I have noticed regular editing patterns involving two editors within the Coldplay related articles which one person removes and the other reverts content in the lead part of each of the members of that band. It was four years ago that I was discussing Coldplay to you and this case seems to be more serious than the Kent IP addresses problem.
I don't see the continuation of edit warring stopping anytime soon despite both users (Special:Contributions/GustavoCza and Special:Contributions/Unbh) taking discussions to the talk pages, they both continue to edit war after editing the talk space. Also on the admins 3RR noticeboard, which had disappeared into the archive too soon, no-one, apart from Unbh, had even gone into comment on this report I made at the start of the month.
I'm inclined not to edit these articles in the middle of persistent content dispute, therefore I am not involved in 3RR violations myself. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think GustavoCza is doing the right thing by adding a YouTube video to support his florid description of Jonny Buckland here. Is there a similarly inappropriate behavior of Unbh? If not, then the hammer should come down hardest on the one who is not following editorial policy. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that a YouTube reference has been added in to the article. Either way, both editors are violating 3RR and Unbh has been blocked for edit warring once already this year. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think GustavoCza has been editing once with just an IP address - [1], as far as I know, only one person uses the characters // before the text "Undid revision...."? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are pointing to an edit which is the reversion of obvious vandalism, so it's a good edit with nobody challenging it. But I believe you are correct in connecting GustavoCza to the IPs which have been using two forward slashes in their edit summaries. I have listed some of the involved Brazilian IPs below, including the forward slashes and also related IPs interested in Coldplay topics. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are pointing to an edit which is the reversion of obvious vandalism, so it's a good edit with nobody challenging it. But I believe you are correct in connecting GustavoCza to the IPs which have been using two forward slashes in their edit summaries. I have listed some of the involved Brazilian IPs below, including the forward slashes and also related IPs interested in Coldplay topics. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think GustavoCza has been editing once with just an IP address - [1], as far as I know, only one person uses the characters // before the text "Undid revision...."? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that a YouTube reference has been added in to the article. Either way, both editors are violating 3RR and Unbh has been blocked for edit warring once already this year. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
![Mail-message-new.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20220718045419im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Numerical changes IP
98.56.142.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); IP in Sacramento, California making various weird minor changes (mostly numerical) to music articles; is this familiar to you? wizzito | say hello! 05:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- No particular vandal case that I know of... Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edits?
I knew Stevie and was a great friend of him and Fay Walker for many years. Everything I added was a fact! Why did you remove my edits? Southy17 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because you were violating WP:No original research, a non-negotiable policy. You were remembering things and adding them.
- Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published information, not a collection of remembered experiences. Ideally, every article on Wikipedia will be a summary of the articles and books written about that topic. The information on Wikipedia must be WP:Verifiable as published somewhere—another hard policy. If you decide to write about your experiences and publish them in a book, magazine, or any other reliable source, then it may be added afterward. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Southy17: Personal knowledge is not verifiable to our readers or editors and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I know so much more about Stevie than you do, that is very obvious. Who are you to delete content that I added that is fact? Southy17 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you ignore my previous answer I don't have anything more to say. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Actors and Actresses
I don't know why you have been changing the word Actress to Actor on some biographies. In the English language the feminine version of the word Actor is Actress. It is not a "dated" term. 63.152.22.171 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are referring to this change to the Claire Danes bio? I was chasing after the IP editor Special:Contributions/2600:387:F:4319:0:0:0:1 who is a long-term disruption problem. I was less concerned about the content.
- Regarding Claire Danes, the biography has had actor/actress swapped back and forth more than a few times. For instance this state of the page in September 2019 shows "actor". The working idea here is that "actor" includes everybody who acts, but "actress" is only the female half, which isn't fair (but it reflects common practice). The idea has been discussed several times but hasn't resulted in any concrete change. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_1#Actor_vs._actress and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2020_April_12#'Actor'_vs._'actress'. In any case I am not trying to change one to the other on purpose. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of David Fisher (architect) for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220718045419im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Fisher (architect), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fisher (architect) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Wrong IP address
Hello, I would like to let you know that you have warned the wrong IP address in regards to edits on the Danny Trejo page. I have, so far, not made any edits to Wikipedia via IP address (I do have an account which I have not used in several years) and comparing the two IP addresses, I have found that you warned the wrong one. Thank you for the time, and my apologies for the inconvenience. 2600:387:F:5633:0:0:0:7 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Nice user page!
