User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

EVADE

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante8. CU's are already on the case. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what catalyzed my reverts. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I ran a quick check and confirmed they were the same as RoseForEmilyGrierson but hadn't looked further yet--but I'll leave it to User:Callanecc, who dug a little deeper. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok

By the way so we can't have a conversation 86.144.123.151 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't go out of my way to converse with block-evaders. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

why not 2A00:23C5:4523:DD01:3DAC:9481:A519:CD49 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hance Alligood

Hi there. I’ve noticed you make many significant edits to a lot of music-related Wiki pages. You contributed some edits to my favorite band Woe, Is Me earlier this evening.

Would it be possible to have a Wiki page created for their singer Hance Alligood? Not only is he the singer of Woe, Is Me, but he has been the singer of the bands Oh, Manhattan and Favorite Weapon; all of which have been signed to record labels and released music that is still enjoyed by fans. I just think it’s a shame that there isn’t a page for him. He has made many contributions to the music world. I have interviewed him a few times for a now defunct music blog and can provide basic details about his life and career if needed.

Thanks in advance, even if the answer is no. 71.7.55.135 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability requirement must be satisfied. See WP:MUSICBIO.

The first thing to do is to find in-depth coverage about Hance in multiple WP:SECONDARY sources, not counting interviews. Stuff like this doesn't count because it is just a band announcement republished by a website. This magazine piece isn't in-depth coverage. I'm not seeing enough material. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fuckin' Perfect

There is no reason at all to remove the whole synopsis. Right now there is a 'background' section and a 'reception' section, which feels orphaned because there is no description of the video. 2.133.60.71 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If you can figure out a way to represent the video using ONE paragraph containing 200 words or less, then yes we can have a synopsis section. The guideline specifying 200 words is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Plot_section. A music video is no different in treatment than a TV episode. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The synopsis you supplied was almost 800 words. It needs to be pruned down to 200 or less. Obviously, it will not fully describe all the details with such a short summary. That's the goal, though. Wikipedia plot descriptions are never expected to convey every single detail. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I saw your message and I saw that you have undone some of my edits on Wikipeida, I don't know where you've got the idea from but firstly, I am not using multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia so please don't accuse me of doing that, secondly, I'm undoing the vandalism that JuliaDrydon has caused to Wikipedia, if you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page, otherwise please don't undo my edits, by the way, I've added a source to prove that Tina Arena performed at Party in the Park. thank you. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You definitely got blocked as Special:Contributions/82.19.124.151, and now you are doing the same stuff that got you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Pentagram

The non-interlaced version may, as you say, cover wider usage,^* but is also already shown (using the very same file) lower down the page, so now it's there twice. And also immediately below the top illo with Greek letters outside the points (as Pythagorean). And inverted, from Agrippa. There is an inverted interlaced pentagram, for Satanism, but no upright interlaced pentagram. Why not?

 * ... though Morocco's flag also distinctly uses an interlaced pentagram... except in the version on Commons, which is drawn non-interlaced. – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Last October when I first worked to improve the article, its star had one perfectly vertical line, which made it look like it was dancing. An atypical presentation, to be sure. I thought a plain star would better serve.

Now that you mention it, I can see that the standard non-interlaced pentagram image at the top should not be duplicated further down. I will remove the two Serer images—the nearby text description is enough for the pentagram, and the other image isn't relevant to the topic.

Feel free to place an upright interlaced pentagram somewhere appropriate in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the truncation section looks like a violation of WP:No original research. Remove? Or hunt down a cite? Binksternet (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that. It would be a trivial observation of geometry merely to say that removing the points from a five-pointed star, or from a pentagram, leaves a pentagon. This goes a bit further, into more complex shapes. Okay, that may be true and even interesting, but not really on-topic. Which I guess tells you my vote.

What I wonder about are the existing historical... speculations, in my opinion... that the five points of a pentagon, pentagram, or five-pointed star derive either from the pattern of apple-seeds seen when the apple is cut open horizontally, or from astronomical observations of Venus's orbit. Since the pentagram early on represented Ishtar/Innana, "who was associated with the planet Venus", the latter idea is attractive. But still, as I said, speculation. – _•Raven  ^.talk 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Five-pointed formations appear throughout nature—under the sea, everywhere. The origin of the pentagram must first be from seeing it in nature. But where and when was the absolute first moment, none of the topic writers will ever truly know. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah well, there's more starfish in the sea! – .Raven  ^.talk 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Oldfields

Why are you deleting edits we are trying to save our school. Please stop. 2600:1011:B19D:4C12:C08E:9EA4:C3EE:56E8 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

{{tps}} Wikipedia is not for advocacy. It's just an encyclopedia, with articles whose content is based on widely-agreed standards. DMacks (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT... Wikipedia is not your publishing platform. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Plastic Letters

Hello, reversion noted, I wondered if that source would considered reliable, especially as 12 Feb is a Sunday. Further enquiries suggest the release date is not February at all, but 4 March.

http://www.thebestofblondie.com/1978/03/04/blondie-plastic-letters/

Is thebestofblondie.com a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurlyRed (talk • contribs)

I don't see an author named at the page http://www.thebestofblondie.com/1978/03/04/blondie-plastic-letters/ which in any case says it was written on 4 March 1978 before many of the illustrated releases existed. I must conclude that the page was automatically generated and cannot be considered reliable.

Regarding the album's release date, the Dutch charts first noticed it on 25 Feb 1978 when it entered at number 9.[2] Typically, a retail music unit takes one or two weeks to hit a chart after release. That would put the release month squarely in Feb '78, which is in line with many media sources. Billboard ran an advertisement for the album on 11 Feb 1978.[3] Back in November 1977, Billboard published a piece that said Blondie's "second LP, due in January is yet untitled." Of course that would mean January 1978, which could be delayed until February for any number of reasons.

Contradicting sources include Robert Christgau who listed it as released in 1977,[4] and Discogs.com which shows two Japanese LP labels copyrighted 1977,[5][6] which are listed with a Christmas '77 release date in Japan only. Goldmine Record Album Price Guide lists 1977.[7]

The song "Denis" first hit UK charts on 12 Feb 1978.[8] Perhaps the single was released to radio at the end of January. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this response, sorry about the signature omission, first comment and just discovered this SurlyRed (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I think you know what this is for Andre🚐 18:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yay, one for the books. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

re : your message about Comfort Women

hello, The short description should be edited to keep up with historical accuracy.

Considering the sole responsibility of the IJA (army) in this crime is a historical error because the Japanese army and navy were two quite separate entities and they both participated in this crime.
You can also take 5 mins to check this page and you will find that the IJN (Navy) involvement is also mentioned three times, so it makes sense to change this short description.  You are free to leave this text without correction but it would be a shame for the truthfulness of the rest of the text which is correctly written. Hanafunda (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The system was put in place and used primarily by the Japanese Army. The great majority of sources discuss army involvement. The army is properly listed as the responsible party. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

possible 🧦?

