Hello. I see you're mass removing refs toFar Out. I'm a little surprised to see this, as it doesn't strike me as a problematic site. Has there been a discussion on this somewhere? It does seem to be cited a lot! Thanks!Mbinebri (talk)20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the website has been cited a lot. That's what I'm trying to remedy today by going through various pages and digging it out of the text.Binksternet (talk)21:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were involved in some discussions regarding it. Should this "YPAC has been the largest donor to X's 202x campaign according to OpenSecrets." be added or removed from articles? Thank you.Theofunny (talk)19:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to thank you for removing Far Out as a ref from this article. I have actively been seeking out citations to the site to remove them on articles I am interested in, so to have someone else doing so is of great help. But I do want to ask something else about the edit summary you left -- is there a specific guideline that points to only using four genres in a musician's infobox? I ask because I am unfamiliar with this rule, and you did not link to any guidelines in your edit summary. I just thought I'd ask, thank you for your edits here.JeffSpaceman (talk)11:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The four genres are found in only one infobox:Template:Infobox musical artist which says to use two to four genres and lean toward generality. Song and album infoboxes don't have that limit.
The Far Out thing finally got my goat the other day, spurring me to remove a couple hundred citations in one sitting. Whatever is still out there must be very minor.Binksternet (talk)14:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Thank you for pointing me to that template. And I agree about Far Out -- the fact that this site was (and is) being used on so many articles, despite its obvious unreliability and use of scraped content, is quite shocking. I've been especially quick to remove any seriously negative content about BLPs I find cited to them perWP:BLPREMOVE -- I don't see them as any better than the kind of churnalist tabloid trash that nobody would argue passes the criteria of BLP sourcing (in fact, I'd argue that they probably flat out qualify as such). Thank you for your help removing all those citations, it is highly appreciated.JeffSpaceman (talk)11:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The reason wasWP:INDISCRIMINATE which says that not every true fact is suitable for Wikipedia. If you find that the media have commented on the appearances of that song, then you can add that appearance, citing the source. The comments would have to call out the appearance as extraordinary rather than merely listing it.Binksternet (talk)14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any advice with users like Moeshaburton19798 ? The user keeps adding bestsellingalbum page source which is unreliable and removes sources like Billboard ... nevermind you reverted it. Thank you!Dhoffryn (talk)19:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could wait to see if the user returns and continues previous behavior and then maybe that is the best plan of action. I don't have some big faith that the user will change. With some of them is like talking to a wall.
Ahh, similar to how you kept removing my correct edits on Mariah Carey song recording dates. If you wanna do that, how about you check the recording months stated in the articles Emotions (states March 1991) Theres got to be a way (February 1990) Love takes time (May 1990) Underneath The Stars (December 1994) Always Be My Baby (1994-1995) Honey (February 1997) Crybaby (June 1999) Thank God I Found You (September 1999) I Still Believe (Late 1998) Through The Rain (May 2002) Say Somethin (November 2004) Here We Go Around Again (1989) and all the recording months for all her albums? Might wanna check those out as well.50.207.218.158 (talk)15:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so Violator is a record label, a management company, and an entertainment company. I have been adding much more information to the Wikipedia page about Violator as a company overall, and I have been providing legitimate sources. I figured that it would be easy to separate information about the management from the information about the record label branch. If you just want the page to be some long page, I'm ok with that, but I figured I was helping separating the two. If you have reservations, just let me know.167.21.141.32 (talk)15:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, but the point of what I did was to avoid confusion between the label and the management company. I didn't want to put information down about the label and it be in the middle of the history about the management company, but whatever you want to do is cool, just don't want my edits removed.167.21.141.32 (talk)17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from doing research, the record label came first. Violator Records started in 1990/1991, and Violator Management was started in 1996, so chronologically, the label came first. So, with this information, will you still want the page to just have the whole history laid out or have into sections to avoid confusion?167.21.141.32 (talk)17:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Pruning of puffery” is ridiculous. Lots of stuff is in the links I’ve already provided in the reference section (and in his music). I mean you deleted where he is from. He has multiple lyrics about this stuff and even a song called “Walking Through Langford”. You deleted where i talked about his orgin of freestlying, breaking and graffiti. He has talked about all of these things countless times in his music and interviews. You also deleted where I simply stated the number of albums he has released (which is a rather high and IMPORTANT number to include) and it is WIDELY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. You coulda looked up his name on any music platform and saw it (or look at the citations with the link to his discography in 2 places even). I mean I don’t know if you want me to use the same citation link for every single sentence or what but this stuff is proven. You deleted a lot from the “Style” section (some of which I can somewhat understand) however the 2 paragraphs you deleted about his production work and people who have produced for him is all very widely available information and the links were provided in references. I can understand taking out some of the stuff but I mean I don’t know if it’s just some missing citations or what but apparently its ok for other artists to have humongous bios full of bs (pruned puffery) but I can’t even put where this guy is from or literally his name…why can I not include that? And whats wrong with the transportation part? He does talk about trains a lot and transportation is a recurring theme. Does that not classify as a “style”? If it was a popular artist I’m sure it would. I mean you literally deleted EVERYTHING from style except his influences. Which is easily the LEAST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS ARTISTS STYLE. Artists can have their own style correct? He is much more than the (puny, not even) paragraph that you deduced him to. I have put a lot of work into this page and for you to do all of this is wack. If its just missing citations I can add them, that was the plan I just didn’t think someone would delete stuff on me. I’m sorry I don’t mean to be rude, but I have worked very hard on this and I think I at least deserve an explanation so I can maybe try to fix it.Splashmoney15 (talk)03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more mental masturbation is possible after seeing your contribution:
While other artists have certainly mixed elements of rapping and singing, Moka sets himself apart by not sacrificing his rap prowess for catchy hooks. He effortlessly intertwines quick-witted verses with smooth choruses on many of his songs. As a devoted practitioner of self confidence and individuality, he often names himself as his strongest musical influence.