Read about half, will get back to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced genre and personnel additions by Nwhrmn13
Hi Binksternet. User:Nwhrmn13 has been adding unsourced genres and personnel information on a lot of different music articles. You can see the warnings on the editor's talk page, all of which are ignored. Here are a few examples of disruptive editing from the last week ([2][3][4][5]. I haven't had to request a block due to this type of behavior before, so I had a read through WP:DRR/ANI, but I found it somewhat difficult to see where one ought to be reporting. I know you're experienced in these matters, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will dig in and look around. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably block evasion by User:Egapikiw111. I'll file a report. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can add to the report if you wish at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Egapikiw111, in the section for comments by other users. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Take Me Home, Country Roads
Hi there. Could you tell me what part of my edits you disagree with in this revert? I made several constructive changes to the article here. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's keep discussion in one place: the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind where it takes place, but here I am referring to a different issue than what we are currently discussing on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Binksternet, can you explain what parts of my edits you disagreed with that caused you to revert them? This is separate to the issue of the subject of the song. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks!
ThunderHenry (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Happy belated 4th birthday on WP. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sources for Dr. Octagoneclogyst album
Hey, Just here to show you these sources to see if there good.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/23101-dr-octagon-dr-octagonecologyst/
https://bedfordandbowery.com/2018/02/trip-hop-legend-dr-octagon-returns-with-moosebumps-lp-and-a-new-single/
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/29/597002303/first-listen-dr-octagon-moosebumps-an-exploration-into-modern-day-horripilation
I'm just going to add Trip Hop, Alternative hip hop, Horrorcore, and Psychedelic rap as it's genre tags. Picaxe01talk 05:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see nothing explicitly supporting your genres. Nobody calls this album alternative or psychedelic or horrorcore. (One song was called psych-horror but that doesn't apply to the overall album genre, and it isn't exactly psychedelic hip hop or horrorcore.) The only source mentioning trip hop is one talking about the artist, not the album. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It seem like you don't get it. Labeling genres it's mostly depends on producers when it comes to hip hop. "The positive reception for “Dr. Octagon” caught the attention of Dan Nakamura, aka Dan the Automator. A young producer who had been learning on the job, he mastered early Solesides Records by the likes of DJ Shadow and Latyrx" - Patrin
- All three artists are worked in the genres of Trip hop and Alternative. Some of the sources even use words that implies Alternative by using words such as "weird" and "bizarro" rap."Dr. Octagonecologyst’s afterlife is nearly as weird as its conception and its essence. Seemingly destined for cult status, it instead spread like wildfire, becoming an indie-rap essential..." - Patrin
- This article gave a little comparison to the first album, describing the label that was being used. "Moosebumps is being billed as the first “true sequel” to Octagonecologyst," "...The result– more rap rock than trip-hop– doesn’t hold up nearly as well as Octagonecologyst does." -Maurer
- Recently, I just found an article that describe the album with the same music genre being used. "Dr. Octagonecologist is credited with opening up the genre to new sounds, previously unheard of in hip hop; mixing electronic, trip hop, psychedelic, horrorcore, and old school hip hop..."
- Here the link to the article:
- https://centralsauce.com/kool-keith-dr-octagon-dr-dooom
- It will be replacing the New Yorker article I used previously as cited. Picaxe01talk 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess I don't get it, having worked with genres on Wikipedia for 14 years, making probably 100,000 edits related to genres. You can go ahead and change all the guidelines and rules to suit your vision. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have an article that describe the music genre of the "Dr. Octagonecologyst". I have refamed for using the "Alternative Hip hop" label. As for the others it's all there. Picaxe01talk 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- According to WP:Verifiability, the source you cite needs to verify the facts you add. Your Central Sauce source does indeed supply a suitable genre for the album, talking about "alternative rap" which is alternative hip hop on Wikipedia. The genre psychedelic hip hop is only applied to the song "Blue Flowers". When the source says that the album "is credited with opening up the genre to new sounds, previously unheard of in hip hop; mixing electronic, trip hop, psychedelic, horrorcore, and old school hip hop into a hodgepodge of an album", none of these can be said to be the overall album genre. Rather, they are elements of the production, part of the larger picture. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have an article that describe the music genre of the "Dr. Octagonecologyst". I have refamed for using the "Alternative Hip hop" label. As for the others it's all there. Picaxe01talk 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess I don't get it, having worked with genres on Wikipedia for 14 years, making probably 100,000 edits related to genres. You can go ahead and change all the guidelines and rules to suit your vision. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Rocket Man (song)
I didn’t change any dates in the article in my latest edit referring to the Dua Lipa parody. Sorry for the misunderstanding about the date format. FinngrPrintz (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No sweat. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not making this up: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qod03PVTLqk — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinngrPrintz (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sweat
The info was removed a few months ago and the sources are there. You could go put them in yourself. Reverting your incorrect edit. It's not that simple to cite past edits but I'll do it I guess since you aren't going to agree.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The story is very minor in her career, but you are making it be super huge. You are making unreferenced accusations against a living person, not allowed per WP:BLP. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Very wrong. Maybe ask Minaj if she thinks the "story" of her father dying unnaturally is minor and very minor. The accusations are true if you mean the users on here changing history because it gets their article to GA or better status. I am putting the info back up and posting the references. Do you sometimes listen to other opinions?Pictureperfect2 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Memphis Bleek
I don't want to start anything but there is a user that keeps removing "record executive" from Bleek's lede and infobox and replacing it with actor. I added it back, leaving actor there as well, under the grounds that since Bleek has a small roster of artist through his music group, it is appropriate. What do you think? I don't want to edit war so if you say let it go, I will. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, he is the head of a label, a small label. Is he described as a record executive by the media?