Haha.. I was about ping you about it as I was processing the WP:RM/TR requests and stumbled upon the SPI casepage. – robertsky (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this one is persistent. He keeps promising he'll follow the rules, then he can't stand it and he jumps in with new socks/IPs. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Greenacre, New South Wales

I don't intentionally use multiple IP addresses - it's a natural consequence of a non-static network. My edits at Greenacre, New South Wales are good faith edits at restoring relevant content. By contrast, your edit appears to be either motivated by ethno-religious prejudices or you are inadvertently assisting a user who has such prejudices. Why on earth should the article only mention Christian places of worship and not Muslim ones? 49.255.252.131 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I was not concerned about the church part, I was concerned that you were attempting once again to redefine the boundaries of a district as you had already done at Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) using the IP range Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 and also Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129. You say you don't intentionally use multiple IPs, but you have certainly engaged in edit-warring, violating WP:MULTIPLE in the process. You benefit greatly from IP confusion, which is why you haven't created a username account.

You called User:Daceyvillain "a sad ignorant fascist". You called User:LibStar a "houso", meaning a poverty-level person living in public housing. You are the reason that Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) was put into protection. You lost my good faith. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"You benefit greatly from IP confusion, which is why you haven't created a username account" Well said. All the anon IPs consistently refuse to answer why they don't create an account but conveniently switch IPs when given a warning for personal attacks or edit warring. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help @Binksternet. Sorry for this distraction. Daceyvillain (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Red Krayola

Why do you think I'm trying to promote them? I am not, all the stuff I've added have come with sources, you haven't even explained your reasoning for removing what I was adding to the God Bless article, what makes information redundant? To comply with you I trimmed down a lot of what I was adding, but I've come here to have a conversation about this whole thing. Why are you making so many baseless accusations against me? Aradicus77 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also how is adding pivotal information that has been in newspapers since the 1970s making a band look more influential than they actually are? The RK were incredibly influential, it was documented very little and I'm just searching for the sources to document their influence, I've spoken to bands who were part of the punk scenes back in the 1970s, some stuff like this isn't as talked about as much as more popular bands, this is not revisionism, I just look for sources and then try to add the important information. Some bands get forgotten to time, if there's any issue with what I have added, let me know. I've noticed now you don't like trivia and have made the effort to remove any little trivia information that isn't intensely important. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also I apologize for the message, just want to have an actual conversation, I'll believe that you are acting in good fate and will calm down now. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not "baseless". I'm seeing a big effort by you to inflate the importance of Red Krayola, and the effort centers on you. The band sold very few records, and is not mentioned in much of the literature about noise rock, for example. The scholarly book Becoming Noise Music: Style, Aesthetics, and History doesn't say anything about the band. The book New York Rock: From the Rise of The Velvet Underground to the Fall of CBGB only mentions Red Crayola in passing, because it lists Jess Chamberlain joining other musicians in 1979. The book Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music doesn't mention Red Krayola at all, which is where you would expect them to be discussed. AllMusic mentions Red Krayola in passing in their book All Music Guide to Rock, in the context of Dave Allen's Color Blind album published by International Artists, the label of "freaky" acts like 13th Floor Elevators and Red Krayola. So in the big picture, Red Krayola isn't such a big deal. Your apparent goal is to impose a revisionist view of the band, placing them at the center of influence. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? The red krayola were still assessed by AllMusic was presaging noise rock, so I made mention of that, it's not even me who originally wrote that, the person who originally wrote the page for Parable did that, I just copied over the sentence, I'm not sure if there's a rule against that if there is let me know. Ritchie Unterberger, Pitchfork and AllMusic cite them as being influential to noise rock and industrial. This is a strange argument anyway because it's not like I centered the whole noise rock page around them, I just added one sentence mentioning them, someone added a paragraph calling the Godz a precursor to noise rock and that is a claim that is much less sourced and talked about than the Red Krayola, that band is also a lot more obscure, how come you haven't looked into what that user is doing? Aradicus77 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

When a writer for a big magazine like Pitchfork says Red Krayola were influential to art punk for example, I quote that and add it to the page as it is important. I don't center the whole genre page around it as you are trying to say, that would be revisionist work and original research. I'm respectfully trying to denounce your claims, your accusations feel passive aggressive in my opinion. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've found out you're not even an admin, so I'll see where ever this goes because I am practically innocent and editing in good faith, any issues should be voiced. I just took issue with you seemingly reverting any edits I made just because it was me making them and you feel I have some natural bias, when most of my edits are centered around quotes and barely have me even saying anything besides "This writer remarked:". If anyone else made those edits you wouldn't bat an eye (and I've seen it happen for example the massive Godz paragraph in the noise rock page that I reverted and then the person added back) that's why I've come to start this conversation. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I know wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that really gets into specifics when it comes to things unless it is very famous, but just because a lot of writers haven't talked about a band doesn't mean they aren't influential and important. Bands like Silver Apples are moderately obscure and only came into prominence recently in musical importance, now their influence is talked about more greatly, it is the same thing with groups like the Red Krayola. It is already a massive effort on my part to find sources for what I've added. If I were being malicious I'd be straight up editing pure original research that are backed with no sources whatsoever, but I'm not, I'm taking my time to find sources and pick out what's important to add to a page. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in here, Binksternet.

Aradicus, your good faith is not on trial -- at least not from my perspective. However, some of what you add comes from the perspective of (what I assume is) a fan, which results in the inclusion of trivia. Contributing is fine, but you add in entire blocks of quotes for many details. Add, contribute, and write, but measure it, first. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That is fair, I won't add massive quotes, but explain to me why pages like the Spacemen 3 page get to add massive quotes and create an extensive informative and detailed page but a page like the Red Krayola removes large quotes as being "insignificant". Aradicus77 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by being blocked from page editing, it means very little to me. I just want to understand what it is that I'm doing that is wrong, and why some pages do things I do and get nothing for it. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Right now I'm about to make some edits to God Bless, please explain to me why Manos Hatzidakis being a massive fan (if you read the Greek website, he was such a huge fan he was going to make a whole rock opera with the band) and David Grubbs isn't important to the page? And how come everytime I mention that notable bands like the Cramps have been influenced by the band those edits get removed. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hatzidakis would merit more coverage if his rock opera project had been completed. Stuff that never happened is usually a lot less important.

The Spacemen 3 article is in terrible shape, with a note at the top saying it is too long and too detailed. Try using a Featured Article as a comparison. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, these two points are fair and make sense, this is all I've been trying to get at. I'm not experienced on this site, so I don't know the norms of it. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Aradicus77: Please review Drop the stick (I think this is quite enough) and WP:TLDR (In regards to the length of this thread) - FlightTime (open channel) 21:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do I start a new one? Aradicus77 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

lol, NO!! You're dancing all over this well known tactic - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

bro I'm not trolling, I genuinely just skimmed what you sent me and didn't catch what you were saying, I've read it properly now and noticed that what you want me to do is drop the whole conversation, I have some learning disabilities so don't do that. It's all over now anyway, I don't care. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring versus BRD

One of the problems I'm having with your behavior is that you are violating WP:ONUS which is a hard policy. When disputed text is removed from an article, you should start a discussion about it on the talk page, and wait until a consensus forms for inclusion before restoring the material. With two people involved, one removes disputed text and the other starts a talk page discussion about the text. The person who wishes to include disputed text is responsible for building a consensus for inclusion.