Ok and what about all of the other things I mentioned? You only responded to one thing. I am in agreement with you that SOME of it may have been puffery lol. But certainly not all of it…Splashmoney15 (talk)10:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is where hes from puffery? His production details are puffery? The number of albums he has released is puffery? Details about himself he has talked about straight from the artist his whole career is puffery?Splashmoney15 (talk)10:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allthat stuff is completely unsourced and thereforeunproven puffery. This seems to be an article conjured out of what User:Splashmoney15 happens to know about the subject. I'm not seeing a single independent and reliable source applied which directly details thisWP:BLP subject. The page failsWP:ANYBIO. The page failsWP:GNG. The page failsWP:BAND. TheWP:BURDEN of sourcing articles falls on those who wish to insert or keep material. If this was at AfD right now I'd assert delete. I don't see any argument or evidence presented which would allow me to keep the page.BusterD (talk)14:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there's an enormous amount of UNDUE detail applied. A Wikipedia article doesn't contain a listing every work an artist has self-released.BusterD (talk)14:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, have you ever heard of this guy?[1] I wanted to ask because I was so impressed with his recording ofEarth Vigil (2024).[2] I was hoping to find technical info in the booklet about the recording, but nothing. I don't recall hearing a live chorus with this much fidelity before, but I assume the acoustics of the church had a lot to do with it. Thanks.Viriditas (talk)22:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which engineer out of four on the page that you refer to, and I have never heard of any of the four. I appreciate good engineering chops, of course, and beautiful music. I'll take a listen to the album when I get a chance.Binksternet (talk)22:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my edits on “list of viral music videos” for no reason. I did not give fake information, I added in songs that did go viral, but you removed them. There was nothing wrong with saying how many views music videos have, the sources I gave were reliable because if you go on youtube you can literally see how many views videos have. I can’t believe that you deleted every single one of my edits on “list of viral music videos” because I only put in true, valid information with reliable sources. You then decided to go through my “user contributions” and delete ALL of my edits on songs.Those edits had been there weeks and even months, and no one had a problem with them except for you. If there was something wrong with the sources, you could have told me to change them or changed them yourself. Instead, you literally REVERSED my edits, and you didn’t even give a reason. If there was really something wrong with my edits, other people would have deleted them WEEKS ago. I also do not appreciate the fact that you went through my “user contributions” and deleted most of my edits, that’s literally harassment. You then went on to THREATEN me and tell me I could be banned from editing ever again. I don’t know who you think you are, but you don’t own wikipedia and you can’t just remove valid information just because you don’t like it. I’ve looked at your “talk” section, and you’ve removed multiple valid edits from other people for no reason. Just so you know, I am NEVER editing ANYTHING on wikipedia EVER AGAIN, so you don’t have to threaten to ban me again. I also don’t want to reply to this.86.14.56.93 (talk)12:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted many of the same kind of contributions by other people as well. I'm not targeting you. My aim is to get rid of updating view count sourced directly from youtube.com, which can be gamed by paying youtube to get a falsely inflated count. The better source is an uninvolved third party reporting on views up to a certain time.Binksternet (talk)13:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous reply. If you are not targetibg me, then there would be no reason for you to continue to look at my user contribution and reversing my edits. You didn’t even give an example of what “an uninvolved third party” is. Also, if the problem was my sources, or that I stated the amount of views that videos have, you could have removed that and kept in the other information. For example, instead of just removing the amount of views and the sources for “list of viral music videos”, you removed the actual songs I added in, which is unreasonable as those songs were viral. I have never seen anyone else remove amounts of views on wikipedia before, which shows that you came up with the idea that youtube is an unreliable source and wikipedia can never have amounts of views songs have. You also went through my user contributions and reversed my edits for “Nicki Minaj Pink Friday”, and said that she isn’t a singer, but even though she is mainly a rapper, she also sings in a lot if songs on Pink Friday. I don’t want you to look through my user contributions again. Also, if no one else had a problem with any of my edits which were there for months, that obviously shows that my edits were valid and were removed only because of your opinion. You do not own wikipedia, so there is no need for you to reverse edits just because you feel like it. You have made editing wikipedia a horrible experience for me, so I will never edit on wikipedia ever again; if I did, you would delete them and threaten to stop me from editing again. I also do wish to argue with a rude, opinianated, awful person like you, so I don’t want you to respond on this, and if you do, I won’t respond on here again. Thanks for making me decide to never edit on wikipedia ever again. This conversation is over.86.14.56.93 (talk)13:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’d like to bring to your attention a recent edit made toWikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky. In my opinion, that kind of edit is inappropriate. Even assuming that this is the real identity of Maria, we shouldn’t be allowed to know it. I’m writing to you because I’m not sure how to proceed, and I don’t know whether I’m allowed to personally remove a comment from a talk page.Blueberry72 (talk)22:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I just logged in after a few days of not being here to see I had 25 notifications, due to a certain user's ill-informed reversion spree. (I see he has now been blocked.) Thank you for catching all of those and reverting them back so quickly, as well as attempting to explain to him why you did it, both in the edit histories and on his talk page. Saved me a lot of work.The Keymaster (talk)06:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitutional Barnstar
For your continued dedication to adhering to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, your swift reversal of problematic edits that do not conform to these standards, and your diligence in attempting to educate even the most difficult of editors, I would like to award you this barnstar!The Keymaster (talk)06:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes, as far as I can tell, Beyoncé and I both descend from Edmund or Edmond "Old Silverhead" Knowles who was born in England in 1684 or 1685. When he was a teenager, Edmund sold himself into indentured servitude to buy passage in 1700 to the British colony of Virginia where he served out his duty and then married a Swedish immigrant in 1707 to start a long line of Knowles folk inSomerset County, Maryland. My own paternal line comes from a branch of poor farmers and simple laborers. Another branch got rich and bought slaves to work their land. Somewhere around the 1830s there was a baby boy born into slavery inChattooga County, Georgia, named Henry Knowles likely after his White slaveowner father John Barnes Knowles or Knowls; Henry eventually started a family with the enslaved woman named Elmira, and had three children born as slaves and a fourth born to freedom in 1867. Circa 1830s is the farthest that Beyoncé's people can trace up the paternal Knowles line because of gaps in the record, and no written acknowledgement of Henry's father. John Barnes Knowles was definitely a descendant of Edmund Knowles; he may have impregnated a slave girl when he was in his teens to bring about the birth of Henry.
Beyoncé's maternal line also involves enslaved people.[3][4][5]
For many years my bank manager was a Black woman with the surname Knowles, a distant cousin to Beyoncé. She said that all the Black Knowles people from Texas are related, which is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Even though I'm undeniably White, this bank manager always said "Hello, cousin!" when I walked in. Funny stuff. We have the luxury today of laughing at the terrible history we share.
