses, and either declare your support for promotion to FA or say why my replies are inadequate. Your support is needed to get this promoted. SpinningSpark 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Hi. I'm not quite sure why you have accused me of disruptive editing. Right above the Track Listing on both pages in question (Genesis (Busta Rhymes album) and Juve the Great), I have clearly cited the album's liner notes, so I don't know why you are claiming that I am adding unsourced content. I noticed that you removed the Sample Credits sections from both pages. I got this information from the Album's Liner notes, which I have already sourced earlier in the article. Should I add this source again next to the Sample Credits section?

I assure you that I am only trying to add real information to the page, and I have no intention of causing any disruptions. If you could kindly explain to me what I am doing wrong, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Stellar420 (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * At the Genesis album page, you said that "'As I Come Back' contains replayed elements from 'Scenario (Remix)' by A Tribe Called Quest featuring Leaders of the New School." That does not appear at all in the liner notes. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Genesis – here's a link to images of the Album Booklet. For your convenience, here is the specific page in question – . It clearly says "contains replayed elements from "Scenario (Remix)". Sure, I added in the Artist, but the song is there, so saying that it "does not appear at all in the liner notes" doesn't help me understand what I'm doing wrong. If you could be more specific, that would be great. Not trying to be rude or anything, just trying to understand. Thanks again.Stellar420 (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right! I didn't see that tucked in there so small, and I was looking for Tribe Called Quest. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Undoing all that work those different people did
And your a giant nerd for undoing all that hard work those people did on those Wikipedia's pages it's bull crap so piss off Jjwalker130 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the love. Feel ya later. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. Heh-heh. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

V-pop
Hello - he's a busy little fellow isn't he ! (see As an unregistered user there's little I can do other than revert. Perhaps you can do more ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.67 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Malibu Mafia
Hello! Your submission of Malibu Mafia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice find
I just wanted to say nice find on that extra info about the connection between Association for Behavior Analysis International and the Judge Rotenberg Center. I thought my research was thorough, but I totaly missed that. . --68.45.46.177 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Rock on! Keep fighting the good fight. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hounding
I can't help but thinking that you're trying to get back at me for our disagreement at White privilege. You edited Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania for the first time just 7 minutes after replying to me at Talk:White privilege. I think you looked at my contribution history and then decided to confront me at an unrelated page, which is WP:HOUNDING. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My goal is to improve Wikipedia. I saw your assertions at Talk:White privilege which made me wonder whether your contrary attitude was making Wikipedia worse in other ways than that talk page. I saw you had recently created an article about a topic familar to me, and I checked to see whether it was covering the bases. I saw it was missing the important aspect of slavery, so I added that. I did not "confront" you. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is hounding. You had a dispute with me at White privilege, so you started going through my contribution history. Trying to shoehorn a bunch of material about Dickinson's ownership of slaves into Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, directly after disagreeing with me at White privilege, is a bit too on-the-nose. Don't damage a historical article just to make a point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bink keeping an eye out is very much to the good. And having a quick looksee at Thuce's diffs is kind of fish in a barrel. Bad edits and bludgeons hurt the Project. It is no secret that many editors share that view. It's not hounding. It's good citizenship. Thank you, Binksternet. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * also has a history of stalking me on Wikipedia. They've shown up at articles as random as NEOCam to revert my edits. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, SPECIFICO. We've tangled in the past and I respect your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is damaging the article? I was looking at university published books which were not represented. You had not found them, for whatever reason, and I was filling the gap. That's not "damage", that's how we get a better encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're searching Google Books specifically to find books that mention the subject you want to add. That's very different from reviewing the literature and determining which subjects to cover based on the weight they receive in the sources. But regardless, please stop hounding me. I don't go through your edit history and find pages to confront you on, and I would consider that a low thing to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your request to "stop hounding" you, though I wasn't doing that, and I will be working the new material into the Letters article if you don't do it yourself. Let's see what you do in the next couple of days, to incorporate the literature which you had previously not seen. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm working off of general literature on the subject, not off of a cherry-picked list chosen to emphasize slavery. "Barack Obama: American Historian" is not among the most relevant works on Dickinson's Letters. The page leaves a lot of aspects of the letters out, including his comparison of lack of taxation to slavery (which is something that an expanded article could mention). But Dickinson's ownership of slaves is not discussed in connection with the Letters in any of the general sources I've been using. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like I will be working on it myself then. See you in a few days, unless you find the energy. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. WP:HOUNDING is policy, and you shouldn't be adding material to pages just to get back at editors you've had disagreements with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ri-i-ight. Instead of me helping to expand your newly created article, you would rather have no help at all because you don't want the article to reflect the literature. You would rather have the article present a myth of your choosing, narrowly focusing on the aspects that are pleasant to you. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is 10 years old, and I didn't ask for you to stalk me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is an assurance that you understand the article is lacking in coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thuce, you need to consider your words very carefully. A peace-loving editor's talk page is no place for aspersions and false accusations. That is the stuff of ANI.  SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors.
You wrote as a response to my edit: "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Patrisse Cullors. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia." You also undid my edit to Alicia Garza's page.

I cited PolitiFact, a verifiable and credible source and you allege that I am violating Wikipedia's "neutral point of view policy?" This is incorrect. The article I cited states that both Patrisse and Alicia have stated they are trained Marxists. Please read the article before you accuse editors of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, what you did is against Wikipedia's "neutral point of view policy." The bias comes from you disagreeing with something she is on the record stating in public. I provided a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangsun.577 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Politfact is indeed reliable but your presentation of the material was the non-neutral part. What is non-neutral is the undue emphasis on this very minor part of Cullors career, especially in light of the fact that nothing else out there supports Cullors being a Marxist besides an offhand reply to one interview question, which everybody appears to be misinterpreting. You might already know that Black Lives Matter has been attacked with the "Marxist" label by anti-anti-racists (the opponents of BLM), which makes the label a violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP protections.
 * The issue is being discussed at Talk:Patrisse Cullors. You are welcome to chime in. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverts and removal of content
Hi there! You may remember me from the Lockheed P-80 page and the Surrender of Japan article. Whether through chance or bad luck we seem to keep coming to butting heads, and for similar reasons. In both cases you decided to remove parts of an article you considered "wrong" or "irrelevant", which I restored because considered them relevant and correct.

In one case we engaged in an edit war that got the article locked, and I'd like to prevent that from happening on the second. While it is wiki policy to be bold, it's also wiki policy to try and fix problems if you can rather than remove good faith edits wholesale. Deleting another editor's work can leave lots of hard feelings (see tip #7). There are a lot of alternatives to removal that can still keep the content. And, if a removal is restored/reverted it should be discussed on the talk page rather than removed again. Tagging can also be a helpful alternative to removing content, if you want to make it clear that concerns have been expressed about parts of an article while it's being discussed on the talk page. The {dubious} and {undue weight} tags can be helpful for this.

And just to be clear, this isn't me talking down to you. You had a valid point of view on both these issues, and it is on me to prove something deserves to be included. But it's also better to keep the content in the article and hash things out on the talk page so it's less disruptive if consensus is to keep it. Otherwise we're going to end up in wp:dr over and over again, and that's no fun at all. Voteins (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So now it's Surrender of Japan as well? I've been editing that article for 11 years, fixing small things and removing stuff that didn't fit or was poorly written. My removal yesterday was a continuation of that. When I remove text, I'm not worried about feelings, I'm looking at what's good for the encyclopedia. "Feelings" is not one of the factors I weigh. Regarding disputed text, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to keep the text. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say this sir, but you are portraying some classic signs of ownership and pulling rank. The fact that you have been editing said article for 11 years is not relevant to this discussion. And civility is a pillar of Wikipedia's policies. You should take other's feelings into account.


 * More salient to your latest edits, it is stated multiple places throughout that in the event there is a dispute over the inclusion of content in the article, good faith edits should remain until discussed and consensus has been reached. Seeing as there is a dispute, the solution here is to keep the content in the article and discuss this on the talk page. This is especially true as Surrender of Japan is a featured article, and it is policy to be cautious about editing it. Although the burden of proof is me to say why the content should be included, you will need to give a better explanation for you edits rather than "I don't think it's relevant" because that is more of a personal opinion.