- The issue is not clear-cut. You should start a talk page discussion about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean, when he's discussed it's usually as a rapper and friend/protege of Jay Z. I've seen a few articles such as the Huffington Post and Time, which label him as such, but he's considered a rapper by most. He's definitely not often referred to as an actor, even though he has "acted" I guess. So, should I edit to remove record executive and actor? 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no right answer. It's a gray area. Do what you feel best represents the guy, but don't keep reverting someone without talking up a solution to the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well, if that user reverts the current edit, I'll just let it be. I'm sure being called an actor isn't the worse thing that's happened to Bleek, lol, thanks Bink. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:654E:7886:81C5:7E (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Don Adams
I restored the text that you deleted for lack of sourcing with an appropriate reflink. Yours, 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
HELP
Hi dude. How are you? I got a problem; this user BOZ are vandalizing the articles about Marvel's characters, not only for troll me, but for pure arrogance. Please read his contributions, his actions are unacceptable and have no presentation. Greetings.--2800:484:7393:A52E:9462:4916:83D2:9DA2 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the IP user decided to reach out to you, but for the record, they often edit war against consensus and without discussion (see most recently[6]) and were recently blocked (for personal attacks and harrassment[7]) which are common enough if you review their range contributions. Maybe they picked you because they reverted you[8] twice[9] recently? BOZ (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
|
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) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Album reissue info in prose
Quick question for you. I noticed someone has recently removed brief, sourced info about reissues that I've left on two Oingo Boingo album pages. Can you take a look here and here and let me know if you think the reissue material I had added was unnecessary, or if I should restore it? I'm pretty sure there were ulterior motives behind the removal that extend beyond WP (long story on that), but I'd first like to get your take on whether or not that info belongs here. Thank you!
—The Keymaster (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- TK, is this an accurate assessment of the problem? Last year you began expanding the article "Only a Lad", adding a paragraph about a colored vinyl reissue,[10] and tagging problematic material such as likely original research. This year in February, Detachio removed your paragraph about the colored vinyl reissue, and also a paragraph you had tagged.[11] Much the same action happened at Nothing to Fear (Oingo Boingo album) where Detachio removed[12] a similar paragraph about a Rubellan Remasters colored vinyl reissue.
- Perhaps Detachio is acting against perceived promotional activity on your part, with Detachio assuming that you have an interest in seeing Rubellan Remasters releases listed on Wikipedia, or that you have an interest in the record review website theseconddisc.com which was cited both times. The cite removal by Detachio might be based on WP:REFSPAM which says "Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." The Rubellan Remasters removal might be based on Detachio's assumption that you are promoting that company. Those are guesses. Have you asked Detachio about their motive?
- Otherwise, I can't see why Detachio would be removing relevant information about the album. It's quite normal and usual to tell the reader about reissues of albums. I would argue on the talk pages about the relevance of the facts and the neutral, non-promotional tone. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Binksternet, yes, that's pretty much it. He also removed the sourced information about CD reissues with bonus tracks. Conversely, I deduced a while back that much of the OR he's added here through the years is "sourced" from Boingo bootleg videos he's uploaded on his own YouTube channel. Go figure.
- I haven't spoken to him directly, but from my observations in the past, he usually ignores any attempts at discussion. I did think about the promotional angle, but in his rationale for deleting the info on Only a Lad, he said in his edit comment, "Short run reissue not worth its own section when the contents already covered in the track listing".[13] I find this odd, as it was only one sentence, not a section, and this is not a rationale I've heard before. I know that he had a public spat with Rubellan on a well-known music forum and I fear he is bringing that into WP by needlessly removing sourced information. He also removed similar reissue info[14] from the Legacy section of the main Oingo Boingo page on the grounds that it was not part of a band's legacy. I guess that one is debatable.
- This is not the first time he's done this kind of destructive editing. He was called out on a Boingo page for doing these kinds of edits before (under both his then-username and also an anonymous IP, although it was dead obvious the latter was him) and a few months later he popped up under his current user name. This is (at least) his second user name here.
- Perhaps I should just restore the information and give my rationale for doing so on both talk pages?
- Thanks for your help, as always.
- —The Keymaster (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't say you were not connected to Rubellan—you don't have to answer—but your description of Detachio's editing pattern is troublesome. I think the wiki is a better source of information when all the major album reissues are listed.
- Certainly you can restore the reissue paragraphs and whatever else you deem wrongly removed, while giving your rationale at the talk page as you suggest. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no, I'm not connected to Rubellan at all, outside of speaking to him on the aforementioned music forum a few times. I'm just suspecting that their tiff may be a factor in Detachio's rationale for deleting any information related to his reissues, given what I have witnessed between them. I can't even remember what caused their rift at the moment, although I believe it had something to do with the YouTube channel.