This IP seems to have a legitimate point that, on several articles,WP:FRINGE is violated by comparing the pseudoscientificSchiller Institute with scientific views. The edit you reverted was problematic and not neutral, but I don't think this IP isWP:NOTHERE and, with a bit of explanation about using talk pages, followingWP:BRD, and remaining civil, I think they could become genuinely a good contributor. What do you think?lp0 on fire()19:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you added the unreferenced bit, "On some streaming services, Jonah Abraham has a writing credit on every track he produced; on others, he only has a writing credit on "Dream Rain Sports". At best, this isWP:SYNTH, at worst it is a violation ofWP:No original research.Binksternet (talk)19:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atReady '24. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in theloss of editing privileges. Removing multiple entire sourced and informative sections from an article because they were written by the same editor who wrote a mistake in the article's infobox is not okay, doubly so when there was actually no mistake and you misunderstood what you were seeing.2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:84A:9956:A079:DAFC (talk)08:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Binksternet, hope all is well on your end? I'd like you to review theAfro fusion article. I had issues with the page creator in the past. Some of the info in the article is not supported by the sources cited in the article. Inominated the article for deletion in the past and pointed out that the page creator gathered tons of random sources that mention the term "Afro fusion" and piece them together to create the article. The article lacks uniformity and extremely lengthy for no good reason. Majority of the info in the article is completely unnecessary. Versace1608Wanna Talk?15:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I've seen that page. The topic, such as it is, can hardly be presented as anything other than a patchwork of contradictory sources. A quick look around the interwebs shows me that different authors offer very, very different answers. Some people think Afro fusion started withFela Kuti in the 1960s because hisAfrobeat genre was a fusion of various influences. Others think it started in the early 1970s with the emergence ofmakossa andhighlife, or that Fela Kuti's Afro fusion happened in the '70s. One scholarly source talks about the Afro fusion dance practice ofSylvia Glasser in the 1970s,[6] which is a completely different topic. Another writer says that the modernAfrobeats genre is a form of Afro fusion starting around 2014.[7] The same timeframe is applied to the 2008 band Ghana Bigshots who put out their debut album in Germany in 2014.[8] Another paper says that modern Afro fusion gained prominence because of online streaming technology.[9] Ghana music professor John Collins has written about Afro fusion; he places the beginning at Fela Kuti.
It's clear that "afro fusion" can mean several things. First is the catch-all term of any fusion of African music with Western elements. Second is the dance form of Sylvia Glasser. Third is the 2010s modern afro fusion which is not well-defined. So how do we present these three ideas to the reader?Binksternet (talk)16:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a quick question. You're reverting the text from the chart table "Chart performance for...", but why? It is a standard in the articles now. You must now that it's everywhere. Just few examples: "The Fate of Ophelia", "Abracadabra", "Manchild" and many more. Why you're reverting just my edits?Max24 (talk)18:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can show me the guideline representing a new consensus for headers which allows additions likethis one of yours listing the topic in the header, which is redundant.
At the guideline pageWP:HEADERS the text says "avoid redundantly including the subject's name in a header" which you have been ignoring. Everything else you have been putting in the header is redundant. It's just more clutter.Binksternet (talk)17:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I understand that now you will remove it from all other articles, because if not, it looks like you're just going after me, and you don't care for "redundant header" elsewhere, right? By the way, it's also in the albums chart tables, in the cefrtifications tables, in the release history tables etc. It's a lot.Max24 (talk)18:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were targeted today because you were adding a bunch this stuff in a row. In general I am aiming at all the music pages, but there are many thousands of them.Binksternet (talk)18:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bink. Just to clarify, I had added the list of unconfirmed credits atPisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. because they were listed in the 2007 deluxe edition liners as "unknown," and I cited that CD at the top of the personnel section. However, I can also see how listing unconfirmed credits is kind of a pointless waste of space and I could go either way on it. If you think it's a bad idea in general, I can go through and remove them from the other Monkees album pages as well.—The Keymaster (talk)10:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to a section that seemed to have no sourcing. I was wrong; I didn't know about the 2007 deluxe edition liner notes.
Hmmm. I'm thinking about how best to present that information but failing to come up with anything. Honestly, it's kind of odd that those credits were even mentioned in Andrew Sandoval's liner notes if they cannot be confirmed. IIRC many of them even have question marks beside them, depending on which edition you look at. I suppose he just wanted to be as complete as he could be.The Keymaster (talk)23:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user undoing the redirects here seems verytendentious and is refusing to listen to my explanations for the redirect, which include 1. that a consensus was reached and 2. that their undoing has not provided with any more sources. They keep stonewalling me with "I don't know what this user's problem is" and even violatedWP:DTTR by warning me with the exact same template I warned them with.
I would note thatGhetto Organized supposedly has reviews fromThe Source and Robert Christgau, but I was unable to locate either. The inability to find a review from two major reviewers is pretty telling, is it not?Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)14:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. The group page should not exist because of the discussion result on its talk page. Perhaps a more formal XFD process should be undertaken to poll more users.Binksternet (talk)14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Binksternet. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing!– robertsky (talk)01:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, B. What you fixed in theSalt Lake City article was an instance of 6-7 (pronounced "six seven") vandalism. I stumbled over and fixed a second instance in the same article. This is a fairly recent internet meme, and is an example of nonsense spam. The article about it is6-7 (meme).Blainster (talk)03:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advance airfield until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Why did you revert the changes on the Pizza company Wikipedia page if so could you please explain your reason for reverting the edits made to the page?Imsolazy (talk)16:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topicTetris.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I noticed that the Legacy and Cultural References sections for Kris Kross were removed in your edit. I wanted to understand the reason for the deletion.Additionally, I noticed that some information in the article appears to be incorrect:It still lists both members as attending Woodward Academy, which is not accurate — they attended Continental Colony Elementary and Ralph Bunche Middle School, and Chris Kelly later attended another middle school.The article currently lists the record label incorrectly; Kris Kross was signed to Ruffhouse/Columbia Records, not So So Def.Could you clarify why the sections were deleted, and do you agree that updating the schooling and label information with reliable sources would improve the article? I want to make sure the page is accurate, comprehensive, and verifiable.Thanks!~2025-34032-38 (talk)13:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main three problems with your changes were the hugely promotional tone, the poor referencing, and the claim that Kriss Kross is still active. Smith may be active, but the media are not calling that activity Kriss Kross.
The tone includes puffery such as this: "Through interviews, new music releases, curated projects, and brand initiatives, Chris Smith continues to carry on the Kris Kross legacy, maintaining the duo’s influence for contemporary audiences."
The poor referencing includes retail sales websites which only prove that product exists, but you have created a narrative surroundingSmith, Vol. 1. That's a violation ofWP:No original research.
The idea that Kriss Kross is still active is not supported by the media. Smith's new release,Smith, Vol. 1, doesn't even say the duo's name. XXL says that the album is"his first project" since Kelly's death, not Kriss Kross's next project.