An explanatory essay about this practice may be seen at WP:BRD which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold and added something, I reverted that, and then you start the discussion.

When I remove something I have a good reason 95% of the time. It's possible that something I removed was collateral to what I was aiming for; a discussion will help discover if everything removed was intentional, what was the reason for removal, and what sort of compromise might be reached. It's your job to get these discussions started. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I start a talk page discussion about the text? Aradicus77 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do I just go on your page like I've done now and start a section saying something like "Post-punk experimentalism quote" and then we talk about why that was removed? Aradicus77 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The new discussion should take place at the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aradicus77: See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS - FlightTime (open channel) 21:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've figured it out now, thank you. I'll follow what Binksternet said to do when things are reverted. I've accessed the article talk page and see what is being said there. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey, Bink. Just wanted to ask if we can have a discussion about AC/DC via email? I have an issue I'd like to address (not about you :P ), but if it's not a good idea, I'd rather have it shot down in private - FlightTime (open channel) 21:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, tell me what you have. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Airmiess not Ermias

Template:Airmiess not Ermias has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No issue with you

I've got no issue with you man, I see that my addition to art rock was wrong, it wasn't really that credible of a source, but my additions to free improvisation and noise music are entirely valid and you are removing them with no reason, I have cited them extensively, adding 3 citations for the one in noise music yet you still remove them with no reasoning, accusing me of promoting the band with no proof of me doing that. If I was truly just here to promote the band why do I add other bands that are not mentioned in these pages? I added the Beatles and Pink Floyd's contributions to free improvisation, in it too Red Crayola have also made contributions, this is my message here to resolve this so we don't enter another edit war. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Bands like the Godz who are featured on some of these pages are lesser known than Red Krayola yet are still included by people due to their contributions to these genres, reliable music critics have noted their contributions, they are just an underground band and aren't as talked about as the Beatles for example. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a serious issue with your non–Red Krayola edits.

I do have a serious issue with you searching for any kind of mention of Red Krayola in published works, and inserting every such mention into multiple articles to inflate the importance of the band. You are on a mission to puff up the band's legacy larger than appropriate, to give them outsize influence. You are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia for Wikipedia's sake. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of these edits I will admit are bold, but this has created an issue where you assume any edit of mine involving Red Krayola is illegitimate, and anyone that doesn't is legitimate, I have removed and will remove anyone's I see to be wrong (Art rock, gothic rock... etc), but the Krayola edits I've made to pages like Kathryn Bigelow, proto-punk, punk rock, garage rock, free improvisation and noise music are all apt. Wikipedia supports discussing disagreements, my issue is you just reverting my edits with no explanations. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep forgetting that disputed text removals are supported by the Wikipedia policy WP:ONUS. The act of repeatedly restoring disputed text is not supported by any policy. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But who chooses what should be included and what shouldn't be? You clearly have a bias against me as you never choose to delete stuff in articles that literally have no citations. I've come across things listed by the Beatles in an article with no citation that is borderline original research that hasn't been removed. Should I go around removing those pieces of information for not having a secondary source as you say? Aradicus77 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That behavior is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's not smiled upon. But feel free to go around and correct any inflation you see of the Beatles on Wikipedia, making them more important than they were. You'll probably run into resistance. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

At this point just ban me for edit warring, I haven't read every single wikipedia rule like you have, I'm not out to be malicious. If my work is being interpreted as being malicious then so be it. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, these guys should have been on many of these pages since the beginning, lots of underground and influential bands who are on like 30+ pages because of their vast influence, I'm just basically filling that in, but it makes it look like I have a conflict of interest which is understandable. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farewell My Concubine (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort Yu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Bonzai Records/Bonzai Jumps

Look at the reference at the bottom of the wikipedia page Bonzai Records, the wikipedia page: Bonzai Records, was created with the Discogs site, Discogs cannot be cited as it fails, you wrote that it fails, ==References==

"Bonzai Records/Music Page". Discogs. Retrieved 2009-06-02.

Luckal5962 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Discogs.com cannot be cited because anyone can log on and change the information. It fails WP:USERG. What people should cite instead is each album or single, using Template:Cite AV media. The album and single information is printed on the release, and is reliable enough for our purposes.

But you have been trying to insert relatively unknown names into articles. Nothing will help you do that. It's like you are promoting these names. The reader doesn't need to know about lesser elements involved in the topic. According to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the fact that something is true is not enough reason to include it. The thing should be important to the topic.

Here's an example: Luckal5962, you added a bunch of names including Belgica Wave Party to the article Bonzai Records.[9] Belgica Wave Party is not notable; that is, they don't meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. The reader does not need to know that the group was signed to Bonzai Records. Belgica Wave Party is not important to the story of Bonzai Records. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Bonzai Records was one of the biggest European electronic music label at the time, Wikipedia didn't exist at that time, Bonzai was a club music label, there weren't just 4 djs or 4 hits. Luckal5962 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

New Beat

Bassline Boys Warbeat is a New Beat classic referenced on wikipedia, the same for Rhythm Device (with the name Frank De Wulf) Acid rock, otherwise I suggest you delete all the New Beat page from Wikipedia, because you don't know anything about it European New Beat. Luckal5962 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Without a published reference, you appear to be making this stuff up yourself. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

1 Bassline Boys - On Se Calme Bassline Boys - On Se Calme - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

HNO3 - Doughnut Dollies - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

BASSLINE BOYS War Beat (Fick Fick Fraülein Blitz Krieg Mix) - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bountyhunter - Woops (Original Mix) - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Rhythm Device - Acid Rock (1989) - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

ZAG - Mörder (vinyl sound) - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Those cites show that the song exists. They don't prove that the song or the artist is important. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thunderball - It's Your Dj (Original Mix) - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Belgium Beat 1989 - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bassline Boys - Warbeat (1989) was even known in a club in Israel in 1989, he talks about it in the video, from 12 minutes in the video link Belgium Beat 1989 - YouTube Luckal5962 (talk) 14:55

Luckal5962 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a primary source, not definitive. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

ANOHNI

Anohni's full legal name is not listed in this article. We dont want to seem more motivated to list her birth name than her current actual name, not just her stage name. Please explain why you believe that the link we included to ARCA's page doesnt establish precedent that birth names can be listed in sections describing birth, rather than in the title line. It gives the impression that editors are more preoccupied with the artist's gender identity, which I presume isnt the case, than representing her in manner in which all the facts are listed in order of relevance. ie: her current legal name, Anohni Hegarty. check. Birth name, in section about birth. Check.

Also, Anohni's music is described as experimental in several refences we posted. She hasn't released any "chamber pop" in over a decade, and never under the name Anohni. By her 3rd Record The Crying Light in 2008, The NY Times/NPR writer Ann Powers stated that Anohni had evolved from "chamber pop" to more experimental compositional territory of her own. Nico Muhly, the compositional collaborator on the Crying Light, Cut the World and Swanlights, is widely regarded as avant classical, as the link we posted indicates. Daniel Lopatin, the producer for Hopelessness is always described as experimental. That album was classed as experimental by Pitchfork in their own classifications.