 * I just have to say, although you have been editing said article for many years, it is a bit suspicious that you chose to remove an edit I made three years after the fact after I disagreed with you in another article. Looking at your talk page, I see less than a week ago another user complained of similar behavior. I wouldn't wish to falsely accuse anyone of hounding, but you may want to reexamine your behavior seeing as multiple editors are complaining about similar actions. Voteins (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I commonly look through the contributions of a problem editor to see if there are more problems from that editor. I do this countless times, hundreds per day. The idea of hounding is that the other editor is singled out to feel threatened. You have not been singled out, and I'm not trying to make you feel threatened. You are just one of many problem editors that I encounter in my day. I saw that you were wrongly defending some changes you had made at Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, to the point that you were reporting me at WP:AN3 to remove me from your content dispute, and thought that this behavior might be hiding other poor quality work. I looked to see if you had placed any other problematic text in an article on my watchlist, which turned out to be the case. I saw you had worked some off-topic text into Surrender of Japan, so I removed it. Very simple. I spend time on Wikipedia because I want to improve the encyclopedia, not because I want to threaten good editors. I will never bother you if your contributions are suitable to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do not call me a "problem editor". I'm just another user, trying to improve the wiki. I didn't want to remove you from the content dispute on the P-80, in contrast I wanted you to particulate. After you removed my edits the first time, you wouldn't look at my response. If you keep reverting everything I do, we just end up talking past one another and edit warring. More importantly, if you just revert and revert and revert without discussion or proper debate other users can't contribute. What if there were some issues with my edits that others could have fixed? Or indeed, what if after we achieve consensus that the sections should stay another editor has made changes to the article? That's a whole lot more work, and you probably noticed trying to remove my edit on the Surrender page. So really, please, work with me here. I'm not a bad guy, I just want to improve the wiki. I really don't want to deal with this in wp:dr, its no fun for anyone involved. Voteins (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages wanting photos
I am sorry. It is an oversight. I will be careful next time.Sowoletoyin (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Weather Underground
Your recent revert here caught my eye, and I've opened a WP:BRD discussion about it at Talk:Weather Underground. Please join. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good move, thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Falun gong
I warned the editor a while ago, and again today. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Whataboutism talk
What exactly did you mean by saying "Looks like tu quoque needs to hire a better PR" and "whataboutism gets all the ink"? Uchyotka (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant that "tu quoque" is very little known while "whataboutism" is better known.
 * PR is public relations.
 * The "ink" is old newspaper slang for how extensive is the coverage. More coverage of your story uses more ink. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

ABA International
I am the IP you collaborated with at ABA International. Since I am no longer editing from IP, feel free to go ahead and semi-protect the page if this vandalism continues. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Welcome, of a sort! Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Four for McGovern
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