I noticed some factual edits were removed, and some current statements appear to be inaccurate:
The article still states Kris Kross was signed to So So Def; reliable sources indicate they were signed to Ruffhouse/Columbia Records.
It claims both members attended Woodward Academy, which is incorrect — they attended Continental Colony Elementary and Ralph Bunche Middle School, and Chris Kelly later attended another middle school.
The Cultural References section was removed, but it documents historical, verifiable facts about Kris Kross’s influence in media, fashion, and popular culture.
Could you clarify why the sections were removed, and can we agree to update the article to reflect verifiable sources? I want to ensure the article is accurate, neutral, and fully sourced.~2025-33899-86 (talk)16:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Mostly, yes. You correctly identified a bunch of citations as mere listings, not supporting the cover version as extraordinary. But you removed the following entry, perhaps because it was already mentioned in the article body:
On pages 292–295 of the cited book, the author lists a bunch of notable cover versions including ones by Bob Manning, Gerry Mulligan, Stan Getz, Lionel Hampton, Gene Krupa, Norah Jones, and the Armstrong/Fitzgerald duo. So if you want to remove a few of those entries for reasons of redundancy, the citation should be moved up into the article body following their names. See page 294. I think a better solution is to retitle the section "Notable cover versions" rather than "Other versions" which means it will hold every valid cover version. In that case, you should restore the Armstrong/Fitzgerald duo along with Gerry Mulligan, Bob Manning, Norah Jones, etc.Binksternet (talk)21:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I requested page protection ofthis article, due to the socking that has plagued the article for the last couple of weeks. Thank you for your help in taking care of that, I thought I'd let you know about this as an FYI.JeffSpaceman (talk)14:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bink. I want you to know that I have been the one making accounts to remove certain content from the Memphis Mafia and Bill Belew articles. I only used them because until now I forgot my username.
The reason I want to delete them is because I was the one who made them back in March as an Elvis fan. And because of my autism and OCD, I have flip flopped getting rid of them. Now I just want them gone because I think they are irrelevant and indulgent with sourcing that is pretty shaky. Can you please remove them or let me remove them permenantly? Or, please convince me that they are that worthwhile to keep. I ask both of these questions as someone who respects Wikipedia and it’s editors, including yourself. Thank you.PopCultureFan125 (talk)06:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours from last March is fine. It removed the incorrect bit about Elvis getting inspiration from the BTO song, and it added some facts about Lowell Hays and Graceland. I don't see how the reader is served by removing the part you added.
I never give any slack to people who imply having a handicap in autism or OCD. On Wikipedia, people either deal successfully with their various handicaps or they don't. When you mention these traits, you are asking others to adjust to you. My stance is that you should already have made the adjustments before you got here, so that everyone is working from the same base line.Binksternet (talk)16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I’ll leave it then. I do want to make it clear I am not trying to get slack cut for my disabilities. Just to trying to give an explanation for my past edits, not an excuse for that or future edits.PopCultureFan125 (talk)16:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to explain my point of view to possibly convince you. I want to get rid of the stuff about his jewelry because it’s a very niche topic of interest that I was indulgent with when I added it in. I don’t believe readers will get any use out of it and it detracts from the main article. The only point where Presley’s jewelry is relevant to the topic is the fact that he gave out the TCBs and TLCs to make them part of his inner circle. Those facts about Lowell Hays and Graceland just doesn’t fit and was simply a superflous addition on my part. That’s why I want to get rid of it and ask for permission to do so. If you still I insist that it’s kept, I’ll leave it but I strongly suggest getting deleting it.PopCultureFan125 (talk)16:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your edit on my addition on this album page wiki. The sales can actually be way bigger than announced if it wasn't counted for years.
You think the biggest musical magazine, rolling stones, got it wrong?
I guess the confusion must come from a mix between pure sales and overall sales with streams giving sales equivalent boosting the total sale number givenJulienSorel1965 (talk)10:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they got it wrong. It makes no sense! Everybody is excited about a Lady Gaga album right when it comes out. Most of the sales come then. The sales taper off. After ten years, she sold six million. There's no way she could sell eight more million in the next four years, from ten to fourteen. That would mean people were WAAY more excited from ten years to fourteen years out.Binksternet (talk)15:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you've reverted some edits from a few Lindsay Lohan and Addison Rae related articles as if they were made by a banned user when they were mine. I get logged off automatically in my work computer for some reason, so I'm going to readd the info in those particular pages. I'm confused why you thought they were from that banned user though, is it because those were pages where they made edits? Thanks in advance!JustThat1990 (talk)17:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take responsibility for those edits that's fine with me. I was responding to the longstanding interest in Lindsay Lohan shown by the bannedUser:Andrewbf who has been active this year on the same Lohan pages that you edited. Sorry you were caught in the crosshairs.Binksternet (talk)17:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!
Came to your user profile from your previous edits to the articleYou Don't Own Me with help ofxtools.
I am looking for/ requesting some help in improving and copy-edit of the articleMy Choice (film), specially it's summary section, if the topic/article interests you.
Thanks, Your contributions and inputs to the article will be a good addition and improvement in the article, looking forward to the same. Bookku (talk)12:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please find something better to do than reverting my edits for no reason. "'Adult pop' is just pop with an adjective added in front", you say.. almost every single sub-genre that exists is just another genre with an adjective added in front.. your argument doesn't make sense. And to go so far as to remove information from another article and call it "edit warring" when it's not even on the same article is ridiculous. You've also made the comparison from the source I added atSpeak Now nonsensical, which now reads "It has also been described as Swift's third and final 'country bubblegum-pop' record, as opposed to the pop sound of her fourth albumRed." How does just pop alone oppose bubblegum pop, which is a sub-genre of pop itself? The whole point was that bubblegum pop opposes "adult pop" specifically, because bubblegum pop is pop music marketed to adolescents and children, rather than adults. This was not meant to "edit war" or say that adult pop was the primary genre ofRed, I was just referencing what that specific source said about the two albums. This shows that you are not even thinking about what are you doing, you are just blindly reverting my edits. Please try toassume good faith at least a little bit, even if you believe I am "edit warring", two wrongs do not make a right. Again, regardless of whether you personally think "adult pop" qualifies as a genre, that is at the very least a descriptor that critics have applied to the album (Red). I don't know why you seem to be so offended by that. I see you have even removed the phrase "adult pop" from theFolklore article in reference to adult contemporary music (something I was not even aware was there nor was my edit), so really, why do you have such a problem with the phrase "adult pop" being used?InsiderChiari (talk)06:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My beef is mainly with the link toadult pop, but also with the insistence on using the term "adult pop" when more mature non-teenage pop is the meaning. The link toadult pop redirects toAdult contemporary music which is not necessarily the sort of music being discussed with regard toRed, the album. The insistence on using the construction "adult pop" may cause some readers to mistakenly conclude that adult contemporary music is the genre of the album.