- —The Keymaster (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Let's return the Rubellan reissues to the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Will do! Thanks, Bink.
- —The Keymaster (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I went to restore the info...only to find that you'd saved me the trouble! Ha! Probably better that way, as it shows a veteran editor did it. Thanks again for your help and advice!
- —The Keymaster (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Let's return the Rubellan reissues to the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
DS4Ever album cover
Can you upload a better version of the album cover. The current image seems to be in lower quality. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The current image is 200 pixels square. I've done a few 300-square albums and I saw a bot reduce one to 315 square. How large can a non-free album cover be? Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think 300 pixels square is more appropriate size for the album cover and the image came from Instagram (now a dead source), but if the current image is fine as it is, sorry for bothering you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- No sweat! I just wanted to get it right. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see if 315 is acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see if 315 is acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- No sweat! I just wanted to get it right. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think 300 pixels square is more appropriate size for the album cover and the image came from Instagram (now a dead source), but if the current image is fine as it is, sorry for bothering you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Guy Eckstine
Hi, thanks for the ping. I've blocked the editor; they're not doing anyone any good on Wikipedia. But the article itself is mostly unsourced promotional garbage. If you feel like it, improving it would be appreciated, although, without a fair amount of work, the only hope for it may be gutting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it needs to be blown up and rebuilt. Thanks for the mop action. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. For now. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Digital liner notes are available whenever an album pre-order is
Harder Than It Looks has digital liner notes for its available singles if you access and add the album to the Apple Music app, so yes, it does. The band members are all credited. Liner notes does not exclusively refer to physical copy—most albums that are available to pre-order have liner notes up on music platforms. Again: MOS:ALBUM states an album does not need explicit citation for credits because it is assumed they are taken from the liner notes. Regardless, that doesn't justify you reverting all my contributions to the article. Be more careful. Thank you. Ss112 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Stevie Wonder My cherie Amour
"A cover version must be important" The Boney M. version is no big hit but despite of that okay and launched all over the world with here and than some succes like in South Africa,France and Spain (countries where the succes of Boney M.continued) .There is even a 12 inch USA mix. Finally stands it nowadays on several compilation albums. Many Boney M. fans find it a super production expecially the 12 inch version with jazzy styled instrumental parts ....regret that you deleted it.... Musicworldvision (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The guideline WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. The media should publish their opinions about the cover version, or it should enter a national chart. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Frank Farian Wikipedia
...Thanks.... for keeping and reworking my added information in the rubrice Personal Life! Musicworldvision (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
![]() |
The Music Barnstar | |
It's good to see your username regularly. Thank you for all you do, in music and everywhere else too. Bammesk (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you kindly! Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Gabi DeMartino
Hello! A while ago I created a draft page for Gabi DeMartino who is apart of the Niki and Gabi duo, the singer has gone solo and I think she needs her own page, she recently released her solo album as well, so if you have time could you review the draft page and help me improve it if it needs to? Thank you so much! Gabriella Grande (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- YouTubers are not my thing. Too many of the sources are unfamiliar to me; I would have to figure out each one of them to see whether they would be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Godfather III
Sorry about the edit war we over regarding The Godfather: Part III page! I edited the Sofia Coppola page too and got my edits in the two pages mixed up Gabrielle103 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I saw that. You are removing the assumption that Sofia stopped acting and started directing because of the poor acting reviews. Such an assumption is widespread, so I don't see complete removal as optimal, no matter whether the assumption is true or false. Author Suzanne Ferriss addresses this issue on page 167 in the book The Cinema of Sofia Coppola: Fashion, Culture, Celebrity (ISBN 9781350176638). Ferriss says "Much has been made of the harshly critical reviews of her performance in The Godfather III... as being responsible for Coppola's choice of directing over acting. She has disputed this narrative..." I imagine our readers would be best served by hearing the common narrative followed by the contradiction of the narrative. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like it would be best if we talk about how 'a lot of people perceived Sofia to have stopped acting due to negative criticism of her performance in The Godfather Part: III' - before going on to say that Sofia disputed this. Gabrielle103 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Need guidance please