How did you decide what's undue?
There are multiple books (reliable ones) and news articles written by multiple authors about Nixon's policies in South Asia. It was also important for Nixon to oppose India for good relations with China andd Pakistan, in addition to opposing USSR. That couldn't be considered something not worthy of notice. I agree it needs work and you could help yourself. But you shouldn't decided what's DUE or not, especially when this issue is copiously covered. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument belongs at Talk:Richard Nixon. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. That's more related to his views on Indians rather than foreign policy actions. Under what reason did you decided foreign policy of a president, that too related to USA's perceived enemy USSR and its allies wasn't important? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User name
Hey, i have a huge problem I do not know how to change my user name in wikipedia could you please show me how to, i have been recommended by a lot of users to you. Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should go to Changing username. Cheers. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Malibu Mafia
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Album releases and recordings
This message is for Binksternet. I'll have you know that I own Lucifer's Friend (Self-titled) which is a U.S. release which is on Billingsgate Records. And on the back of the album, in the credits, it says, "Released in U.S.A. - May, 1973." And it also says, "Other albums soon to be released in America." The first one says, "Where The Groupies Killed The Blues - recorded in January, 1972." And the second one says, "I'm Just A Rock 'N' Roll Singer - recorded in April, 1973." And I looked both of those albums up on eBay. Where The Groupies Killed The Blues album was released on Passport Records in the U.S. in 1975. I looked at the copyright year on the record label. I'm Just A Rock 'N' Roll Singer album was released on Billingsgate Records in the U.S. in 1974. I looked at the copyright year on the back of the album, and I looked at the record label, it says Billingsgate Records. And one album says Printed In U.S.A., And the other one says Printed In America. That's exactly Where I got this information from. Another one is, I was at a record store one day looking at The Eagles' Greatest Hits Vol. 2. And when I pulled the record sheet out of the record jacket to take a look of what was on there, on the record sheet, it shows The Eagles discography including Joe Walsh, Glenn Frey, and Don Henley's solo discography, and showing full release dates. Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album was released on May 15, 1981. Glenn Frey's No Fun Allowed album was released on May 28, 1982. And Don Henley's I Can't Stand Still album was released on August 13, 1982. And that's exactly where I got the second information from. Another one is last night I watch Huey Lewis And The News Behind The Music on VH1 on you tube. They said their first album (Self-titled) was released in the Fall of 1980. Their second album, Picture This was released in the Spring of 1982 they said. They also said their third album, Sports hit the record stores in late 1983. Def Leppard's Pyromania album was recorded January - December, 1982, and released in February, 1983. I also remember a Def Leppard story they said Pyromania album was completed on December 11, 1982. I also remember checking their discography on their website. When I viewed Pyromania, the release date said February, 1983. Journey's Escape album was released on August 1, 1981. How do I know that? I viewed their discography on their website and their Escape album said August, 1981, one day I decided to check out The New York Times from the past on the film projector at the library. I traveled to The New York Times to August 2, 1981. And when I got to a record and cassette collection advertisement, I noticed that Journey's Escape album was in the record collection catalog. And it was August 2, 1981. So I say that the album was released on August 1, 1981 in which was the day that MTV first aired on cable. The Tubes' The Completion Backward Principle was released on April 6, 1981 I believe, in which is the album I own. On the record sheet, has a big pc Tubes logo and has some work information. It also says DATE: 4-6-81 which I assume that they put that date in there for that upcoming release date. And I put the studio places on Wikipedia which you have already took off, that was from the album itself. I also have The Tubes' double live album, What Do You Want From Live, it was recorded at Hammersmith Odeon, London. It's on the album itself. Styx's Paradise Theater album was released and went gold on January 6, 1981. I read it a rock 'n' Roll book at a book store. Phil Collin's Hello, I Must Be Gong! album was released in November, 1982. And it was recorded May - June, 1982. I have the album and it says on the CD and the record sheet. Loverboy's first album (Self-titled) was released in December, 1980. I read the article on a book called, Million selling records from the 1900's to the 1980's. Blue Oyster Cult's (Don't Fear) The Reaper was recorded in 1975. And Black Blade was recorded in 1979. I read their liner notes on their compilation CD. Fire Of Unknown Origin album was released in June, 1981. I read it on their website and one of their compilation CDs. The Revolution By Night album was recorded in May, 1983 and released in October, 1983. I also read that in one of their compilation CDs. Also, Club Ninja album was released in the U.K. on the first week of December, 1985. And it was released in the U.S. in January, 1986. I have the 1997 CD re-release and I read the liner notes. Extraterrestrial, Live was recorded on their Mirrors, Black And Blue, and Fire Of Unknown Origin U.S. Tours, February 11, 1980 - December 31, 1981. I have the album and the information of their tours are on there. Soft Cell's Tainted Love/Where Did Our Love Go was recorded in December, 1980. It says on the 12 inch vinyl I took a good look at it at a music store. And I assume that Aerosmith's Greatest Hits was released in October, 1980. I remember reading their discography on one their books when I was at the library. So this exactly where I got all that information from. I really wasn't trying to cause problems. All I'm trying to do is to provide correct information on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Hinkgoyd. September 6, 2020 12:16 AM. Eastern Time. Hinkgoyd (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Great! When you make any changes can you cite the source? If you are looking at printed media such as liner notes or inner sleeve then you can cite that. The format is found at Template:Cite AV media, which offers variations to fit different circumstances, such as listing an author if someone is named as the author of liner notes, or adding the record label release number. A very simple example of using AV media reference is found at the article Black Is Beautiful (Della Reese album), citation number 3. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Cite the source
I'm new here. So how do I cite the source? I never done that before. Hinkgoyd (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Using my example from the thread above, you can add the following reference to your new changes.
 * Of course you will change the title and publisher and year to match whatever source you are holding. And specify the source, be it liner notes or inner sleeve or center label. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Contribution to Litvinov
Hello. You removed a contribution that I submitted to the Litvinov entry. I assume that there was a problem with it, as you thought it was a test. Actually it was not a test and my apologies for getting things wrong. I am assisting my elderly father who produced the contribution but unfortunately I have a health problem and so I needed to ask somebody else for help, because I'm not really well enough to work out how to do things at present. This individual has a background in IT but English is not his first language and he has no experience as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So it looks as though he slipped up. Would it be possible for you to clarify the nature of the issue so that I can ask him to work on this so that he gets it right? I can tell him about the sandbox feature which sounds very useful.--Dovetonpoots1and2 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , what I thought I saw happening was a copy/paste test. A bunch of text was being copied and pasted back into the article to appear twice, which is wrong. But looking closer at your edit, it appears you were adding two sentences of unreferenced analysis: "Nothing in the annals of the League can compare with them in frankness, in debating power, in the acute diagnosis of each situation. No contemporary statesman can point to such a record of criticism justified, and prophecies fulfilled."
 * I searched these words in Google and found a close match to them in a book by Francis Paul Walters. So I added them, citing Walters. Is that sufficient? Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is great thanks. I have checked my father's notes and the source you have is correct. I am looking into the editing side of things more closely myself now so hopefully we can avoid a repeat of this kind of problem. Thanks again.--Dovetonpoots1and2 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jane Fonda's Workout
Hiya I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Fonda's Workout and left some comments. Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jacoba Atlas
Hello! Your submission of Jacoba Atlas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Star-Spangled Women for McGovern–Shriver
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Together for McGovern
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex Harvey Soldier On The Wall
Alex Harvey's Soldier On The Wall album was Released in October, 1983. And was recorded in January, 1982 right before his death on February 4, 1982. I remember viewing this album on his website. I'm just letting you know. Hinkgoyd (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's your edit about that. If you put that in again, can you cite your source? Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Charles R. Ellet GAN
Thanks for your advice on submitting Charles R. Ellet as a GAN. I had already taken the advice and submitted it on Sept. 4th. Dwkaminski (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for No Sad Song
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your effective use of Twinkle in the last few minutes. I think you got all the ones I didn't. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another day of whack-a-mole. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There ought to be a script that admins can use that will roll back all "current" edits made by a particular user after a particular date, then generate a report of what pages were NOT rolled back so they can be looked at manually. I don't have the skills to write such a script though.  Such a script would probably be considered " too dangerous " I mean "too easy to do a lot of damage with if used mistakenly" in the hands of the average editor though, since it would do in 10 seconds what took the two of us over 10 minutes.  Then again, Wikipedia does rate-limit edits by normal editors.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that script would be invaluable. Often I find that a few of the person's disruptive edits have avoided notice because of an unrelated but subsequent edit to the same article. I'm not the guy who will ever write such a script, unfortunately. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you got the ping, but for any talk-page stalkers out there, I opened a discussion at Village pump (idea lab) (diff). davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything, that Shaquezedrayton is also Yungqueezy20. I increased the size of the rangeblock a bit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you want to file a (pro forma) SPI, you can mark the accounts as CU-confirmed. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Harold Willens
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Doris Willens
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Maafa 21
How is removing the line "The film does not tell the viewer that Hitler banned birth control and abortion after he gained power.[4]" on the Maafa 21 a "non neutral edit"? The line is nothing more than commentary on what the film doesn't talk about. How is that valid for an informational article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.188.183 (talk • contribs)
 * The film is a black hole of falsehood and lies, for starters. The sentence you removed is valid analysis by Goldberg, published in the scholarly journal Religious Dispatches. Scholarly journals are at the top of our scale when looking for the most WP:Reliable sources. Your removal of the Goldberg analysis was not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The movie DOES mention this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6XfU8KVkzI&t=1h40m04s, Goldberg is being disingenuous. And Hitler didn't 'ban birth control' so much as he did allow it to expand to non-aryan women for eugenics reasons. Abortion was already illegal in the Wiemar republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.188.183 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, Rochester, we are not here to argue against Goldberg's analysis; what we do is look at the sources discussing the film. The sources with the most authority get the most weight. In any case, the film uses a Gish gallop style of argument, shooting rapid-fire factoids to overwhelm the viewer. It could say just about anything and still get its message across. The important part is what are the viewer impressions, not what are the specific details of what is said. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, instead of removing the line what if I change it to something like "Goldburg claims that the film does not sufficiently explain Hitler's policies for the comparison to Sanger to be apt." Or "Goldburg claims the film does not tell the viewer that Hitler banned birth control and abortion after he gained power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.188.183 (talk • contribs)
 * Read the guideline at WP:CLAIM. You're trying to put down the credibility of Goldberg. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSBLOG I'm trying to attribute the statement to the writer. Instead of "Goldburg claims" what its "Goldburg writes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.188.183 (talk • contribs)
 * Again, you're trying to push down the authority of Goldberg's analysis. Goldberg is right, too, in case anyone is wondering. During WW2, Hitler made Nazi Germany and Vichy France enforce the death penalty for abortion. Except that in 1938, Jewish women were to be allowed abortions, to get rid of Jewish babies, not "Aryan" babies. Weimar Germany made great advances in contraception in the 1920s, especially the IUD, but Hitler wanted more babies born so he could control a larger army. The Nazi army used condoms only to control STDs, not to stop baby making. The Nazis wanted to push women down, to remove their equality, restrict their rights and make them far more subservient to husband and country. The Nazis wanted baby-making machines from their white "Aryan" women. The film Maafa 21 doesn't tell any of this to the viewer. Goldberg is right on the money in her statement. We must keep it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement is that "the film does not tell the viewer that Hitler banned birth control and abortion" not that "the film does not tell the viewer all the reasons behind why Hitler banned birth control and abortion." Its a shame we could not revise it. Thanks for sharing the WP:CLAIM rule though I didn't know that one.