The song "Red" is the one with adult contemporary leanings, according toSpin.[10] The bonus edition track "Come Back... Be Here" also gets the AC nod, this time fromPaste.[11] One album track and one bonus track don't make the whole album into AC.
Billboard says"In many ways,Red is Taylor Swift's first adult pop album." That's the only timeBillboard says "adult". The piece describes how she is now 22 years old, and that she has stopped making music solely for teenagers.Billboard does NOT say that she is making music for the adult contemporary radio format. Instead, she is now straddling the pop and country genres: "Swift swinging for the pop rafters... even if she runs the risk of alienating her country core in the process."
I understand your point; however, I don't think a link redirecting to another article necessarily means that those terms are equivalent, but perhaps that it is just the closest thing on Wikipedia. It's also worth noting thatThe Daily Telegraph also refers toRed as "adult pop", so it may more be a fault of Wikipedia that we don't have an article about this style.Telegraph describesRed as "adult pop" ("Former teen starlet Taylor Swift's journey into the world ofadult pop has started with her new albumRed…", "…the process of Swift's journey into the world ofadult pop has started.") while contrasting it to the styles of her previousbubblegum pop ("…Swift's first three albums of countrybubblegum-pop…") andteen pop output ("How does ateen-pop megastar go about reinventing herself?"), which are recognized as genres with their own articles on Wikipedia. I struggle to see why "teen pop" (which could be reduced to "less mature teenage pop") would be considered a genre and not "adult pop" when these are the exact terms used by bothBillboard andThe Daily Telegraph. I understand that this is not necessarily saying the album isadult contemporary music, but that's why we are using a redirect rather than directly writing that it is AC. At the very least, I don't see how it causes harm to merely mention that the album has been labeled as "adult pop" (without linking it and in quotes to show that it is the source's exact terms) in theRed article an inSpeak Now to compare it toRed. Or perhaps we could redirectadult pop somewhere else, likeAdult contemporary music#Hot adult contemporary, which describes the blend of adult contemporary with more modern pop, orAdult contemporary music#2000s – present: AC music goes mainstream and mainstream music goes AC, which also talks about the infiltration of pop music into adult contemporary. Or evenAdult Pop Airplay could suffice (which is also shown as a "see also" under hot adult contemporary, implying that there is a correlation between the terms "hot adult contemporary" and "adult pop"), although this is not a genre page but rather describes a chart/radio format; however, it does explicitly have the term "Adult Pop" in the article's title and describes the type of music that is played on this format, and the current number one song on this chart is held by Swift which shows that her music has fit into this style.InsiderChiari (talk)17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Binksternet I would love to hear your thoughts on my latest message. I'm not trying to be pushy or rude, I'm just not sure if you saw it because I didn't ping you in my previous message. Or even @Ippantekina could you please take a look at this so you can understand my position in more detail, the edit summaries don't allow for much. Thank you :) I don't mean to be aggressive or argumentative, but I just want you to see my full perspective so we can make a more informed decision on whetherRed being labeled as "adult pop" should be mentioned in the article and/or if we should change the redirect.InsiderChiari (talk)22:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's my talk page which means it automatically pings me. I purposely didn't reply because you wrote, "I understand your point", while proving the opposite. You keep assuming that "adult pop" must refer to a particular style or category or sub-genre. You keep trying to link it or find where it fits on Wikipedia. My point continues to be that the source saying,"In many ways,Red is Taylor Swift's first adult pop album," does not establish a particular style or category or sub-genre called "adult pop". The rest of that piece says nothing at all about the album's "adult" qualities; it just talks about how Swift is not making teenager music any more.Billboard is not saying what you think. There is no need to hunt down a wikilink or figure out a category or find a related page. Let it go.Binksternet (talk)22:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bink. "Adult pop" is just pop music for adults. Nothing about it makes it a separate genre. It's like using "millennial pop" or "Gen Z pop" or whatever terminology journalists can think of to segregate audiences of pop music. (I'd even argue that adult contemporary is not a genre in its own right, only a radio format, but that's a different debate).Ippantekina (talk)13:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to understand someone's point and simultaneously disagree with it. Again,Billboard is not the only source that callsRed "adult pop".The Daily Telegraph states both that "Former teen starlet Taylor Swift's journey into the world of adult pop has started with her new albumRed" and "Nevertheless, the process of Swift's journey into the world of adult pop has started". Your position that calling the album "adult pop" does not establish a specific genre is your interpretation, not what the articles actually say. If they called the album "dance-pop" or "pop rock", would you be arguing that that doesn't refer to a specific genre? Do you consider "teen pop" to be a genre? If so, why is "adult pop" not a genre? You wrote that "The rest of that [Billboard's] piece says nothing at all about the album's 'adult' qualities; it just talks about how Swift is not making teenager music any more", does talking about how Swift does not make teenage music anymore not directly emphasize their stance that this is an adult pop album? How many times does the source have to specifically say the album is "adult pop" for it to be made clear that is how they are classifying the album? Most times, sources used for a specific genre on Wikipedia only refer to the piece using those exact terms once. In this case, there are three instances by two reliable sources calling this album "adult pop". Why is that not enough and why are you choosing to make your own interpretations of what that means rather than just sticking to the sources' exact words? If your main beef was with the link, why do you not care about finding a better place to redirect it?InsiderChiari (talk)16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this instruction. Unblocked ban evaders can harm Wikipedia quite a bit before they get blocked. TheWP:BANREVERT guideline does not prevent the reverting of ban evaders before they are blocked. Me, I'm looking to protect the wiki. Your instruction ends up protecting the vandal.Binksternet (talk)07:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they're vandalising, you can revert them for vandalising. Please don't revert people forban evasion before it's been confirmed that they are, in fact, evading a ban. --asilvering (talk)08:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copying this to my talk because it's worth further discussion.Asilvering, we are in agreement that vandalism of any sort should be reverted. Where we differ is at what point in the process can a ban evading person have their edits reverted. TheWP:BANREVERT guideline is silent about this, so it's up to us to decide what is best for the wiki. The guideline says that a blocked person's block-evading contributions should be removed if there is any ambiguity about whether the edit was constructive.Edits like this one are worth reverting, as the ban evader is removing a key person and changing the topic definition. Bots are constantly patrolling the wiki, saving the version they encounter, and I don't want the unconstructive version to be cached anywhere. The clock is ticking; speed is key. My stance is that unconstructive edits from ban evaders should be removed as quickly as possible, even if the sock is not yet blocked.