I am heading towards you because you have already intervened on the main article of Dalida and gave me your support. I am not asking for support but only your participation and your opinion, whether or not it goes against the elements that I have brought. I'm not looking for approval but a clear opinion. And you are a wikipedia regular. Your experience will be beneficial. This is the subject that is being debated : Dalida's nationality. Thanking you again. --Elenora.C (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I will look at the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your intervention. I allowed myself to complete. Have a good day Elenora.C (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet Thank you for your contributions on the Dalida page, the main article is gradually taking on a more encyclopedic form. Despite a user who does not fail to bring the page back in the event that it was. This slows down any development. Elenora.C (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet I will now avoid going over the modifications of DalidaEditor not wanting to infringe the principles of Wikipedia. But the actions of this user are beginning to look like vandalism. I don't know what to do anymore. Elenora.C (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not "vandalism" exactly. More like misplaced enthusiasm. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- A user has proposed a permanent block concerning him. Elenora.C (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I think DalidaEditor has some good ideas, but that person is too resistant to others collaborating. One of DalidaEditor's good ideas is that Dalida's success should not be gauged solely on song sales and album sales.[15] To fix this problem, we can tell the reader that Dalida was influential in certain ways because of her beauty or mystique or soulful depth—whatever it is—cited to a biographer. We can add that sort of spiritual assessment to the raw sales figures to tell the reader how important she was. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree with that. If you refer to the sandbox it is not finished and having a source that indicated charts and sales I used it. Hence this impression given.The main article, as it currently stands, also advertises sales, charts, and even section titles use the song titles. However, some of his successes are to be put into perspective. DalidaEditor says the sandbox always talks about millions and millions. However, in total, 14 times the term "million" appears in the main article, only 7 times in the sandbox whose sale part is settled. There now remains a whole other work of contribution: the concerts, the key dates of its history, its capacities of interpretation. Besides, I clearly told him that I was not refractory. Quite the contrary. But where to start ? I had made that choice. The sales that are or have been mentioned are sometimes false like the level of success attributed to them. We already have you and I participating in making this introduction closer to reality and we can see the change. Wishing you a nice day. Thanks again. Elenora.C (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I think DalidaEditor has some good ideas, but that person is too resistant to others collaborating. One of DalidaEditor's good ideas is that Dalida's success should not be gauged solely on song sales and album sales.[15] To fix this problem, we can tell the reader that Dalida was influential in certain ways because of her beauty or mystique or soulful depth—whatever it is—cited to a biographer. We can add that sort of spiritual assessment to the raw sales figures to tell the reader how important she was. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- A user has proposed a permanent block concerning him. Elenora.C (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not "vandalism" exactly. More like misplaced enthusiasm. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet I will now avoid going over the modifications of DalidaEditor not wanting to infringe the principles of Wikipedia. But the actions of this user are beginning to look like vandalism. I don't know what to do anymore. Elenora.C (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet Thank you for your contributions on the Dalida page, the main article is gradually taking on a more encyclopedic form. Despite a user who does not fail to bring the page back in the event that it was. This slows down any development. Elenora.C (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your intervention. I allowed myself to complete. Have a good day Elenora.C (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
FH edition claims
Hi there, i would like you to stop adding FH with the so claimed "21 million" sales to the their page, the sources are completely unreliable and do not follow wikipedia's notability rules, the first source states that the group have sold 21M copies only the United States, the second source is a copy of what wikipedia states, and that was the edition which is completely disruptive and misleading, there's still no reliable claming "FH 21M records sold" anywhere, once its proven the opposite, for now there's one reliable source confirming a "33 million" claim so is the one most accurate to add here since it comes from the prestigious TV channel "E!". Cheers and please know that wikipedia editors are here to improve articles, help each other, and to protect pages from vandalism or disruptive edition, i recommend you to stop doing it cause is unclear and misleading information.
The article clearly says "21 million in the United States" so is not accurate to put here, the article needs "Worlwide sales source", plus the second source copied what they saw here, which is fake information anyways, if you want to put the 21 million claim, put it above in the 15 million sales in the USA statement, please find another reliable source to sustain this claim, if you can't then just leave the page how it is, unless if a reliable source confirms FH real sales figure. Moonlight Entm (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
ANI
Just in case you weren't aware, there is a complaint about you at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Motörhead
I have reverted your revision to include The Damned, as per reasons stated, though I should add that my summary contained one error i.e. that he was continuing to collaborate with as late as 2009, not 2003. To reiterate: if one member in common is insufficient - even when that member is Lemmy - then the entire section should be removed. FrFintonStack (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The guideline at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts says not to include "Groups with only one member in common". If the new touring guy Brian James (guitarist) is counted, then we have two members in common. Otherwise, we can look at the literature and see if the Damned and Motörhead are said to be very closely associated, more than just being on the same tour.