Latency (engineering)
Hello Dear Binksternet, My edit was undone because you said they appeared to be promotional. But they are not. That reference was reliable and independent. Also, I was objective. If you had studied the link properly, you would understand what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulkid (talk • contribs)
 * I wasn't born yesterday. You posted a link to a marketing blurb. Blatant promotion. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday too. Links of Wikipedia are nofollow. How Can I make promotion with Nofollow links? You cannot decide it as you wish.
 * Binksternet: just FYI, Usefulkid is a confirmed serial liar, sock puppet and spammer. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamitdmr. If you see another user spamming with links to Ant Media, it might be worth filing another report at SPI.—J. M. (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, saw a few hours ago that he got blocked, and I traced it to the SPI report. I'll be watching. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Susan Lydon
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Judith Sims
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for TeenSet
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jacoba Atlas
M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Activity
Hello. Within the last 24 hours, several editors have made similar minor but unhelpful edits to Jimi Hendrix (a FA). Do these look familiar? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I went through the most recent 20 edits one by one and it all looks like the normal amount of churn on a popular topic, with various people coming in to push various ideas, some of which are questionable. One addition on the 12th was that the Jimi Hendrix Experience was the definitive power trio, which honor actually goes to Cream who influenced Hendrix. Other changes were good, for instance Srich32977 doing a hyphen-to-en-dash fix.
 * I don't see any behavioral problems. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it just looked odd that some don't edit music articles or rarely edit at all, yet they all showed up at the same time. BTW, using en-dashes in ISBNs instead of hyphens produces "Check |isbn= value: invalid character". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. Srich32977 put a hyphen into an ISBN and an en dash into a title. I am in favor of silently fixing titles that use a spaced hyphen incorrectly as a break in thought. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hollywood Women's Political Committee
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ampersand's Entertainment Guide
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Crazy Nonsense
There's a user putting unneeded stuff on Nick Carter page.108.46.251.85 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the future, you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP, which I did just now for Nick's page. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hooks Island
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Step aerobics
I added comments in response to your query at the Talk page of Step aerobics. Via PubMed search on "step aerobics", I found clinical trials, but those are considered primary. Any mentions of other trials in the Introductions or Discussions of those articles do not qualify the refs as secondary sources. Limiting the search to reviews yielded four articles, but only one looked to be useful for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin K
If you are willing to tackle the Vitamin K GA, please do. I am still working on weak points, but may be close enough to start. If you do not think so, leave a note to that effect on my Talk page. I see you have a goodly number of GAs to your credit and a sprinkling of FAs. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can hold off until the "weak points" are addressed. Unless you have a time pressure... Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've a book (local history) on the clock, but that should be wrapped by end of month. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I completed the food sources table for the vitamin K article, and think that it is now good enough to start the GA review. FYI:  Within exercise, there are meta-analyses for weight loss, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, all-cause mortality, etc. (Example PMID: 31685526) David notMD (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tom (LT) has stepped in as the reviewer of the GA nomination for vitamin K. From Tom's User page, lots of experience in GA reviews, so appears I am in good hands. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, , I'm very flexible - I can co review or act as second reviewer if you planned to review Binksternet :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable with either/both of you taking this on. In my opinion, majority of article is review-ready. Chemistry and Research section need work. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Fonda's Workout
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't Fear The Reaper warring
Hi. Look, i don't know what to tell you. I have the album. The cover is on the album. It's available on YouTube here. But, you know, let's not let facts get in the way of some pedantry about the rules. Well done, you win, i'll not bother trying any more. Julianhall (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing whether the cover version exists. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So why did you revert my edit?Julianhall (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my revert I cited WP:SONGCOVER, which sets a high bar for inclusion. It's not enough that a song cover exists; it must perform well in some manner, become notable somehow. If a music critic said that the Bridewell Taxis' version of "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" was remarkable because of x, y and z, you could cite the music critic. Or if it hit a music sales chart in some country, you could cite that. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Electronic Music
Why did you undo my edits to the Electronic music template and the freestyle page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:D0C8:AD72:FA79:665F (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you were not citing your sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Campaign for Economic Democracy
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

New American Gospel
Hey, I just saw that my edit was reverted. But 'groove metal' was really mentioned in that source (https://www.decademag.com/decade/2019/11/29/new-american-gospel-lamb-of-god-album-review). What is wrong with that?


 * The song "Terror And Hubris In The House Of Frank Pollard" was described as groove metal, not the whole album. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Templates
Excuse me, but I'm trying to clear things up between genres. Could you please stop hindering me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Vision China Times
Hi, I noted you have added in specific names and personal details in relation to people's religious beliefs (especially a persecuted religion) and family relationships. This was only mentioned once in just 1 publicly available secondary source. Out of courtesy for the safety of those involved, these names and familial relationship have been removed. The specific religious beliefs of founders in a media company who are not directly involved in editorial work does not add weight to the editorial stance, and therefore does not add to the value of this article. This article already holds too much weight and direct citation from the ABC article. Your additions are less than neutral Neutral point of view EmilyzhangAU (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Those names are the names of the business founder and manager. This is normal corporate information. Nobody has safety problems because it has already been published.
 * You are obviously trying to remove the names because they help to connect the publication to Falun Gong; a connection which you are trying to diminish. The supposed safety issue is nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That's very easy for you to say, since you are a non-Chinese sitting outside of China. There is also no other source that supports this ABC claim. This is personal information and hence the names need to be removed. No one releases corporation information AND their religious beliefs. What evidence is there to show that this person is still Falun Gong or not? Or even that they were Falun Gong at the time? And what if they were? Do you not care about the safety issues brought upon this person's other family members? It does not add weight to the article at all. This is Wikipedia, not a news gossip page. You are obviously biased in your editing. The connection to Falun Gong has already been strengthened to great proportions by the overly cited ABC article. You do not need this specific detail to strengthen it further. Please remove or I will undo your edit. EmilyzhangAU (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ma Zhendong founded Decoding China and was funded by the US State Department until they figured out how they were being fooled by Falun Gong. Decoding China and Vision China Times have the same business address. Maree Ma served as secretary of Decoding China. It's all connected, and extremely relevant to the topic, showing that the media platform Vision China Times is one of many media outlets of the Falun Gong. The article about Vision China Times should tell the reader more about the connection, not less. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maree Ma is a member of the Falun Gong think tank ASPI, spouting garbage about the CCP using Facebook to their advantage, when in fact it was Falun Gong caught using Facebook that way. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ma Zhendong, his wife and daughter founded Minghui Education in 2006, the same year as Vision China Times. Minghui is a Falun Gong group. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You are obviously way out of your depth here. Decode China list of directors do not have Ma's name. The company is not connected to him at all (check ASIC records). ASPI is not a Falun Gong think tank. They are mostly funded by the Australian government. You need to double check your facts. ASPI recently did a report about some groups linked to Falun Gong supposedly misusing Facebook. Maree Ma is not a "member" of ASPI. She was a guest speaker at one of their forums. If the head of ABC is Falun Gong, do you think ABC is also a Falun Gong affiliated media? What does the founder's personal beliefs have anything to do with their media? Media is run by editors, and their editorial guidelines, not the founder. And do we even know if he is still actively involved in the operations of the company? You need to take off the names and personal familial relationship out of courtesy to these people of a persecuted minority group. With due respect, your comments towards Falun Gong are less than neutral. This article is no longer neutral and filled with heavy citing from just one source. You already have the source in there, you don't need to reprint the entire ABC article EmilyzhangAU (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Minghui is NOT JUST a Falun gong name. It is an auspicious name in Chinese used by millions of people out there. This one is a Childcare centre, accredited by the Australian government and currently owned by other people per ASIC records. Still called Minghui. No big deal. EmilyzhangAU (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You are a scholar of knowledge. Your purpose is to improve the storehouse of human knowledge. Then why are you defending Falun Gong which is anti-science? If anybody on Wikipedia is promoting Falun Gong, that is the non-neutral position.
 * The Ma family in Sydney are not trying to hide from the public. Maree Ma has written papers and spoken in public. But you apparently think she's a persecuted minority who should be protected from some unspecified danger. Ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not take a position on whether Falun Gong is anti-science or not. How am I defending Falun Gong? I am talking about human rights protection of persecuted minorities. I am not objecting to Maree Ma the General manager being mentioned, but to specifically name a person and their wife as Falun Gong practitioners with their FULL name listed on an encyclopedia is simply not ethical; this person is not a public figure either. What if there are other members of the Ma family who may come to danger with this information? There are reasons this information has never been in the public arena. The religion of a founder does not add weight to the nature of a media company. EmilyzhangAU (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to hide the connection. People trying to hide the connection is a huge part of the problem we have been dealing with. I'm not changing my stance on this. I am a neutral Wikipedia editor with very long record of writing high quality articles about a wide array of topics while you are a Falun Gong supporter newly arrived to defend Falun Gong. One of us has an axe to grind, one of us is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Which one? Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A 'neutral editor' with a distinctive POV? That's a good one. Berehinia (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's like someone comes in to the science class and says science is wrong, because one guy from China says so. The scientists will defend science not because they are biased but because they are trying to determine the larger truths of the universe in a neutral manner, and the science denier is against truth. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Avoid loaded language
"White males", "working class" in the context presented in the article which is about a musical genre were an example of charged language which isn't cyclopedic. By removing it I brought in more balanced tone. It's not enough to supply links to sources that expose certain bias of their own without providing alternative discussion points by other authors: until this is done the corresponding sections must be removed. Also, cyclopedia is not about "an opinion". The consensus isn't a definite solution either because in regard with Wikipedia it's unknown who reached consensus with who, how unbiased were these individuals and how the subject of the article became more credible. For this reason I contend my changes would be restored. Thank you. Scrutinizer798 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Professor Theo Catefori, musicologist at Syracuse, is cited and attributed. Scholars are Wikipedia's best sources; they define the topic. If you can find a scholar with a different opinion, or one that directly challenges Catefori, by all means bring that material into the article about new wave music. But don't remove scholarly analysis from a topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The connection between "whiteness", class and musical ideas is out of the scope of the history of music. The fact that he's cited and attributed doesn't make him credible in the field of study belonging to psychology. You should've asked yourself:


 * 1) How often is he cited, by who and when?
 * 2) What exactly is the source of references to his research? Is that this connection or his musicological input (form analysis, comparison etc.)?
 * 3)  Since the connection is the subject of psychological studies, are you willing to include the topic in this article or make a separate discussion thread about it?
 * 4)  If there's any psychological debate about influence one's socio-econimic background exerts on one's creativity is there consensus about the nature of such influence?
 * 5) In any case, how crucial this connection is for the subject of this debate? How does the article benefit from this knowledge? Is it redundant to the subject? Is this argument a pivotal point to substantiate it and elevate to much more than a thesis?
 * 6) How many authors writing about "new wave music" have you read?
 * 7)  Do these authors discuss the aforementioned phenomena? if yes then:
 * 8)  what is the consensus? Does it exist?
 * 9)  If you read several authors on the subject why did you choose only one?
 * 10) If only one of the authors writes about this connection why do you think it's legit without this statement being peer-reviewed?
 * 1) If only one of the authors writes about this connection why do you think it's legit without this statement being peer-reviewed?

Please, present a clear and unambiguous answer to my questions in the bullet-point list form.

I reiterate that the source which isn't competent in another field of studies isn't credible to make assessments about what is the subject of that field of studies.Scrutinizer798 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a dose of the same medicine you recommend to me. Whiteness in music has been discussed before with regard to heavy metal, indie rock, and new wave. Not just whiteness but white supremacism or very often just racism has been discussed with regard to punk music. The racial aspects of music are well within the realm of musicologists, and many have written about it. As early as 1979 Village Voice talked about whiteness in new wave, a piece by Lester Bangs titled "The White Noise Supremacists". Cateforis is cited by a couple of hundred other authors according to Google Scholar. He has written several papers touching upon the topic, starting I think in 2004. Professor Bernard Gendron of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee talked about the whiteness of new wave in his 2002 book Between Montmartre and the Mudd Club: Popular Music and the Avant-Garde. Philosophy Professor Zachary Hoskins at the University of Nottingham wrote about how new wave was predominantly white in his piece about Prince as an unusual instance of Blackness in new wave. There's a ton of this stuff out there. Catefori is not an outlier. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of words based on "Marx"
I think it useful to include a references to Marx in the article on Patrisse Cullors. Please note that I have not tried to label Cullors as a "marxist". Based on what I know, we do not have the evidence to label her as a marxist. But it is clear that her background, and some of those she has learned from, have a marxist identity. For somebody who claims such an eclectic background and is engaged in a wide variety of activism, it seems only appropiate to include a reference to marxism, one specifically labeled stream of input. Please note that I have not tried to make this a prominent point in her background or present. You apparently think I am "interested in the word used as a dismissive label." I do not use the word as "dismissive". Some editors work hard to exclude any use of "marxist" or "marxism". But it is a legitimate word; it can and should be used, but carefully, in this article. I will also point out that I did not use the word to describe Cullors, but only cited her usage of the word in describing Angela Davis. It is quoted from a proper source, not open to criticism that it is taken out of context from a video. My edit did not violate any discussion on the Talk page since I was in no way describing Cullors. I am actually trying to be gentle editor, so I will not be part of a war regarding this particular word. Pete unseth (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Brown Meggs
Hi, please remember to format your clippings at Newspapers.com so other readers can view the articles. I did that for you on this article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good info! I had no idea. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and again on this article: "Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!". Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to figure out how to do this but failed. Is there a tutorial? Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this effort? Apparently, I need to create a clipping myself, which sucks because it gives people a link to me. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Step aerobics
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jacki Sorensen
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Drive by restorations
Please understand that drive by restorations of large sections of disputed content is very bad form. You didn't just revert a single edit but several different edits are restored material that is part of an active RfC. Additionally, you violated NOCON when restoring this material. Please consider joining the discussion rather than just blindly reverting. Springee (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of thing you are doing. You yourself recently rolled back a string of contructive edits, so I was undoing that and improving the article. There was no "blind" reverting; I judged each part of the revert I made, and I also removed a silly link to all the senators of Texas, which has no bearing on the bio. Binksternet (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I accused you of things you did. I reverted changes that had been disputed and didn't have consensus.  I have been a participant in the rested talk page discussion.  When you revert a number of changes with not even a complete sentence as the justification, with no specific details, yes, that is a disruptive, drive by revert. Springee (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would pay more attention to your concerns if they were purely about WP:BLP and improvement of Wikipedia, but your defense of Ngo goes beyond that to the ideological realm. You use wikilawyer arguments to defend your obstructionist behavior. It's hard for me to understand why someone would want to whitewash the biography of a person clearly involved with sowing hatred, racism and division. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing nothing of a sort and your comment suggests your motives are RGW rather than creating an impartial article. Clearly this is going nowhere. Springee (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What an outrageous sentiment. Let me state this in very clear, non-lawyer terms to you, . You just restored content for which there appears to be no consensus and indeed active consensus against. It is also a BLP violatoin to restore a contentious WP:LABEL, and a violation of DS to do so without consensus. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to accuse other editors of "whitewashing bigotry" for pointing out your conduct. I suggest you retract these accusations and self-revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is a content dispute at the Talk:Andy Ngo page. There usually is, because the guy is so annoyingly divisive. But your assertion that there is a violation of BLP is stretching the point: one of the contentious terms is "provocateur", which is used to describe Ngo in Rolling Stone, Jewish Currents, Atlantic and Jacobin magazines. Because of these reliable sources using it, it's impossible for the word to have BLP consequences. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s wonderful that you have opinions and are capable of expressing them without attacking another editors, but there is currently a developing consensus against “provocateur,” and you restored it before adding your opinion to the talk page. And by the way, you shouldn’t even be editing this page based on your strongly expressed views about the subject, but I’ll leave that for another time. In the meantime, as I already stated, revert your change while the discussion is ongoing and retract your statements about Springee. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't be editing because of strong opinions? That's rich. I don't accept your viewpoint or your assumed authority over my actions. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that actually formalized in a policy. It's called WP:COI. And while I admire on some level that you abandon any pretext of neutrality and just call the subject annoyingly divisive, I think you should consider whether these sentiments fall within text of that page. And I'm not "assuming authority" over you, I am reminding you of community norms re: editing against consensus and conduct towards other edits. It'd be nice if you would follow them, because your accusations, which are really directed not just at Springee, but anyone who disagrees with you, are insulting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're having fun with this line of investigation, but you have no leverage with an accusation of COI against me. None whatsoever. So keep talking about it if it amuses you, but do it somewhere else. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Investigation? Yeah, I don't think so. You are cluelessly putting out in the open your sharply negative opinions about the subject of a BLP, and you think it's a big mystery what the WP:COI is? Edit whatever page you want, but the next time you accuse another editor of "whitewashing racism" over an editorial disagreement I'll take it to WP:AE. And by the way, this is also a blatant BLP violation. You have no evidence of the subject "sowing racism" and I have not seen that said in any reliable source. Frankly you already deserve to be taken to AE for what you've laid out here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ngo is a public figure. I can say much worse things about him before violating BLP. And of course he is sowing hatred as hard as he can. It's his coin.
 * Have you been to AE? Beware the boomerang. Regarding my notional terrible, horrible, no-good behavior, you are barking up the wrong tree. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COI doesn't disallow editors from having an opinion, either positive or negative. If so, many Wikipedia articles would not have been written. Of course, many editors have an opinion over political figures, they just have to work to make sure articles represent a NPOV. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's why AE is a pointless endeavor and, despite clearly violating policy, this user confidently threatens "boomerang" while engaging in exactly the kind of behavior proscribed by WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP., this editor just suggested an article subject "sows racism" on a talk page, which is indistinguishable from putting it into an article since WP:BLP applies to all pages, and accused another editor of "whitewashing" racism over a disagreement on the phrasing of the opening sentence. And your only comment is to rush to their defense? WP:COI suggests avoiding pages where you have strongly held views that impact neutrality. Passion is a great thing, but this user is ranting about the subject in a way that suggests neutrality is out the window. I don't think it's right that a blind eye is turned to this kind of stuff, but it is what it is. Best of luck to you, , I disagree with what you've said here but I'm not going to concern myself with it much more. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You won't find anybody of authority here who will agree with your viewpoint about BLP that it's the exact same if I say on my talk page or write in his biography article that Andy Ngo "sows hatred". Virtually all the administrators are clever enough to distinguish between heated/biased discussion on talk pages, and careful, measured phrasing inside the biography articles in mainspace. Our admin corps would largely agree that if I put "sows hatred" into the Andy Ngo biography page without a salvo of rock-solid referencing it would be a big problem, but if I assert it unreferenced on my talk page it is much less of a problem, perhaps even nil. That's because it is my opinion, not a life-threatening instance of outing or doxing. My voiced opinion can sit there in virtual talk space for-virtual-ever, and not hurt Ngo.
 * By the way, I wasn't "threatening" a boomerang at AE, I was warning you neutrally that boomerangs are a regular occurrence, that they happen quite frequently to people who file AE reports. The person filing the report hopes that the spotlight of investigation shines on the other person, but the people who respond to AE reports have their own agendas, and they shine light everywhere.
 * I like to exercise my WP:CIVIL rights with people who are likewise civil to me. Those who attack my morals with their first hallo are not the ones that get the highest degree of courtesy. And anybody who is trying to whitewash the egregious behavior of Andy Ngo is at the lowest level of civility. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you have a big issue with Falun Gong and now apparently Andy Ngo too? Is it something about Asians that makes you uncomfortable? I see many unsubstantiated accusations here. I see a lack of a desire to constructively contribute to Ngo's page. Instead you seem intent on using wiki for political activism and to make out this Asian American journalist as someone nefarious, purporting that he is sowing racism. Berehinia (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to follow that accusation up officially then be my guest. Otherwise, don't come to my talk page again. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Alone (Heart song)
I Have Been Contributing To The Page, Not Vandalizing. It Is A Cover and I'm adding more facts. I'm letting the reader know that it's a cover. I politely ask you to please stop removing my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9250:e280:b0b9:340d:76b0:a999 (talk • contribs)
 * Three infoboxes is two too many. There are other ways to say the song is a cover. Please don't add infoboxes for unremarkable original versions of a song. The song version should be a hit before it gets an infobox. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet, But, There Are Over-covered songs like Dancing in the Street and Summertime Blues, But, Those Songs Have Been Covered By Lots Of Artists and They Have Multiple Infoboxes. But there are more facts for an original version and where it was recorded. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9250:E280:FC71:EBF2:7B40:96C4 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please put the facts into the article body text, using prose descriptions. The infobox should not be used for introducing new facts. Ideally, the article would still contain every fact if the infobox was removed. So put the facts into prose first. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Andy Spahn
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jacki Sorensen 1981.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jacki Sorensen 1981.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow motion edit wars
Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Explanation needed for your reversion
Hi Bink, you reverted my edit here which had attempted to neutralize the description of accusations made by the NBC and several other media against The Epoch Times. I was having some troubles comprehending your edit summary: Rv nonsense. The Chinese government has been saying this all along. This edit summary does not justify presenting the accusations as facts. Please explain on the talk page. Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You were leading the reader to assume that before 2019, nobody connected Li with Shen Yun, New Tang Dynasty Television and Epoch Times, which is false. Li has been described by the Chinese media as being involved with these divisions of Falun Gong almost as soon as they are formed. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add the Chinese communist regimes's claims. But I was concerned with the representation of the sources' accusations (accusing The Epoch Times of "promoting unfounded conspiracy theories", etc.). Could you explain why you represented the accusations as facts? Or if it was simply a mistake, please self-revert. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are facts, per NBC. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are claims of facts (allegations) made by the NBC against a competitor. So we need to use in-text attribution and present both sides of the dispute, per WP:NPOV. Thomas Meng (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help when you repeat yourself. NBC is hu-u-uge, with a respected reputation, while Falun Gong media are tiny, with a reputation soiled by bias and falsehood. There is no sense of competition in the comparison. No chance. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "with a reputation soiled by bias and falsehood", those are again allegations made against The Epoch Times. Actually, objective raters such as Allsides says that "The Epoch Times Reporting Absent Many Types of Bias". Thomas Meng (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what they were looking at. The Allsides people somehow missed the gigantic disinformation campaign about COVID hoax stuff. Epoch Times is reviled for that, and dismissed for its anti-CCP shouting. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, those are attacks made by biased media against a competitor. There have also been defense for The Epoch Times's coverage of Covid published by other media in response to those attacks. (e.g. .) So, we can't judge The Epoch Times based on other biased media's views, but rather on neutral third-parties' such as those of the Allsides.