One might assume from your instruction that only a checkuser or admin can tell if suspicious edits were made in violation of a ban. I'm not a checkuser or admin, but I can analyze behavior on par with anyone else. If I see obvious behavior patterns linking suspicious edits to a blocked account, I don't think it is necessary to wait around for the official block while the evader gets their way with the wiki, injecting whatever POV or toxicity they are carrying.
The BANREVERT guideline allows endless reversions outside of the 3RR reversion limit. In the past, I have reverted ban evaders many times in a row before they were blocked. Dealer07 from Greece comes to mind: they have made as many as 16 reverts in four hours usingSpecial:Contributions/46.176.114.181. If we all had to wait for a block then vandals like that would have a field day. If users like me were required to wait for the block then there would be no need to specify that multiple reversions are possible without regard to 3RR. One reversion would be enough to stop a blocked account.Binksternet (talk)17:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!
"Anthology 4" by the Beatles is NOT a digital only album, nor is it a 1 CD set. Why is it that if it is NOT a digital/streaming only album, you claim that we don't need a "side one" or "disc one" in the track listing. I strongly disagree with you, but I'm trying to understand what your thought process behind this is. I wanna try to understand you better, so we don't engage in another edit war. Thank you.Jareddeluxe17 (talk)23:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The album set has 36 tracks. The digital streaming version lists them in order from 1 to 36. The LP and CD versions have disc numbers, and the LPs have side designations, but this is not important. All three formats were introduced at the same time, so unlike a 1960s or 1970s album, there is not a preference for the LP layout with Side A and Side B, for instance. The 36-track listing is more trim and slim, and it best represents the modern streaming format.Binksternet (talk)23:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but Apple or the Beatles (I'm sure) did not put the track listing together for the modern streaming format. If that was the case, it would be for a streaming only album (like "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963"). Plus, if there was a Vinyl or CD track listing mentioned, it would already be fairly obvious what the streaming track listing would look like. For me, it is redundant to not mention either of the physical format track listing.Jareddeluxe17 (talk)23:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without any official commentary, we are left not knowing what Apple Records was thinking.
Your best bet to getting me to agree to either a CD or LP format in the tracklist is to prove that one of them has at least a two-to-one majority representation in the published media. For instance, AllAboutJazz reports the set in the CD formathere. But Louder Sound gives the tracklist in the digital streaming formathere, so that's a competing factor.Binksternet (talk)00:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming incorrectly that I favor modern technology. I like modern tools only if they deliver useful results. I appreciate vintage gear for whatever authentic sound it might convey, and I am fairly skeptical regarding the newest hotness trends in tech. Tech writer Craig Anderton writes about the disadvantages of early adopters, and concludes that there is a sweet spot he compared to themilitary crest in war—your optimum position is just behind the early adopters who lose money or time by having to deal with all of the downsides of a new product.
The first tracklist on an album page should generally represent the first release. For instance, atOne from the Vault, the two-CD version came first in 1991, 22 years before a three-LP version was created. The ZZ TopEliminator album came out in 1983 on LP just before the CD revolution, so it is listed with LP track style. I'm on the fence aboutBody and Soul by Joe Jackson because it was intended and recorded as a fully digital album, but the vinyl LP ended up coming out in 1984 before the CD because of a backlog at the CD manufacturing plant. Do we respect the digital intent or do we document the vinyl reality?Binksternet (talk)01:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be happening is I document the vinyl reality (Including the 1990s beyond) and you want to respect the digital intent. I'm an avid vinyl collector, so of course I'm gonna choose documenting the vinyl reality. Plus, didn't CDs outsell vinyl in 1987 (not 1983, like you're putting it)? Again, Apple appears to not ignore the hardcore fanbase and collector world, even if they want to. This is why the CD or LP track listing should be mentioned here. As I mentioned earlier, even the Beatles's official website refers to those physical formats. With streaming, it is as straightforward as it gets. For some, the formats of physical products appear to be more interesting for obvious reasons.Jareddeluxe17 (talk)02:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested to know the criteria used totrim the recent paragraph on Nemo. You might want to shorten the length of the article, that's ok. However, the sentence barely holds up, as the reader has no reason of understanding why this happened. I suggest to either revert the change or propose some middle ground that gives, at least, minimal context.Josep a11 (talk)14:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The context has already been established in the preceding sentences, especially this sentence: "Following the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict once again impacted the contest, with renewed calls for Israel's exclusion ahead of the 2024 event." That's quite enough context for this page.Binksternet (talk)15:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent edits onList of Megadeth band members; there are methods outlined here to start a case against a suspected sockpuppet, if you want to go that route:[12].
In your recent reply on the article talk page, you wrote:
Your AI arguments are incoherent crap. Trying to address your post point-by-point would be a time-suck. I am not getting mired in this muck.
This constitutes a personal attack and violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
Please keep future discussions focused on content and policy-based arguments.
This message serves as notice that the matter has already been brought to the attention of moderators for administrative review.Jvbpds (talk)06:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to all, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2025. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2026!Iggy (Swan) (Contribs)12:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User Bill Williams is removing well sourced material across wikipedia
I told you to stay off my talk page so I apologize for going to yours. However, I think it's justified because that user is stalking my account. He just reverted me on the George Washington article and cited the exact same edit summary as yours. He also posted the exact same warning on my talk page as yours. The editor isn't new to Wikipedia, their account is almost a year old. I suspect they're a sockpuppet and I'm going to report them as such. As for your personal attack and claiming my editing is "tendentiousness," almost every edit that I've ever made has been successful. Whenever I am initially reverted for a bold edit, I seek consensus on the talk page, and I succeed the vast majority of the time. Every RfC that I've requested has voted in my favor. So please, don't claim without evidence that I'm clearly biased, unless you want to claim that a majority of Wikipedia is biased for agreeing with me.Bill Williams09:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Binksternet, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)09:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to send you a happy holidays message, but ended up sending it to someone else by mistake. I hope I have rectified the error now.Viriditas (talk)10:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The foundational idea isWP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not every fact is worthy of being in the encyclopedia.
The references were all to AV Club, which does not prove that the listings are significant. Wikipedia should be based onWP:SECONDARY sources, which define the topic. Primary sources are just for filling in minor details.
Lists in general should help the reader understand the topic. Bare lists are terrible for that. The best way to help the reader is to supply context for each fact, taken from the cited sources. Maybe there was a dispute about one of the listings, or maybe there was media praise; that kind of thing would be great to give context.
