User talk:Binksternet


Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

I messed up on the OHW USA page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient astronauts

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

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

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

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

We have a genre warrior

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

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

Theoretical key of circle of fifths

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

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

Proposed deletion of File:Holm jeanne bio.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you revering ALL edits?

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Talk

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

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

Revisions to the category Halloween songs

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 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 looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thread title on ANI

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

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

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

File:Beyerdynamic M 160.jpg listed for discussion

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

Pandemic vs lockdowns

Hi Binksternet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Weeknd

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

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

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

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

Ludichrist/Scatterbrain

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