- I don't have a problem with the prospect of a big pruning job on the associated acts parameter, if that's what is needed. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the reason for the template advice but it seems absurd to apply it rigidly when the act is essentially a vehicle for the member in question. On the association between the two acts: see the Motördamn session of 1979 (released 1992) which featured all then-current members of both acts. https://www.discogs.com/artist/2266035-Motördamn also related in the Guardian article on the 2009 tour https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2009/nov/18/motorhead-the-damned-review The Damned b-side Ballroom Blitz feat Lemmy on bass 1979 https://www.last.fm/music/Lemmy/_/The+Damned+-+Ballroom+Blitz
Recording together 2002 https://www.punknews.org/amp/4953/the-damned-recording-with-lemmy-kilmister-in-2003 Lemmy in The Doomed (first Damned reformation, name changed slightly for legal reasons) 1978/9 https://vivelerock.net/the-doomed/ Article here discusses mutual influence and ongoing friendship https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/should-motorhead-be-considered-a-punk-band/?amp Worth noting that Lemmy’s quote about having more in common with punk bands than Black Sabbath (noted and referenced in the Wikipedia Motörhead article) is specifically about The Damned. The Damned’s New Rose (1976) is almost universally referred as the first UK punk record - without an understanding of the mutual relationship between The Damned snd Motörhead, we lose important context in the history and evolution of British popular music, especially the origins of NEOBHM.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- You make good points; the literature is supportive. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Use of multiple IP warning
Hi, this warning isn't really correct. If someone is making edits from different IPs in the same IPv6 WP:/64 range, it's not anything deliberate but rather something that automatically happens - the IP addresses are often automatically switched every few hours within that /64 range. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- The person involved used several different ranges. All of it could be "automatic" but it could also be deliberate, with the person purposely restarting their device. Below I have listed the ranges they have used. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apr–May 2022: 2600:8805:D609:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked for 1 month)
- Sep 2021 – Mar 2022: 2600:8805:D585:3500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked three times, currently for 1 year.)
- Jan–Jul 2021: 2600:8805:D48E:3600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked twice)
- Aug 2020 – Jan 2021: 2600:8805:D481:5C16:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked for 6 months)
- Apr–Aug 2020: 2600:8805:D480:3B:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Jul 2019 – Mar 2020: 2600:8805:D480:6E0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Oct 2018 – Jul 2019: 2600:8805:D480:4F80:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked once)
- Jun–Sep 2018: 2600:8805:D480:6410:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Dec 2017 – Jun 2018: 2600:8805:D481:37F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- That makes me think, Galobtter, that a multiple IP warning might have been appropriate in this case. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet Makes sense. Yeah with that previous history a warning is appropriate, just wanted to let you know about the /64 thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury
Hi buddy, I didn't say that I consider Freddie Mercury to be the 'greatest' frontman, etc. I said what then might be a good truth, which is that many critics might agree with what I wrote, and all you would need to do is find some sources to back up what I said, I'm sure there would be enough, but that's ok never mind. Thanks for the message, I wish you a good continuation: :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreoto (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bruce Springsteen edged out Mercury in this piece by Billboard magazine. Robert Plant edged out Mercury in this piece by Rolling Stone. Listeners of XFM voted Liam Gallagher the best frontman, edging out Mercury. Of course Mercury is very highly regarded. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
They're all very valid rankings, of course, but I was talking about critics, not rankings; which are polls, at least the last two. Billboard may be all right, but they are rankings that leave time to be found: even those that place Mercury at number one, that's all right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.97.182 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Marjorie Dannenfelser
Marjorie Dannenfelser's page is being requested to prevent the display of the city/state she currently lives in. The user is attempting to reclaim private information on the Internet and requests this information not be displayed. Bh2win (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a summary of published information. Dannenfelser's city of residence—Arlington, Virginia—has been published multiple times. I'm sure this doesn't have anything to do with the current Supreme Court case, and protesters standing outside the homes of those who are responsible. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whether it's published or not does not mean it has to be published on Wikipedia, the individual is requesting the edits stand and the page be protected. There are claims of harassment and threats. Bh2win (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- An addition to my last statement shows the name of her spouse and that she has children. This information does not need to be posted on Wikipedia if the page is about her. Bh2win (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. Dannenfelser herself supplied this information to reporters many times. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- What are you not convinced of? Bh2win (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- That this information needs to be removed. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- What are you not convinced of? Bh2win (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. Dannenfelser herself supplied this information to reporters many times. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- An addition to my last statement shows the name of her spouse and that she has children. This information does not need to be posted on Wikipedia if the page is about her. Bh2win (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whether it's published or not does not mean it has to be published on Wikipedia, the individual is requesting the edits stand and the page be protected. There are claims of harassment and threats. Bh2win (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Re: a serial editor
Can we keep an eye on this PrinceStingySpoilero guy? I've been noticing for a while now that he often makes strange and unncessary edits, usually converting lists to that ghastly hlist format. I just reverted a number of them and I see you've already reverted some as well and have even warned him about it once. I just left another message on his talk page. I also noticed his user page is just a YouTube link to an account (presumably his) that was taken down for violating community guidelines.
—The Keymaster (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Already keeping track. Your comment there pinged me. ;^)
- Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, cool. I initially had you pinged and thought I did it wrong, for some reason, so I removed it. Still getting used to communicating with folks here. Thanks.
- —The Keymaster (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you noticed this "hlist" template has been popping up all over various pages here? Is there a protocol for this? MOS seems to state that a simple bulleted list with asterisks is preferred for lists of three or more. I can't find this hlist template anywhere.