Allsides did look at The Epoch Times's Covid coverage, and quoted significantly from The ET's op-ed on Covid in order to explain its anti-CCP bias.

Let's come back to my main point on WP:NPOV: When other media made attacks on The Epoch Times's reputation, it is required under WP:NPOV to also present their self-defense and to present those attacks with in-text attribution rather than given-facts. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In no sense does Falun Gong organ Epoch Times "compete with" mainstream NBC News. Falun Gong does not get a rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey
You OK? - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking! Yes, I'm okay. How are you doing? Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alice Kahn
Hello! Your submission of Alice Kahn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Brown Meggs
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of "Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!"
Hello! Your submission of "Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!" at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaos A.D.
Hey. Can you explain your reverts please? Because the source (https://www.decibelmagazine.com/2015/08/13/they-did-it-all-for-the-nookie-decibel-explores-the-rise-and-fall-of-nu-metal/) says: "This was a massive blow to metal purists, some of whom had already been disappointed by Sepultura moving away from thrash on their previous album, Chaos A.D." By that logic, we can also add the "nu-metal" label to the Slipknot's "All Hope is Gone", despite some sources said about departure from the "nu-metal" sound. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.251.199.253 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Second "Alone (Heart song)" Incident
You considered the Dreams infobox a conflict? No offense but what is wrong with you? Talk to you later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9250:E280:F0E3:31AD:C9CB:C2E2 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are the person who used multiple IPs to engage in an edit war to list McBusted members as ex-McFly members. How did that turn out for you? Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Feel Good. I Was About To Apologize For The Edit Warring. But anyways, I eventually forgot about that. Plus I try to keep the Dreams infobox in its page to make room for their heart infobox. The McBusted Edit Warring Situation Isn't even a hot topic anymore. But I am trying to contribute to pages. I'm sorry if edit warred on some pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9250:E280:F0E3:31AD:C9CB:C2E2 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Spahn
The banner I added indicated that the artice READS like an advertisement. Very little bio info and still no photo of Andy himself. Why not? It looks like a collection of names he would drop to promote his business, not a page in an encyclopedia.