The flag icons were being incorrectly used as decorations. Flags are only for entrants who are representing their country. The lists and flags began appearing in February 2013, added byDoc Strange.[13] Your edit was the preceding one; you were there at the time, working to keep the bit about Phipps quitting.Binksternet (talk)04:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was tagged here, but I don't have much to add. Those edits were a long time ago. I am mostly indifferent about the removal of lists from those pages, and I have never contested their removal. If someone thinks they should go, and has a good explanation for why they think so like Binksternet does, then so be it. They're not the most important information on a page about a publication likeThe A.V. Club.Doc Strange (talk)05:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bother you, but one of your fellow editors is reverting every single change that I have made to an article.
My changes include the addition of cited genres and changing the lead genres of various bands to be more broad and/or match the band's lead article.
I don't think that he is actually reading any of my citations and is just reverting them for the sake of it, even if the changes are actually beneficial or are at the very least non-harmful.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience, I don't know your personal stance on these issues, but I know you're an established figure of the community, so I thought that I would inform you of this.
In this change your edit summary said you were removing the old associated_acts parameter but you were also switching the genres around. It might seem like you were hiding the genre shift.
This edit of yours reduced the importance of the post-grunge genre for Adema, on a technical argument that ignores other sources calling them post-grunge. Their publicist puts out the description, "Adema is a post-grunge, alternative metal band with heavy electronica influence who began their musical adventure together in 1998 in Bakersfield..." This description appears in many publications prior to Adema showing up in that locale to play a concert. It is the first thing you readat the band's YouTube page.
I can see why another editor might find your genre edits troubling. You should start a conversation at each talk page where you have a dispute.Binksternet (talk)04:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hurt Locker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)21:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed that you reverted my changes to a few Finger Eleven albums. What does the comment on "sources define the topic" mean exactly? Is it because it's from the band themselves and not a review or other source?
I think it's less important to say "major label" after the first bigtime album is released. The next album can just be his third studio album, which is already how it's done there.Binksternet (talk)19:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited toWikipedia Day 2026 - BunnyBowl, hosted by WikiLatinos with the support of theWikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritage &WikiProject Latin music. Help us celebrate the 25th birthday of Wikipedia and the historic Superbowl performance of Bad Bunny! Together we will improve Wikipedia's coverage of Puerto Rican artists, cultural movements, and the social realities affecting our latino communities.
You’re also welcome to join ourWikiLatinos Discord channel to participate in the editing parties hosted during the contest.
Contests dates: From January 15 (Wikipedia Day) until February 8, 2026 (SuperBowl LX). All participants are subject to ourCode of Conduct.
Hello, there is a user called Country&Rockabilly54 who keeps removing the pop genre label for Are You Lonesome Tonight by Elvis, even if it has a source there and he wants the song only to be country. My question here is, adding a source to a specific genre, is it wrong? The user keeps removing the genre and I feel like even with a source there, the user just tries to erase it to have it their way? The user also has been blocked before.Bryan1518 (talk)04:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think undoing a bot archive is disruptive. Bots trigger automatically, it's well within bounds for a human to judge that the purpose of the page is better served by keeping the content un-archived.
Hello, there's been some alarm among the Stick community (stickist.com - see thread below) that some of our most respected players are being deleted from the Chapman Stick wikipedia article. These musicians may not be known to the general public, but are mentors and teachers to those trying to learn this new, strange instrument. However, I think the edits may mostly be a matter of proper citations and quality control for Wikipedia. If so, I'd like to help fix this, although I'm new at this. I reversed your deletion of Bob Culbertson from the "notable players" section, but did add references with his web pages for music and teaching. Then I noticed that all the musicians that have not been deleted from the list have their own Wikipedia players. Does one have to have their own Wikipedia page to be listed as "notable" on another page? I'm just trying to see how this all works. I've also added a citation to a good book about the inventor of the Chapman Stick. Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. My day job is in biomedical science, so I do understand the importance of good references, and would like to help improve the Chapman Stick and other articles. Thank you for your time.Rikkugon (talk)07:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I promised the discussion thread, just in case you're at all interested:
People who carry on a tradition (teachers, craftspersons) are important to a community but less important to the general public which Wikipedia serves. Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature about each topic, and if the literature about Chapman Sticks always mentions a certain few players then we should definitely include those players in the summary. Important teachers should be mentioned only if they are discussed inWP:SECONDARY sources by independent observers.This edit citing a personal webpage is a primary source that doesn't establish notability. Secondary sources define the topic.
Take a look atWP:MUSICBIO about how notability is calculated on Wikipedia. If someone is the most prominent representative of a notable style then we should list them, citing media coverage about them, for instance in industry magazines.Binksternet (talk)14:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations and information, and particularly links. Just one point: the links I had added are not simply promotional web pages. Theyare the literature. The StickLessons page is a page of lessons for playing the Chapman Stick. The StickSongs, particularly the sub-page "100 songs," is a collection of his performance videos, including many personal compositions. This is how things are published. Traditional media such as industry magazines are much less important now that anyone can (and \nearly everyone does) publish their own content. Students at my university rely less on text books and more on online and commercial content. I believe that's rather unfortunate, but we're not going back. And of course people are relying more and more on AI for information. So of course it's very important for Wikipedia to have rules to make sure reliable sources are used. However, it should not be removed from the reality of how information (and unfortunately disinformation) is distributed today.