The wiki overview seems preoccupieed with older tropes. 20 years ago with I am a Bird Now, the "chamber pop" category originated because at that time Hegarty was actually touring with a small chamber group of three string players, until 2007. However for the next 8 years, between 2008 and 2016 she was performing with symphonies around the world, as described in the body of the article, and "chamber" does not describe that aesthetic. The aesthetic of those arrangements by Muhly was experimental classical; my partner and I found one article describing Muhly's work as avant classical, which we suppose could conform to the category of experimental classical.

Your reference to Wendy Carlos is one of several paradigms indicating the gender identity of an artist currently featured on wiki. Arca is a peer of Anohni,suggesting it might make more sense to align the choices here with those we have made about Arca's page. Even Wendy Carlos' full legal name is first iterated on her page, which is currently not true on Anohni's page. Also, identifying birth names in sections about birth could be perceived as more respectful, which we can all agree is a good thing. Just saying Wendy Carlos without addressing the resolutions determined on Arca's page isnt enough to close the conversation here.

Finally, what is the issue with referencing Anohni as a visual artist and theater director when those aspects of her work are described in detail in the body of the wiki page? We have several articles and reviews attached to this page that describe her work in those arenas. Thanks in advance for your response.

2603:7000:3801:4900:2197:D1AD:6F64:3A63 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason that Wendy Carlos is more like the Anohni case is that both of them became famous under their birth name. Anohni's birth name was prominently seen as part of the band name Antony and the Johnsons. That is why the birth name must be at the top of the page.

That's the only issue I am concerned about. Her musical style is not my concern. However, your edit here is a problematic expansion of the infobox instead of the article body. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the article body should contain every fact and citation such that the infobox could be removed and no information lost. The infobox should be a summary of the article body facts, just like the lead section should be a summary of article body prose. Please move Anohni's musical style information down into the article body. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Arca was also well known as a producer under their former name. There is obviously an evolving consciousness about this taking place, because we are applying a double standard, depending on who is policing the page. Your idea about Wendy Carlos still hasnt addressed the disparity in the way that other well known musicians who changed their names mid career have been treated on wiki. 2603:7000:3801:4900:BC20:7FB7:D9EB:A8B (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As you rightly state, Anohni's former name was part of her band name, and that band name is announced in the second sentence of the opening paragraph. Is it not an obsessive and unnecessary reiteration to state the former name twice in 2 sentences, when it could be more elegantly issued in the paragraph about birth? Additionally, the article later articulates the moment when she adopted the name Anohni. Do we have to keep hammering away at it? Wendy Carlos has long been in hiding from public life. But do we really imagine that it would be her preference that half a century after transitioning, the second word on wikipedia is still Walter? It reads as out of touch, and no trans person under the age of 50 would consider it a respectful approach. Shouldn't that be a consideration? We are not suggesting that we hide Anohni's former name, just that we position it respectfully, and not center it obsessively, as is already being done on wiki pages for slightly younger artists. 2603:7000:3801:4900:BC20:7FB7:D9EB:A8B (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the info box, according to protocol "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). ...allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Our point here is that "chamber pop" and "art pop" is a misrepresentation of Anohni's last decade of work, and to lead with it as the primary description of her output does not illuminate key facts, but distort them. 2603:7000:3801:4900:BC20:7FB7:D9EB:A8B (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am to interpret you lack of response here as agreement? I havent reverted anything, waiting to reach consensus with you. best, R. 2603:7000:3801:4900:9DA:ED6F:3B86:C3C3 (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided a compelling argument. I continue to classify Anohni the same way as Wendy Carlos.

My lack of response was because you did not bring new arguments—you just restated your old ones, as if that is a valid continuation of the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You are being patronizing while i am trying to reason with you to reach an appropriate solution. In order to resolve the discussion you will need to address the points i raised, which you have not done. The fact that you classify Wendy Carlos in a certain way is not sufficient. What about the example of ARCA's bio on wikipedia? Please familiarize yourself with the entry on this contemporary peer of ANOHNI's before you dismiss my work here and answer the question properly. Otherwise you have not responded to me other than to repeatedly revert additions to the page without justification, which is not how this works, last time I checked. 2603:7000:3801:4900:A05B:553F:3D6E:99CD (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert on Frailty edits

Hey, I saw you reverted some of my edits on Frailty. I do agree that this isn't Jane's social platforms, however, I feel like the album rollout is an important piece in an album's information, and the album rollout happened to happen on her Twitter. I've seen other album pages rely on the artist's social media accounts to explain an album rollout, as it's a popular thing to do nowadays. I hope you understand and could possibly revert 'em? Thanks for your time!

Quick other note: I don't think information on anything should be automatically invalidated because the artist stated it on a social media. It's the same thing as stating it in an interview, I don't understand what makes the information invalid. Locust member (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The idea of the album having a rollout on Twitter is important if WP:SECONDARY sources notice it and publish it. Otherwise, the way you piece together the rollout from various tweets is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Primary sources should be used sparingly. You were using them as the main foundation. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I completely understand that. I don't see why my other revisions would be reverted though, as I linked a tweet stating that the album was reissued (which Jane and DeadAir Records both stated was reissued) and provided information based on the tweet. I wasn't piecing together sources to make my own conclusion, Jane and her record label both stated them very clearly on Twitter, as well as sold the merchandise on DeadAir's website. Locust member (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You can use Template:Cite AV media to show the existence of a published version of any video, song or album. Each published item is its own reliable source, with a publishing date, a publisher (the record label), a title and a catalog number.

Wikipedia is not intended to help sell merch. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Um ...

Why? 2601:840:8000:B8C0:F4EF:607F:6AB2:13E2 (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see anything worth keeping in your edit. You violated the guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE by turning the cast list into an article body link. Either the starring cast gets listed per billing block or it does not. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerning info about The Damned in Gothic Rock

Hello, may I please add this piece of information about The Damned in the Origins section of the Gothic Rock page?: "Captain Sensible of The Damned was asked in an interview with Big Wheel Magazine about their 1980 album, The Black Album: "I noticed that Dave's songwriting had moved on, to a different level, to a different place, a dark place. I knew it was going to be a more interesting album. He was going places and he took us with him, so I suppose it was a proto–goth album when you think about it. It’s Goth. We didn’t set out to do that, but that’s just the way he is. He did have a hearse, he was a gravedigger."" GOTHICjdu (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

That is not a music critic or musicologist giving their objective opinion. See WP:SECONDARY. Instead, it is someone who is involved, who is perhaps caught up in the topic, and stands to benefit by defining himself as influential. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have found an article which talk about The Black ALbum:

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/how-goth-went-mainstream/

May I use this as source instead? If so, Could I also use this as reference for the Phantasmagoria album on the Expansion of the scene section of the page too? GOTHICjdu (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your new source is good. I used it to insert a couple of bands into the narrative, including the Damned. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a couple of changes to the page, could you review it and see if everything is alright? GOTHICjdu (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You gotta stop copying the text from the source, and changing a word here and there. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about I Ain't Mad at Cha song production credits