Your defense using first person is rather odd for an encyclopedia, as if you are the author or gatekeeper of the page. If you're really that interested in presenting his BIO, add more info about him! Martindo (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I write articles for Wikipedia. Lots of them. I use the first person when I talk about me. The articles I write come from my own ideas about what I find interesting.
 * If anybody is the author and gatekeeper of the article, it would certainly be me, since I started it and wrote 95% of it. I'm not ashamed to say that I want the article to look good, as I want Wikipedia to look good.
 * The only reason I wrote Spahn's bio was because I was researching for the articles Hollywood Women's Political Committee and Campaign for Economic Democracy, both of which I started, and I kept seeing Spahn's name crop up as someone reporters regularly ask for an opinion. When I searched for his name alone, I got so many hits I knew that WP:GNG would be satisfied if I wrote the biography. Articles like this feature strongly establish his notability.
 * What I wrote for Spahn's bio is light on biographical details because that is what is available in published sources. And it has no photos of him because none are in the public domain.
 * The advertisement tag was unfair because the biography as I wrote it described things from Spahn's early career that he does not list in his current promotional materials. In other words, I dredged up stuff he would probably prefer to keep in the past. And if the article was an advertisement for Spahn, the reader would expect to see an elegant portrait at the very least. But no, nothing like that is present, because it's not public domain. The tag was also unfair because I tried to accurately summarize the published sources as best as possible, without trying to promote, defend or denigrate the subject. I didn't write an advertisement, I wrote a summary of published information. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RECOG
BTW, changes like this or this are fairly pointless, given the bot will overwrite them with its next run (see the notice at the top of that page). And for those entries, they did indeed have pictures. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know! Saves me time and trouble. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Genres for Savage Mode II
What the genres for the album Savage Mode II? I find some sources     but can't tell what these sources called the album's genres is. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are a few WP:BLUESKY genres such as Christmas music and children's music, for which you don't have to cite a source because it's so obvious. I often include hip hop music in that collection, such that music made by rappers can be considered hip hop unless otherwise stated. NME said "rap album", so you're already there. Rolling Stone says it is a perfect sequel to their "trap classic", making it a trap music album. They also say it has Southern hip hop influences, but you would have to decide whether that is too small of a factor to list in the infobox. Slant mentions some of the songs contain gangsta rap sections, so that's another possible influence. So I would put hip hop and trap in the infobox, and talk in the article about Southern rap and gangsta influences. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, this really helps. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacki Sorensen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacki Sorensen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I have some real life stuff to tend to, then I'll get crackin' on Morse and this. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacki Sorensen
The article Jacki Sorensen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jacki Sorensen for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Philadelphia punk scene
I think you're making a mistake in deleting the accompanying list of artists. This isn't a music genre article; it's an article about a geographic scene. There are many examples of lists of musicians from [insert locality here] on Wikipedia. Also, on a personal level, the flippancy of yr reply is not appreciated for edits being made in good faith.RobertGHofmann (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can remove the music genre infobox, like at Washington, D.C. hardcore and Scene (subculture). That would be enough for me to lay off. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacki Sorensen
The article Jacki Sorensen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacki Sorensen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and bullying
Please do not revert edits simply because you hold an opinion and see yourself as a wikipedian of superior knowledge and expertise. All the edits I made are factually correct and sourced. If you wish to open discussions on whether they are admissable, use the talk pages for the relevant articles, rather than wholly reverting with belittling comments. 2601:647:5480:46A0:5996:C7E0:E097:A953 (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not a contest to see who knows the most. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources such that it is a summary of what is published. Your stuff, the stuff you have been adding from Palo Alto IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2601:647:5480:46A0:0:0:0:0/64, has been rife with additions unsupported by published sources. Even if you include a citation, it doesn't support all the stuff you write. Wikipedia cannot be your method of first publication. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing
You have repeatedly flagged my editing as "vandalism", when it's publicly available information as to who sang lead vocals on any individually given album. I have no idea how to "source" the lead singer of a particular song. Some albums there have been no issues, others, I keep getting warnings. This makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.73.146 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If the leader of a particular song is not published information, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If it is published, you can "source" it by saying where it was published. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The "publishing" is the actual album itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.73.146 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Silmarilion edits
I kind of don't see the point of putting in a citation for the Silmarilion edits because, well, the link in question is to a concept album based on the Silmarilion, Nightfall in Middle-Earth. Like, I feel a citation would be redundant in this case. 108.228.214.213 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply existing isn't enough. We must tell the reader why the album is important to the book. A music review or similar, talking about the album and its significance to the book, would suffice. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

about your revert in comfort women article
Hi, Binksternet. My edit is not my personal analysis. It is Kent Gilbert's analysis about Comfort women, and to add his analysis into the "Controversies" section where there should be various views and controversies, is not violate Neutral point of view. And, the forgery and lying of Seiji Yoshida and the Asahi Shinbun had been became public, the Asahi Shimbun has an apology press conference in 2014. In Japanese Wikipedia, about the comfort women articles (朝日新聞の慰安婦報道問題, 日本の慰安婦問題, 日本人戦争捕虜尋問レポート No.49) are composed of multifaceted controversies which properly reflect analytical opinions such as Kent Gilbert. Compared to that, the article of English Wikipedia is so lacking the knowledge and neutrality from the comprehensive perspective.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC) supplement--みしまるもも (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kent Gilbert's opinion means nothing to English-speaking people. He's just a tool. He's very handy for Japanese nationalists, the ones who are trying to rewrite history to be something it never was. They are even publishing history books that are wrong, teaching Japanese students the wrong thing. It's abominable.
 * If the comfort women article in Japan is slanted and biased, that is no reason for the English article about the same topic to be similarly slanted and biased. Japanese nationalists have very little leverage in the English-speaking world. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, your opinion on Kent Gilbert is your own belief. Wikipedia must be structured, acknowledging that there are views and controversies from various perspectives. Excluding the views by your own likes and dislikes, violates neutrality.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What you did was wrong. You posted this edit which says that Gilbert "explained" which is a violation of WP:SAID because "explained" give the sense of Gilbert being correct and others are wrong. Furthermore, you cited two nonsense Gilbert rants from his ridiculous YouTube channel. Huge failure to cite a reliable source. You would need a WP:SECONDARY source talking about Gilbert's opinion on the matter, and it should be a high quality source because we already cite university scholars. Some TV "expert" using his own media channel is not going to suffice. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If the word "explained" isn't appropriate, we can just change it to something like "argued" or "commented". So, it is a vulnerable reason for you to revert everything. Also, celebrity opinions can be used if these are on his official channel, which can be verified as a source of that he has such an opinion, there is no problem.
 * The view that like Kent Gilbert's opinion is not an unusual view, and in fact many scholars also say it. For example this, The Comfort Women Controversy : Sex Slaves or Prostitutes【Gemki Fujii 藤井厳喜】,Truth of COMFORT WOMEN
 * Neutral point of view is essentially a combination of both theories and each theory, and is not aimed at eliminating sources that you personally think you can't trust or that you don't like or feel ridiculous. It is important to without ignoring the fact that there are different views, and if the article is not composed of both theories, the article violates the neutral point of view. However, it seems useless to say anything here, so I will not add to the comfort women anymore.--みしまるもも (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC) add--みしまるもも (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are expecting a false equivalence, in a situation where a strongly established mainstream opinion is challenged by fringe contrarians. The two sides are not equal, and giving them equivalence would violate Wikipedia's neutrality rules. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very strange to think that opinions based on Korean lies and Seiji Yoshida's fiction (which they themselves admitted that they were lying) are legitimate.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC) typo--みしまるもも (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The existence of some bad testimony does not erase all the other accurate testimony. Consider the Kono Statement of 1993 which followed a period of intense historical research, with many voices heard. Your stance is one that is often used by revisionist Japanese nationalists, such that one false element means that everything else should be thrown out. In English, we say "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." You don't throw the good parts away just because there are bad parts. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Their fabrications and lies were revealed was in 1996 and 2020. These were after the Kono statement in 1993.
 * Since Yoshida's book was published in 1982, Koreans who hadn't said anything before, began to demand money. Many book sources are requoted from Yoshida's fake book. The influence of Yoshida's fake book is heavy. The Kono statement was to ease the feelings of the Korean people as a maximum compassion of Japan for maintain a good relationship between Korea. But, the more money the Japanese paid, the more Koreans escalated their monetary demands and began propaganda of anti-Japanese activities around the world. No matter how many times Japan apologizes, aids money, or signs a formal reconciliation treaty, Koreans receive only money, ignore the treaty, and continue anti-Japanese activities around the world.
 * They use the comfort women issue as a tool for demanding money and use it politically in connection with North Korea. And, this day and age, there is no forced entrainment by the Japanese government, even so, many Korean women are coming to prostitute in Japan. People who are not in Japan do not understand the reality well, and feelings that had been extorted money eternally. Their propaganda is so great that it's probably difficult for foreigners to understand the quiet Japanese. Sorry for my poor English. Goodbye and good luck.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC) supplement--みしまるもも (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Quiet Japanese" is a good touch. Not believable, but dramatic. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to know much about this. The husband and sister of Yoon Mee-hyang who is the leader of the victim organization are arrested as the North Korean Spy. And, in 2020, she and an old woman who call herself a former comfort woman have been quarreling among the themselves over money, and Yoon Mee-hyang wrote her facebook that the old woman was not a comfort woman.(These original sources is The Chosun Ilbo, secondary related news sources;, , , ) Check it out! (*´σｰ｀)＊＊ＳｅｅＹｏｕ＊＊--みしまるもも (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For your reference;