- —The Keymaster (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, cool. I initially had you pinged and thought I did it wrong, for some reason, so I removed it. Still getting used to communicating with folks here. Thanks.
Midwest hip hop
the Midwest hip hop article clearly states that its a genre based on cited sources not original research. what's your problem? Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest hip hop. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, I added Further reading and you removed them all. The book profiles iconic women in hip-hop and provides historical context as well as the perspectives of the featured artists. Please restore it back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.73.14 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. To me it appears that the book is being spammed into multiple articles for the purpose of promotion. A far better use of the book would be to take interesting facts from it and summarize them for each biography, citing the book. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Covers of "The End of the World"
Thank you for cleaning up the cover versions in ["The End of the World"]; I also had already seen that there were some questionable entries, especially the most recent one, the youtube video. However, I don't quite understand why, with three exceptions, all the cover versions have fallen victim to your work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FePo2 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- We are talking about this pruning job. I removed so many cover versions because the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar to inclusion. I would have kept the Patty Duke cover because the text there said it charted, but I was unable to find such a chart. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I see. It looks like the WP:SONGCOVER guideline is one of the most overlooked in Wikipedia :-). FePo2 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Marx Brothers and sources
Sorry for the sources, but on Marx Brothers, I agree. A blog is NEVER acceptible and always a lie. On Humor Risk, however, I could not cite a source based on the limited amount of articles on the topic. What I wrote was true, unplagiarised, and completely necessary. But if you feel that adding data is bad, I won’t edit anymore.
On Lion Solser, I am on the fence. On one hand, it is angering due to the exclusive information, but on the other, I agree, it was getting kind of junked up. Thank you.
-User:Sir Robert PerPaper Sir Robert PerPaper (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some blogs are fine, for instance Roger Ebert's self-published film criticism website. He is an acknowledged expert.
- Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published thought. The published stuff should mostly come from WP:SECONDARY sources—WP:Reliable sources. If there is a topic which doesn't have very much published about it in reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not try to fill in the blanks with less reliable stuff.
- Your Marx Brothers addition appeared to me to violate WP:No original research, or it was based on a blog. Either way it should not stay in the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
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) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hardbass Artists
Why is it not okay to have an artist list in an article about a musical genre?
Then it's not so easy to find examples of the corresponding kind of music and additionally it is a notable issue. For example, How would one know who were classical music composers easily, if there would not be a list which includes for instance Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, etc... It is a part of the knowledge about the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.130.57 (talk • contribs)
- The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists says "Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers." Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
My criticism of the tone and quality of the misandry article
Heavens - you have deleted my comment on the article's tone and content! You really do have a power complex, don't you? You immediately assume the likes of Karen Straughan are not 'reliable sources'? At root, you are an arrogant male, determined to treat us as defenceless imbeciles in need of your protection. (86.157.108.146 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.108.146 (talk)
- Thanks for the confirmation. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
BLP issues
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eleni Foureira. Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
Your recent editing history at Eleni Foureira shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation of geographical features
Hi there Binksternet- you don’t believe that many of these California geographical features need disambiguating..Santa Clara Valley, San Fernando Valley, San Francisco Bay (itself, and not the Bay Area), and the like..? I think it’s awfully presumptuous to assume that people worldwide would know all of these places well. In fact, I’d be actually willing to bet that the average person does NOT recognize these specific geographical features, as places in the Southwest US as well as throughout Latin America have these or very similar-sounding names. I believe it would be innocuous and useful simply to disambiguate these geographical features as California entities in the page names. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article name should only be disambiguated when there is a good reason for doing so. Otherwise, the most widely used name takes precedence. If there is a Santa Clara Valley somewhere other than California, that particular valley should be disambiguated. The most popular usage gets the main name without disambiguation. See WP:COMMONNAME. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand where you’re coming from. But there’s a bit of a circular argument there. In other words, people are going to base the WP:COMMONNAME upon their own experience. Perhaps try telling someone in Ventura County, California that Santa Clara River Valley has just been relocated 300 miles north? And has someone in rural Spain heard of either American Santa Clara Valley? Wouldn’t it be innocuous (and improve the encyclopedia) simply to disambiguate each page a bit further as Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara County, California, and Santa Clara River Valley, Ventura County, California? Same with other similar geographical features, And from a WP:MOS standpoint, a million hatnotes can be precluded. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Mimi Webb
Hi there, Just wondering why you undid the revision where it said Mimi Webb is English. She is? Scottish and Welsh singers don’t get called “British” on Wikipedia so why does she? She’s English. Thanks COYB01 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. She is English, of course, and also British. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Deadline on Shakira's articles with problems
Hi Binksternet. Perhaps you could help in these articles on Shakira since her articles, particularly her main one are receiving more traffic after her break up with Gerard Piqué. Shakira Studies and Shakira Wannabe are two articles with particular concerns, and maybe you can noticed it. Have a kind of original research and synthesis involved (mainly the first one).