Hi. I'm mentioning this here because I've seen that you have edited the I Ain't Mad at Cha page before so you're familiar with it. Anyways, for some reason, the user Augend reverted my edit on the I Ain't Mad at Cha page and gave me a warning for vandalism for it. They didn't state why. What happened was that I changed the producer's name to the exact name he's credited as which is "Dat Nigga Daz". So, I'm assuming they thought I was messing around with the name and making it inappropriate even though that's what he's actually credited as on the album/song liner notes. Please help me fix this confusion because that revert and warning for vandalism was unnecessary when the evidence of why the edit was made is there. Here's a source of what the production credits look like on the vinyl single: https://www.discogs.com/master/84827-2Pac-I-Aint-Mad-At-Cha/image/SW1hZ2U6NjU3ODY3MA==

It says on there that he's credited as "Dat Nigga Daz" as well as on the actual album liner notes: https://www.discogs.com/release/226430-2Pac-All-Eyez-On-Me/image/SW1hZ2U6MzYzNDA2MTE= Spinz131 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Spinz131 In my opinion, regardless of what the credits list them as, we ought to use the name that the credited person uses currently. The article Delmar Drew Arnaud patently identifies your revised producer's name as a former name that they no longer use. Hence revising it would be inappropriate. Augend (drop a line) 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion which isn't a popular opinion as you can see from many other pages of songs and albums that have similar situations. For example on the No Way Out (Puff Daddy album) and Forever (Puff Daddy album) pages, Sean Combs aka Diddy is credited in the title name of the article as well as in the entire page itself as Puff Daddy as that was his credited name at the time. Then, he ended up changing it over time to eventually, "Diddy". As you can see, he is still credited as Puff Daddy despite it being a former name that is no longer in use. In conclusion, my point still stands which leads to your warning of vandalism not making sense with the evidence provided. Spinz131 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Spinz131 I do not see the point of your argument. The article you direct to provides for the also also known by his stage names Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, or Diddy, to be contrasted from formerly [ Dat excuse my censorship Daz]. These are clearly two different phenomena. Augend (drop a line) 06:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My argument is that artists should be referenced by the names they had at the time when they released, wrote, and produced records as it is more consistent with what they were referred to at the time. For example, when Snoop Dogg was on Death Row Records, he released albums under the name "Snoop Doggy Dogg" as you can see on his Doggystyle album, it states: "Studio album by

Snoop Doggy Dogg". "Doggystyle is the debut studio album by American rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg." It also credits him as Snoop Doggy Dogg on Tha Doggfather album. Once he left Death Row, he changed his name and he removed the "Doggy" in his name. He also changed his name to "Snoop Lion" at one point. On his Reincarnated album, it states "Studio album by

Snoop Lion". As for Sean Combs, the information is vague because Combs stated, "I decided that I'm just going to go with the name Diddy," the rap mogul, 52, told host Ellen DeGeneres when she asked him point-blank what his name is. "Diddy's my nickname.""

Source: https://ew.com/celebrity/sean-combs-clears-up-name-confusion-love-ellen/#:~:text=%22I%20decided%20that%20I'm,Puffy%2C%20Puff%20Daddy%2C%20P.

Another example is Bow Wow. As a child, he was credited as "Lil' Bow Wow" when he released albums and songs such as on Beware of Dog, it states: "Beware of Dog is the debut studio album by American rapper Lil' Bow Wow...Studio album by Lil' Bow Wow". Then on his most recent album, New Jack City II, he is credited as Bow Wow without the "Lil'". On the page of Bow Wow, it states, "Shad Gregory Moss (born March 9, 1987), better known by his stage name Bow Wow (formerly Lil' Bow Wow)..." Spinz131 (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the historic name should be mentioned the exact way it was billed at the time. We can also list their current name if there is any confusion. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! I appreciate it. Spinz131 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Janglyguitars_is_doing_editing_wars_after_a_several_warnings. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Manson is not goth

Marilyn Manson is not goth at all talk to actual goths are in the subculture and they say that he isn’t goth or the band is because they don’t resemble of what the definition of goth is and the music and the lyrics Thecure8985 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is not supported by music critics who place the Manson band in the goth world for various reasons.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] With so many observers saying "goth", we must include it in the biography of the band. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Dante8

Just as an FYI, I reblocked the /41 range.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Thanks!

Also active as Special:Contributions/174.240.211.51. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Got it as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Salt (Ava Max song)

Hello, I'm Heas8888. The song Salt by Ava Max was released as an official single. She’s already released it as a promotional single in 2018 and in 2019 she released it as an official single. The song got much playlisting and got radio impact in several countries. For example Germany, Austria, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, Hungary, Norway, Netherlands, Slovakia… Yes, it’s more a promotional single in the USA but in Europe it’s definitive a single. If you don’t believe it you can see the airplay charts of the countries and have a look on the playlist reach in the last years. You can also read her bio on Spotify. They called it single and not promotional single. Heas8888 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can see now that you have been reverting the London IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7E:2902:FD00:0:0:0:0/64, which has been making a lot of unsupported changes. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

ANOHNI genre

Doesnt the genre describe the music, how does it describe an artist besides the music they are making? A. made an electro dance album with hercules + love affair in 2008, then 2 very intense experimental electropolitical recs as ANOHNI (Hopelessness/ Paradise)(NY Times described as hardcore punk! not sure about that, at last sound wise) then an actual punk track (DNC 2020). Then a new album with Hercules that she cowrote, aggressive electronic dance music with experimental parts, + now a soul record. Def many genres. CP is in her catalogue, but 10 years expired. I guess even chamber pop acts kick the bucket. dance, experimental (2 albums, 2 singles over lockdown, collabs with william basinki, deconstructed punk tracks... have you heard any of that stuff?) and Guardian calls the new album "folk-soul", produced by jimmy hogarth. And she did soul on the first album with lou reed on fistful of love, and 2nd album on Aeon, which she did on Letterman in 2008, and on 3rd album on Thankyou for your Love, which she did on jools holland and Letterman in 2010. Do you know about all this stuff? examples, coz i care. enjoy

letterman: Soul 2008-2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcYaQR9ABCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro0HrWJMcC4

Experimental 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q89xHXju5ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVD50Q114-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y59WU9Jh01E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP-c-sjiOJE

avant classical (with nico muhly)(2009-2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDq4cuhbsfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qplp6GEDKc

RNC 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NbfqJ1UPA

collabs with basinski https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fi5ZpQ1f00 colalb with x-throbbing gristle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT0bIqr5Fqc

hercules 2022 electronic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CzU4fOoAf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwLntcI7SQ

soul (2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtGBwry9lGE

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/20/1177365963/new-mix-tiny-desk-contest-winner-little-moon-anohni-yeule-and-more

http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7572-the-100-best-tracks-of-2008/10/ https://www.stereogum.com/2185575/hercules-love-affair-one-feat-anohni/music/

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/19/anohni-and-the-johnsons-my-back-was-a-bridge-interview

KeleEstuary (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Genre warrior essay, which represents working consensus, the section of "Official standards and guidelines" talks about how musical genres must be explicitly stated, and how they apply to an artist, an album or a song only if explicitly connected. Genres for artists come from sources talking about the artist. WP:SECONDARY commentary defines the genre, not quotes from the artist. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted a genre update for the Anohni page. Please check the source material at Allmusic.com. The bio there was updated some time ago. The genres for the artist listed there, as stated by you in other threads, comply with Wikipedia:Genre warrior essay guidelines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.220.177.168 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Manson

What’s makes the band marlin manson goth? Nothing the goth subculture and goths have said he’s not goth at all Thecure8985 (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A week ago you asked me the same question. Here's what I wrote:

Your viewpoint is not supported by music critics who place the Manson band in the goth world for various reasons.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] With so many observers saying "goth", we must include it in the biography of the band.