DYK for Alice Kahn
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock back
FYI, see the continuing contributions of IP editor you warned a few days ago. I think I hear a WP:DUCK quacking nearby. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mamas and Papas Years active
For the M&P page, it said the years active was "1965–1971". I changed it to "1965–1967, 1968(-1969), 1971 (Group technically continued for about year after 1968, but there was no activity)". It was changed back with the reasoning being "the infobox is for quick facts, not complicated stuff". Since when? Plenty of infoboxes have a little complexity to them. How is my addition too much? The initial one is technically false as the band was inactive by any definition in 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeln4444 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The band did not announce a breakup. The story of their activtiy together is complicated, and not suited for the infobox, which is for simple facts. It is especially problematic with your very strange concoction of an open parenthesis followed by a hyphen, which will confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Street style
Hello, Binksternet,

I saw a big reversion you made on this article saying you were combatting block evasion. But the editor you reverted is not blocked or been identified as a sockpuppet. You also reverted two editors, not just one. What was the basis for your decision and do you do this frequently? Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I "do this frequently", the reverting of edits that I judge to be block evasion. Both of those you mention have been blocked since you posted the question. First, I reverted them per WP:EVADE, and then I filed a sockpuppet report at Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Fireman versus the Fireman
I've changed the name of Paul McCartney's band from "the Fireman" to "The Fireman" cause on their Wikipedia page they are called like this. The same goes for the site "Paul Mccartney Project", a very detailed site that calls them "The Fireman", not "the Fireman". And still you, Binksternet, reverted my edit without providing any source. You probably did the same with the genres on the album "Electric Arguments" and other stuff. What are your changes based on? Your experience? Well yours is against mine so who's right? You and people like you cause you edit wikipedia since 2007? That doesn't make you guys more knowledgable on music, logically. I've tried many times to edit stuff on Wikipedia and I've learned something seeing all the contradictions of "wikipedia veterans": "You are an old and recognised editor? You are in the right". And who cares if I use different IPs to edit. I can do it? I do it. What's important is to write truthful and coerent informations. Please reply to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C24:95D0:784E:5D5A:FB40:9C0 (talk • contribs)


 * The guideline at MOS:THEMUSIC says that we use lower case "the" in running prose, which makes "the Fireman" correct.
 * You are in the habit of making up your own facts, for instance adding your own genres and adding unsupported credits. The reason why I am frustrated at your changing IP address is that you would have been blocked by now if you had just one username or IP number.
 * Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Stop adding your own ideas, which is a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok I got the "Fireman" thing. But on "Electric Arguments", "Rushes" and "Twin Freaks" you added and removed genres without providing any secondary sources, you just added your own opinion. You make up facts, and then come to me saying "don't make up your own facts"? I don't understand. I've seen pages on Wikipedia where the secondary source was just an article written by some journalist or music expert or writer where a song's genre was just given and not explained or discussed, and that article was accepted as a secondary source. So I don't know why the site "Paul McCartney Project" is not accepted as a secondary source, its informations on "who played what" is based on a book by Luca Perasi. I've seen this situation multiple times, and no one did anything to fix it. I tried to fix it, and my edit was removed and replaced with the one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C24:95D0:8032:C1FF:7096:E617 (talk • contribs)

So Binksternet, it's been some days now and you don't reply to me. Maybe you haven't seen my response, or you're very busy or maybe you don't know how to respond to my criticisms of the last comment. So why shouldn't I change your unsourced genre edits on the Fireman's and Paul McCartney's albums?

DYK for Worth Waiting For
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input
So. I'm hitting the one year mark (of inactivity), and the last time I tried to contribute I was seriously slammed and attacked - apparently for thinking that blocking everyone, with the nastiest attitude possible, might not be for the best for the long term viability of the project. I don't know. Am I suffering (still) from burnout? Or have things changed that much? Or did I just accidentally run into the wrong bunch of editors and admins on the last attempt? How fares the wiki world, iow, and have I contributions yet to make? Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on this subject. --Killer Chihuahua 21:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your natural attitude is one of good faith assumption held for as long as possible. I guess the cranky editors here are generally burned out on good faith, reacting too quickly to defend the wiki and save what's left of their sanity. I know I get jumpy like that after a long session of fighting persistent block evaders. In those moments it's difficult to stop and say, hey, this might be a completely new user who is having their first foundational experience of Wikipedia.
 * If I could rework Wikipedia I would stop IP editing and install some kind of process that gives precedence to registered users who have contributed usefully. And new users would be welcomed while being steered to programs that get them familiarized.
 * But that's a fantasy scenario. The question on the table is something like "should return to active status?" Since March when COVID-19 decimated my profession, I have been creating new articles again, and it's rewarding. I really like working alone to get a new topic up, or even expanding a stub topic. Much less friction. Perhaps that's a short-term solution for you, too? Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020- Club 27
Hello, I am writing because I saw the message. I'm not creating any war. I understood that the sources were unreliable and wanted to add them. Besides - the warning was wrong because the fact that I had a conversation on this subject with the editor of "Deacon Vorbis". He asked me to add a reliable source, but then explained to me that they were wrong, which I didn't know. Now I know. Sorry for my wrong edits. Here you will find our conversation:. I know, it should be in the "Discussion" tab of the article. Best Regards --WujekJasiek (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it takes more than dying at 27 to be a member of the 27 Club. How much more? The WP:SECONDARY sources should say explicitly "27 Club". Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Album of the Year
A discussion has begun at WP:RSN regarding the website should be count as an unreliable source and should be remove off the ratings template. Please add your comments there if interested. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your job is to explain your edits on the relevant talk pages and obtain consensus for inclusion. Please read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS.
 * You must stop using primary sources such as the Bible or the Catechism to make your points. These are interpreted various ways by scholars, so they cannnot stand by themselves. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry by FortniteRishabS0122
Do you mind to comment at Sockpuppet investigations/FortniteRishabS0122, because I think editor is back again using other accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Keyshia Cole
Hello, Binksternet! I am sorry if my edits have seemed to be disrupting. I am also sorry for the "edit war" that you are assuming that I am engaging in with you. At first, when you removed the additional info I was adding to the "Controversy" section for the article about Keyshia Cole (who I am a big fan of) I thought that you were just doing that to target me for some reason. Afterwards, I looked back at the edits and I realized that I made it look a bit messy and you had all right to remove some of it. Though, you also removed the peak chart position for her single "Never" and from what I saw it said 68 or 69 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Unfortunately, I was wrong as I went back to her chart history and 71 was it's accurate peak position. I will make sure I double-check the next time I am adding chart positions to her articles. Anyways, I hope that I have not made you feel any type of way about my editing. I would really like it if you or someone else tried and helped me improve the Keyshia Cole article because there is a lot of grammar errors, poor sources and little information and it would take forever to clean an article like that up. Thank you and have a great day! Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:16, October 29, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note! There's no time limit on Wikipedia, and it's good to have a goal of tidying up a biography. Best to you. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for "Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!"
—valereee (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Disco?
Is disco a subgenre of R&B? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:F47E:5B35:8067:73AA (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER
Hi Blinksternet, I hope you're well. Just a note, regarding this edit, and I'm not sure if you know, but per WP:TWITTER, tweets are perfectly fine sources, as long as they are from a verified account and not making extravagant claims. Hope you don't mind me messaging you about this. Take care. AshMusique (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, the claim isn't extraordinary. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for L'eggs
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)