These two articles were created by a then new user, months ago, and inspired (WP:OTHERSTUFF) in both Madonna Studies and Madonna wannabe respectively. The articles regarding Madonna, we can say are both well-articulated terms in popular literature, fairly enough to have a space and with several sections, as well its own WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary, the Shakira ones, mainly the first one, is a term that doesn't exist (possible WP:HOAX), and she is not recognized topic by mainstream academia as to devote either a whole article. There is just insolated scholarly articles on her; many mainstream public figures have received the attention of one, or more than one piece in a journal article, but aren't an established topic amongst scholars. There exists also in both articles, poorly quality on sources.
I still supporting Scyrme's view that even is not worth merging for a term that doesn't exist (Shakira Studies) and originated by an user; Perhaps dedicate a simple line (prose) about scholarly articles on her in the Bibliography of works on Shakira could be ok instead merging. Take the example of Taylor Swift (impact section, last paragraph). The second one, I also support Richard3120's point of view and personally I could add that fails almost everything of these points presented in the AfD of Madonna wannabe.
Perhaps, you agree. Or not. If you are not either interested or don't have the time, no worries. Naturally I reached out to you, since you are a specialist in music-related articles, vandalism, hoaxes, Wikipedia's guidelines, neutrality etc. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think WP:AFD is the next step for both of those. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
User's argument about the new wave genre even though reliably sourced
Hi Binksternet, just wanted to know your opinion about the user Msftwin95 who's against the new wave genre being placed onto articles to suit his own point of view even though numerous reliable sources are always present. He claims it's my own opinion when it is clearly not as many sources across the Internet prove otherwise. There's currently a discussion here. Thanks. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Lemme look. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
4 genres too many?
Hi, I'm a bit confused as to why you wrote You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) had "too many genres" when I added dance-pop to the list. I accordingly removed synth-pop so that only 3 genres are listed, but I have seen many songs on Wikipedia with 4 or more genres. To give just a few examples: What's on Your Mind (Pure Energy), Domino Dancing, and Go West (Pet Shop Boys version). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msftwin95 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- First things first: Please put genres into the article body using prose. Don't just put them into the infobox. See Template:Infobox song which says the genre "should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article."
- There is no rule restricting how many genres can appear in the song infobox. In my comment I was responding to the flurry of genre warring you have been engaging in. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if genre sources are preferred in the article body as opposed to the infobox, I will do so from now on. I am still fairly new to the music side of Wikipedia and was following the example of the more seasoned user the HiddenStranger, who so frequently puts sources in the infobox that I assumed it was standard practice.
- At this point I'm not really genre warring; I have no desire to remove genres already listed, though I may disagree with them. Rather I want to make the music pages more thorough by adding legitimately sourced genres that are missing. Msftwin95 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, is only 4 genres per band really a thing? Many if not most band pages, from New Order to R.E.M. to Frankie Goes to Hollywood, have more than 4 genres listed. Msftwin95 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The instructions emphasize that the infobox genres should be less specific and more generic. Fewer genres is much easier to do if they are generic.
- Pointing out examples of articles that are in violation of a guideline is not an excuse to violate the guideline. Rather, it is an indication that some cleanup work is required. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Pooh Shiesty
I have deleted his birthdate as there is no reliable source showing it is true. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent decision. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
??????
Maybe Freebandz isn't the most reliable source, but it's been stated within the Future article multiple times that he songwrites, produces, and is the head of the record label Freebandz.... sooooo why the removal; also you don't have to be rude when confronting someone about an editing disagreement. Peace and love. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Mark Owen...
... has been put on the page protections increase page. I am not doing any more reverts on the article since I have done it three times within 24 hours to be on the safe side. Those Denmark IP's don't seem to have anything useful but to change the dates to another language etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I found two Denmark IP changes that were false chart stats. I don't trust that guy after that. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for third opinion on 27 Club list edits
I have posted a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion regarding your reverts of my 5 edits to the 27 Club list. Goffman82 19:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. 3O is for those times when only two people are talking and cannot settle their differences. The 27 Club talk page has more activity than that. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The issue at hand is your rationale for reverting each of my 5 edits. You have yet to provide a substantive response to the content issues cited in the edit summaries for those edits, despite multiple requests on the talk page. If a third opinion participant agrees that it is the wrong venue, we'll find a better venue. In the meantime, which venue would you suggest? Goffman82 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- People at 3O will see that the talk page is active with participation from Escape Orbit, Amakuru, Iamtheduckie and Mudwater, aside from me and you. The 3O person will note that you have chosen the wrong venue. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The issue at hand is your rationale for reverting each of my 5 edits. You have yet to provide a substantive response to the content issues cited in the edit summaries for those edits, despite multiple requests on the talk page. If a third opinion participant agrees that it is the wrong venue, we'll find a better venue. In the meantime, which venue would you suggest? Goffman82 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)