There ya go. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh no

Nooooooooo...that's just going to eat up more time! Can you change the suggested links to draft space so it can be reviewed if she takes you up on your advice?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL, yes. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Apocalypse Now

My remark about the Seinfeld show doing parody of this movie was only up for 14 minutes before you decided it was invalid due to no secondary commentating. Why ? ScottyScholar (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Because WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not everything that exists belongs on Wikipedia. Pop culture stuff should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources which prove that the thing has been noticed by the media. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

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

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) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

Would you keep an eye of Favorite Kind of High? I've added a hidden note. 2001:D08:2900:F206:60F8:3CE6:F920:A45B (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Bad reversion

Please undo the reversion you made to synth-pop. The source you reverted is not a "Wordpress blog", it's a scan of this chapter from this book. Such scans are often used to cite old music magazines and reviews, regardless of the url of the hosting site (which often are personal sites). Janglyguitars (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If a website is hosting a copyright violation, then the situation is even worse. Professor Peter Bussigel should know better.

Regardless, the problem at that article continues to be one of contradictory sources. As I have said before, we must tell the reader the two definitions of synthpop, one saying it is a subgenre, and one saying it is a genre, explicitly citing the sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet,

As I mentioned on the talk page, since the edit has been reverted, I recommend that it be written simply: "Synth-pop is a style of new wave and pop music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." The word "style" would loosely define synth-pop as a genre and subgenre. It will be possible to use the sources of new wave music and pop music that already exist on the page. UserFlash (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree! We seem to have finally reached a consensus so that’s what we ought to do. Janglyguitars (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI where I mentioned your talk page comments

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User @Lightlylove keeps harassing me. Thank you. I mentioned your talk page comments in relation to a discussion of another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Subwoofer

Subwoofer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Stereogum/Hit Parade Podcast as a reliable source

Hi, it's me, the guy you issued a warning to a few days ago about changing genres. I was making it a project to read through Tom Breihan's "Number Ones" column and add any genres that the articles mention. But before I continue with this, I just wanted to know if this is okay to do. Is it a reliable enough source to use in mass edits or should it only be used for occasional edits? Or not at all?

And while I'm here I may as well ask the same question of Chris Molanphy's "Hit Parade" podcast (which I have also gotten in minor trouble for using as a source). I guess I thought that one was okay because Molanphy is a journalist that was interviewed on, among other things, the This is Pop documentary on Netflix.

At the end of the day I view editing Wikipedia as a hobby I enjoy and I wanted clarification before I continue my headlong rush in editing that may lead to a ban from editing, something I absolutely do not want.

And yes, I have learned my lesson of the differences between an artist being listed as using a genre in general and a specific song being one.

Thank you! Spiceislandseabird (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Both Breihan and Molanphy are career journalists. Their blogs should be considered expert viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Hi, I have a real brief question for you. Netflix just released the trailer for their new film adaptation, 3 Body Problem. It is immediately noticeable that the voice of Carl Sagan is used to narrate the trailer.[24] To my ear, Sagan’s voice sounds highly processed and off, to the point where I assumed it was AI generated. But, according to the press release, it’s his real voice reading from the book Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (1994). Any idea what they might have done to alter the sound of his voice just by listening to the trailer? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Not positive on the voice (could be), but the cadence is pretty spot on. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it’s definitely Sagan. It’s just that they gave it the "In a world…" trailer treatment, and I’m wondering what that typically entails from the POV of audio processing. They made Sagan’s voice bigger and bolder, more vivid, with the impression of greater depth. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I watched Netflix for a month-long free trial because of Nanette... In the same period I enjoyed The Queen's Gambit and other Netflix shows, but now I'm back to my other non-Netflix streaming services.

I would have to watch (and listen) to the show to have an opinion about the sound processing. What you describe is egregious! The Sagan estate should be up in arms. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The trailer is linked at the top of the article in the above link. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they hit nearly every trailer sound gimmick except "the booj".[25][26] The processing on Sagan's voice is certainly heavy parallel compression; hard to say what else is going on. Maybe some kind of buzzy high-frequency stuff like the 1970s aural exciter. And his vocal track is definitely used to key the pumping of the music track. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, not just for a great answer to my question, but for the link to the podcast from 2019, which I had intended to listen to, but completely forgot about until now. You're a lifesaver. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

New name!

Hello! I hope that you're doing great. You've known me as Garagepunk66, but I'll be editing with a new name, GloryRoad66. Best wishes. GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Congrats on the new name! Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Maniac

The Michael Sembello song has someone obsessed with a non-notable cover version who keeps reverting my removal. Could you block him for me? Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I will look at the problem. I'm not an administrator so I can't block, but I can alert the right people. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace

Did you read the new research? Why are you reverting it? Swade et al. has published new research that shows Babbage was the first programmer. He wrote programs for his own machine, years before Lovelace did so. This new research has yet to be challenged over several years. I posted a peer reviewed paper for this by IEEE. Why did you remove it? "Consensus" on Wikipedia is not needed when it isn't an opinionated matter. This is not opinionated matter, as per the research. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your change erased too many previous sources. The issue isn't 100% solved by one new source. The article must reflect all the sources, summarizing all of them. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the new source, the field, and a number of other factors. And in this case: Yes, it is. In this case it is solved. No reputable peer reviewed source has yet to refute the new research, and it has been close to 10 years. How many years do you suggest we wait? This insistence on clinging to old, outdated literature, makes me think there is a political motivation behind this. The more resistance I see, the more painfully obvious it becomes to me. IndyCar1020 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

DJ Kool Herc Edit

My recent edits for DJ Kool Herc were removed after being considered "less than neutral". I would like to appeal this dismissal. It was only in more recent times that DJ Kool Herc was regarded as *the* Father of Hip Hop, rather than *a* Father of Hip Hop. Regarding him as *the* Father of Hip Hop is misinformation and erasure of all other pioneers of Hip Hop such as Grandmaster Flowers, Coke la Rock and Disco King Mario. Calling him *a* Father of Hiphop is more accurate and opens the door to other pioneers also receiving the title as Fathers of Hiphop. There is no one creator of the music genre.