Apologies, I should have readWP:SECONDARY more carefully after your first direction to it. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia being based on secondary sources. However, the article does not define "the literature" as secondary sources. In science, "the literature" refers mostly to the original research articles, which are primary sources. The further one gets from the primary sources, the less reliable the information becomes, as it theTelephone game. I ask my students to think about how far removed their sources of information are from the original source. The Wikipedia policy is understandable from a strictly academic point of view. However, it also shows why "academic" is commonly used as a pejorative, as in definitions 4 and 7 in theWiktionary. But I am an academic, so I guess I'll crawl back up my ivory tower until some secondary source validates my existence.Rikkugon (talk)18:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the person behind the accounts that have been editing 2000s rock band articles and a few others over the past month. I am not here to argue I should be unbanned, and I know that you'll ban this account too since it's from the same person. What I am here to say is that the original account in which my "B0uqu3t 0f ros3s" was accused of being a sockpuppet for is not mine. "TRCTheRaulChannelProductionsInc2021" seems to be based out of Brazil or another Central/South American country. I am from East Tennessee in the U.S., so unless that person used a VPN to appear near my location, there should be no connection between our accounts. What I have been doing is technically sockpuppetry, but I wanted to let you know that the original account in which I have been accused of being a sockpuppet for is not from my area nor usually in my language. Also, if the subject title looks off, I didn't know what else to title my message, just in case it looked like it was written by a bot.Gitzferald1798 (talk)22:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you mentioned that three of the four IPs that had previously vandalized the page for both this album and its title track were from Brazil. I had sent you a message previously that was related to how the account in which my original account (B0uqu3t of r0s3s) was accused of being a sockpuppet for (TRCTheRaulChannelProductionsInc2021) wasn't one of mine since they were based out of Brazil, even though I'm from the Southern United States. From what I saw, these IPs were also sockpuppets of that guy. I hope that my discussion on the album page and here with you can definitively prove that I am not affiliated with TRCTheRaulProductionsInc2021 in any way, shape or form.Gitzferald1798 (talk)17:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The P38, as a larger two engine aircraft with a greater moment of inertia cannot possibly be as manoeuvrable as a single engine fighter, and you have Galland and Heinz Bar confirming it on the same page!I can't be bothered to argue with anyone though, it was this sort of biased editing that put me off editing Wiki when I eliminated my own account back in 2021.~2025-36015-67 (talk)18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Topics are defined by uninvolvedWP:SECONDARY sources which analyze and weigh a wide range of factors. The opinions of Galland and Bar are interesting but not defining. The P-38 Lightning was extremely nimble in the air, especially the J and later models which were produced in the thousands. The P-38 had a tight turning radius, so dogfighting was possible with a single-engine fighter, but zoom and boom tactics were more often used because of the Lightning's higher speed. The early models paused for a moment before banking, but this was remedied. Later models were very fast in maneuver.Binksternet (talk)18:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Binksternet, hope all is well with you. I wanted to make a venerable editor who is especially knowledgeable about music aware of a rogue editor who isdamaging many articles, with removal or replacement of longstanding sourced info with what is often utter nonsense not remotely supported by the sources they add or are already present. This editor is pushing a revisionist history of African American history apparently based on a pseudo-historical conspiracy theory that Black people are indigenous to the Americas and not Africa. See what they did toBlues withthis edit, toBanjo withthis edit or toHoodoo (spirituality) withthis one, just as examples of this egregious campaign. It was immediately apparent to me that these were bullshit changes, an apprehension verified when I started checking to see how the sources aligned with the text. Best,Carlstak (talk)14:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'm begging you. You're sabotaging my edits. Both Bonnie's and The Pointer's.Don't you think the idea is to improve, not just delete the other edits?An5j2mp (talk)01:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you also have issues with Synth with User:LionTank. I have reverted some of their editorialising/Synth but they keep restoring it. Example is they asserts there is Chinese censorship of environmental debate around the Games[14], but he doesn't give a single RS that explicitly links it to the 2022 Olympics. Instead they give a NZ Herald citation that is from 2013, years before the Game. And the BBC article doesn't mention Olympics at all. I believe their statement; "Domestic Chinese criticism and debate on the potential environmental impacts caused by the Games are censored by the Chinese government on the press and internet" is synth as it combines general knowledge about censorship with a claim about the specific Olympics that the provided sources don't actually support.Smalledi (talk)08:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I get the impression that LionTank is here to push particular ideas rather than to broadly assess the literature on a topic and summarize it clearly.Binksternet (talk)15:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the issue. Despite they were informed today that "journalists were detained" is WP:SYNTH, they still ignore and continue to reinsert it into lead without providing explicit sourcing. They also don't know how to summarise overall games like they repeatedly push detailed inclusion of burner-phone recommendations in lede. RS treat these as security advisories, not as defining characteristic of the Game, and were at best, precautionary advice issued by a limited number of NOCs. Similar security advice has been issued at other major international events and is typically covered in context/body rather than elevated to lead-defining status. I summed it as "concerns over surveillance", yet they need to turn it as a hefty sentence in lede.Smalledi (talk)01:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about?! I didn't use any AI chatbot. I wrote all of it and I backed it up using sources. Please refrain from making accusations.Sackkid (talk)03:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I reverted both of your disruptive edits onSister Sledge andWe Are Family (album). Both articles were properly sourced and removing the information that you did is disruptive. Please don't start an edit war. I am literally following Wikipedia policy.Sackkid (talk)03:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toSister Sledge. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
Edit warring isdisruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
Here are some other important notes for you. "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism." And because you keep removing sourced material, you are the one engaging in disruptive behavior.Sackkid (talk)21:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:NFCC which says we need to satisfy ALL 10 of the criteria. In this case, the three cover images vary only by color. That means they are too similar to each other for NFCC #4 "Content" and NFCC #8 "Contextual significance". Having two or three similar cover images violates NFCC #3 "Minimal usage".
[22]. Please consider incorporating at least 3 so that notability can be established via reliable sources.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Widgetkid}}. Remember to sign your reply with~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit theTeahouse.
Delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hi Binksternet! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version ofStop Your Sobbing. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia'sedit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on articletalk pages in order to try to reach aconsensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement atTalk:Stop Your Sobbing, please use one of thedispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you.~2026-89487-9 (talk)08:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Something is going on with John Lennon's "Imagine" album...
I noticed someone added some of the bonus tracks on the 2018 super deluxe edition on John Lennon's "Imagine" album. It had been left out for a while and now I wanna know what should be done with it. I personally, feel that it should have its own wikipedia article, but what would you do about it? I wanted to ask before anyone did something.Jareddeluxe17 (talk)13:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Pointer Sisters reportedly sold 50 million records. But according to calculations, they've sold 40 million... Should it be 50 or 40?An5j2mp (talk)00:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who says 50? The pageList of best-selling girl groups has an excellent book cite saying almost 40 million in 2015 when the book was published. There's no way they sold ten million more records in the past eleven years. Their last two original albums didn't even chart, and that was waaay back in the early 1990s. No way are they selling that much.Binksternet (talk)02:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binksternet reported by User:Bigbo$$engeriie (Result: ). Thank you.Bigbo$$engeriie (talk)16:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts.sjones23 (talk -contributions)05:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atReady '24. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in theloss of editing privileges. Removing multiple entire sourced and informative sections from an article because they were written by the same editor who wrote a mistake in the article's infobox is not okay, doubly so when there was actually no mistake and you misunderstood what you were seeing.2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:84A:9956:A079:DAFC (talk)08:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk)03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toSister Sledge. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Hi Binksternet! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version ofStop Your Sobbing. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia'sedit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