There are many in the hiphop community claiming DJ Kool Herc is the sole founder of Hiphop and they are citing Kool Herc's Wikipedia page as proof and it simply isn't true. Older articles dating to the early 2000s (2005 to be exact) call him a Founding Father but not *the* Father.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4567450

Verbiage is incredibly important. I request his page be updated, and I request the pages of Grandmaster Flowers, Coke La Rock and Disco King Mario to also bear the Fathers of HipHop title. Asahae (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to add Grand Wizzard Theodore to the list of hiphop pioneers who require the titles "Father of Hiphop" and "Pioneer of Hiphop" on his Wiki page, if one exists for him. Grand Wizzard Theodore, an Afro American DJ, invented scratching and taught it to DJ Flash and DJ Kool Herc. He was their mentor. Asahae (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Kool Herc is "a" founder of hip hop. Rapping had been going on in various forms for years before 1973 when Cindy and Clive Campbell threw the first hip hop–style music party. Kool Herc didn't invent rap music, and he didn't pull hip hop culture out of thin air. But in terms of hip hop culture rather than music with rapping lyrics, a lot of sources point to Cindy and Clive's first party.[27][28][29] So that makes Cindy some kind of godmother of hip hop culture, and her brother Kool Herc some kind of founder. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources you sited are all within the past 15 years. The source I found by NPR from 2005 cited him as "a" Founding Father. Someone recently decided he was the sole Father of Hip Hop and that is an incorrect title and it is erasure of the other Founding Fathers I named. As stated before, it is highly possible people are pulling this title from Kool Herc's very Wikipedia article. When people Google "Who Founded Hip Hop"? Kool Herc's Wikipedia page is the first to appear. This page is possibly leading to the misinformation to begin with and that is an issue. There is no singular Founding Father, there are multiple and I argue the verbiage should be corrected which, to me, is not biased.

Disco King Mario was just honored recently in the Bronx as a Founding Father.

Apologies for the link to a random Twitter page below but they have the video clip. I was unable to locate the original clip on Youtube since it is buried under numerous debate videos about who the hiphop fathers are and how King Mario was forgotten. Those debate videos goes to show that Kool Herc being "the" Founding Father is not a decided thing among us Afro Americans.

https://twitter.com/MensaMulah/status/1677473735018790913?t=-OZ2-EULTYEr8qDpUnWZYA&s=19 Asahae (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Somehow more Chris Brown issues.

Hello Bink. Yet another user is taking issue with some parts of Chris Brown articles and completely rewriting them to make reception appear more positive and/or removing criticism. Was hoping that we could just get this done and over with. Thank you in advanced. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Socks! I will file a new report. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Primary user is All weekend on the weeknd, for the record. He's attempting to twist a narrative that I'm being biased and even stalked my contributions to go on another admin's page and say that I was in the wrong. Just for clarification. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, I had a quick look but while the geolocation reminds me of someone, I saw no evidence of alternate accounts. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The checkuser found a bunch of disruptive usernames involved with Chris Brown articles, all of which are from "the same country". Obviously the same sock master. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that I really don't have much say here, but I do want to add that the same dude in Italy was also apparently a "The Weeknd" fan, or at least showed interest in editing his articles. Despite the fact that the amount of sockpuppets is more than the population of some cities in Wyoming, it could be seen as a lead that this dude is the same guy. Not to mention that, while we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt, that we also shouldn't kid ourselves here. I looked at the Weeknd account's contributions as he had done to me, and he went to the page of "Instantwym" a Chris Brown fan who turned out not to be a sock puppet. This guy is doing everything he can to garner support, something a puppeteer probably would do. But that's just by two cents. Good luck and thank you.

Drmies My edits are being reverted for being a sockpuppet while I'm not. There was nothing disruptive about my edits or my username: everybody can check them and see that. All I did was going to Talk:Indigo (Chris Brown album), read the discussion named "Opening discussion on vandalism, cherrypicking and editorial bias on this article", and tried to fix it. But I guess this is what happens when you go against a certain point of view they're trying to push... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.51.235 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So… there’s just another IP claiming that their edits are being reverted and using the same story that All Weekend on The Weeknd did? That’s not suspicious whatsoever/s. Aardwolf68 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Take it Slow

Obviously we’re engaged in an edit war in these godforsaken articles and I don’t want your moderation to be seen as contentious favoritism or whatever. All Weekend on The Weeknd is more than likely a sock used by a VPN of the Italian guy, but unless we can prove that it’s not really possible to revert his edits on the basis of evasion even though it’s highly likely. We should probably get an admin or someone else involved for this case, as it only makes you and I worse if we handle this in the manner we’re currently doing it. I wish you the best of luck. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't like giving socks another advantage. They flaunt our rules while we have to follow the rules. But WP:BANREVERT is a reasonable tool for reverting sock disruption, as it allows any number of reversions. BANREVERT was designed to prevent socks from working the system against us, slowing down regular editors while the socks rage around the wiki creating havoc. I will continue use BANREVERT when I must. But yes, I will take a breather and give the admin corps more time to figure out the solution. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, I don’t want to give them another chance either. But at the end of the day, if somehow this guy turns out to be a different person, this’ll be an entire crap show. I highly doubt that this is anybody different but at the same time, you can never be too sure. Your work here is remarkable and I appreciate your support nonetheless, and you’re undoubtably doing this in good faith, and anybody with half a mind can see that. Once again, good luck. Hopefully the cards fall into our place. Aardwolf68 (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Glyn Johns article

Hope you had a happy 4th! I did an expansion of the Glyn Johns article and would like to nominate it for GA. I was wondering if you would like to do the GA review? GloryRoad66 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Let me wake up and get my coffee.

Right off the bat I see some American spellings and stylings when they should be British (preeminent vs. pre-eminent, realize vs. realise), and I see the word "between" used to introduce a date range, and the date range should have four-digit years and an en dash. See MOS:DATERANGE which requires something like "The years 1964–1984" rather than "The years between 1964-84".

After I flog my daily to-do list I'll start officially. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and put the tag on it. GloryRoad66 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I put the tag in on the talk page. I went into the article and corrected the style of date ranges. I'll go back and double-check to make sure I got all of 'em. GloryRoad66 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One encouragement, if you will allow someone who is anonymous to have their voice. Do indeed be rigourous with regard to compliance with WP:VERIFY. As an institution we are, in my view, drifting, with more and more content appearing without citations (and not just in the Wikiprojects that have been perennially in violation). If articles at the transition to GA are understood to require that all such non-compliance issues be fully resolved, perhaps we will accrue fewer as we go. Cheers. 2601:246:C201:39B6:D886:D33F:8A38:A5A5 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks...

for the message you left for an IP editor, who asserted a personal perspective at the movie article for Master and Commander, thus making WP:OR edits that we prohibit. I appreciate your diligence, there. Besides which, I wanted to ask—what was the source of the text you placed, explaining to that editor, at their Talk page, why their source-free editing was disallowed? In the markup, this appears: <!-- Template:uw-nor1 -->. I found that text perfectly apt for the situation, and well written to boot. Is there a collection of these to choose from, when giving new or errant editors such feedback? Cheers, and thanks again for the diligence. 2601:246:C201:39B6:D886:D33F:8A38:A5A5 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The warning text is boilerplate stuff designed to address various problems. Each particular warning type has several levels, increasing in severity. You can see at the page Template:uw-nor1 that this is Level 1 of the warning for a violation of the hard policy WP:No original research. The levels are intended to escalate based on the judgement of the person applying the warning. I use a tool called WP:Twinkle to ease the process of warning people. Twinkle offers a wide selection of messages; every one that you see at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. A person would need to register a username and sustain a bit of editing for four days (WP:AUTOCONFIRM) to get access to the Twinkle tool, but anyone can deliver a templated message from the list, even as their first-ever edit. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion

Could I suggest blocking the IP address User:71.117.180.143? Every time I revert his edits, he keeps coming back a month later and vandalizes the same pages again MusicDude2020 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

An AFD on a guitarist

Hello, as a professional audio engineer and someone who has done a lot of work on popular music articles, I was wondering if you could check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Lo Surdo and perhaps offer your opinion there. The discussion has become quite long and convoluted so if you'd rather not, I'd understand ... but it probably needs new people and perspectives. Graham87 18:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've replied there ... oh what a tangled web we weave ... I'm not a fan of his music either. For instrumental guitar music, give me "Little Martha" or "Anji" or "Sacha" by Hank Marvin (which inexplicably was only a hit in Australia) any day. Graham87 02:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Even other shredders have some musical sense, taking the listener for a little journey. The song "Destiny" is banal. Sounds like a grade school project. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Section layout

Hey Bink; it's been a while – how are you? Hope you're doing well. Just had a section layout-related question: was there ever a MOS that prohibited (or at least discouraged against) structuring elements of a section as ==header==, content, ===subheader===, content? I definitely remember seeing this enforced years ago (Walter Görlitz was particularly strong on this) – I reckon I probably got pulled up for it a couple of times back when I started – but admittedly I haven't been able to find anything on this recently. See 2023 AFL season#Ladder; a mobile user complained about the ladder, as a subsection, being part of a larger section further up in the article, leading to it being reverted to a standalone section, but I was under the impression that the way it's currently formatted might be a MOS violation, so thought I'd check. Thanks – 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything in the Manual of Style specifying or restricting types of content under Level 2 headings versus Level 3 headings. This kind of layout stuff is usually hammered out on a wikiproject talk page or the article talk page. If someone wants to elevate content to Level 2 because it is more easily accessed on mobile devices, I'm not standing in the way. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk Page Response

I don't understand what your referencing? I've just edited, I don't know how to change IP addresses - it just changes based on where I am.

But why do you keep removing Fukumean on "A Gift & Curse page"? It's sourced as the next single and is # 8 on the hot 100. Reverting to the album being supported by one single is incorrect. 2603:7000:A1F0:3E0:4961:9A56:37A3:9A86 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Stringini

Not sure what you were trying to do here, but I don't imagine it was what's there now - can you take another look? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting for one more edit by sockpuppet Possible People before reporting. The sock created the Richie Stringini biography page in violation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Stringini. The person has tried to create multiple variations on the name, as may be seen at the deletion discussion. The sock report would be applied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambridge Guys. Every one of the redlinked names should be deleted and salted, and socks blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but you've now got a mainspace redirect to an AfD page. What did you mean to have there? Just have it deleted? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, deleted. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

Hello, sorry if I'm distracting you, but I need a bit of help. I'm currently engaged in an edit war with an unregistered editor on One Hundred and One Dalmatians. He tries to divide the information from 'Cast' section into two separate paragraphs, although it is not really necessary. I already tried to revert these edits and even put a warning on his talk page, but to no avail. Can you, please, somehow help to resolve this situation or give me some advice how to handle it? De Disney (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the other editor. The cast list is usually about the fictional characters. The process of casting should have its own section. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Usually it's quite hard to find enough information about casting process, especially for the older films, to form its own section. It can be just a little trivia. It just doesn't feel necessary to separate this information, since the subject is the same (voice actors and their characters). Besides, many other film articles on Wikipedia use this style of combining cast and details of their casting in one section. De Disney (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Films vary. Some have extensive sources about casting, others don't. That's not the point.

The WikiProject Film style guide says that casting information should be in the production section. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production. Above that in the cast section it says that the cast list can take various forms including a simple list of names or a more detailed list including casting information. So the style guide gives contradictory directions. It's up to local users to decide which method to use. I greatly prefer to have the plot and cast list be where the fictional elements are presented, and the production section be where the real world connections are described. This aligns with the instructions at MOS:FICTIONAL which says we should present a "Careful differentiation between the work itself and aspects of its production process and publication". We should not combine fictional elements with real world elements. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I picked ten film from the list of Featured Articles and only one of them was elevated to FA status with the fictional cast list also having real-world casting elements: Transformers (film). The other nine completely separated fictional cast from the casting process: The Empire Strikes Back, Alien vs. Predator (film), Saving Private Ryan, The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), Back to the Future, Bride of Frankenstein, The Dark Knight, and Casino Royale (2006 film). The latter film has had real-world info tacked on to the fictional cast list since it was brought to FA status. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

External links on song articles

Hi Binksternet,

I came across IP editor 62.211.233.175 edit warring over the addition of external links to various covers of songs on song articles.

I created a talk thread at Talk:I'm Alive (Celine Dion song)#External links in hopes that they would discuss the issue and the dispute would be resolved through normal means. Unfortunately, they continue to revert without discussion.

I have created an ANEW thread here about the IP editor, check out my latest "Update 2" on that thread.

Just thought I'd let you know about this since you did revert their edits once before and seem to know something about the history of the person behind that IP?? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, they are back at it, adding excessive external links. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they have been dealt with, finally. Blocked two weeks from editing the article namespace.

Btw I am writing this message to notify you that I have sent you an email about an off-topic question regarding speakers.

Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors revert

Hi Binksternet,

Hey, mate, you reverted my edit on Patrisse Cullors. There is an actual interview where she states that she is "trained Marxist" that I have sourced. You marked it as "Rv misinterpretation of source".

“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

Let me know what you think. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When someone says "I am fully trained in X", that's not the same as them saying "I am X". Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I see your point. Well, she did not say exactly I am fully trained in Marxism. She said "we are trained Marxists."

Would then saying that "she referred to herself as a "trained Marxist" " be a good "interpretation"? Kolma8 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all. She continues by saying she is also trained ("super-versed") on other ideological theories. Which greatly decreases the emphasis on Marxism. She is saying she has knowledge of Marxism and other ideological theories. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Lillard’s filmography changes

You do recognize that Matthew Lillard is in Scream(2022) he's the stab 8 Ghostface voice on Richie computer and he's one of the partygoer at Amber's party at her house which is at Stu's house you can hear Matthew Lillard say this "Yeah Probably Hey Freeman cool house" so why did you deleted when he's also cast on IMDb but uncredited why would you deleted that and The Ghostface movie because he might have one in the works GeronB2022 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources saying that Lillard played Ghostface in any format of entertainment then you will have leverage in your argument. IMDb is not considered 100% reliable because it fails WP:USERG: anyone can log in and change the information. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue with your deletion in the Ghostface (identity) article is that you deleted the information explaining that his character is one of two who operate as Ghostface in the film. While true that Lilliard, as an actor, never actually wears the costume in the film, it doesn’t change the fact that the character he’s portraying is one of two people using the Ghostface identity. Perhaps a better way to edit this particular article is to insert a footnote stating that while his character is Ghostface, Lilliard does not appear on screen in the Ghostface costume. NJZombie (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Wherever possible we should state it explicitly in prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Fuck you over

Bitch please, you need to stop. You suck because you are a loser. 108.16.100.214 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)