User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Beauty Behind the Madness

The IP claimed that the genre was not in the sources, but I beg to differ. Huggle needs a genre warrioring warning... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That IP is in the UK. The style of interaction combines with location to make me think the person is indeffed User:MariaJaydHicky. If not, the person is a persistent genre warrior and a long-term abuser. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

LTA

I've just added yet another IP to the dog and rapper LTA from 4 October as I think it's fairly obviously him. I see an IP added a couple but I'm not sure that this one is him. What do you think? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The first one, yes, you nailed it. The second one, no, because the main focus is political topics, and the edit summary doesn't fit. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Matthiasberoli

You seem to be on the same anti-vandalism campaign as me. This user has expanded most Eric Clapton-related articles in a huge way, giving them thousands of bytes of information. His crusade is not over yet. I am only revisiting the chart and certification because this is where I have knowledge about and where we noticed he manipulated things. But he also added many things in the the rest of the articles (personnel, tracks, history) and I'm not able to check this for hoax information. If you have enough time and nothing to do, I would be happy to have somebody being able to check this kind of information... --Ali1610 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. He edited almost every article in the Eric Clapton category and even some more. Will be a hard challenge to check everything, also for me. --Ali1610 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hard challenge, yes. It's especially tough for me to check chart references and certifications. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I started with 1992 Eric Clapton World Tour, "Change the World" and There Is a Party. More to come.

Do you think the fansite whereseric.com can be used reliably for anything at all? If so, what? Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know exactly, such fansites are at least not really reliable. Depends on how much information is correct there in general. Or you completely erase them just to prevent wrong information. --Ali1610 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I also deleted that "Judith Will: Memorable Moments of Rock History (1980–2000)" book from the first article. If you search on Google for it, you can only find it in these articles and nowhere else on the web. Matthiasberoli as an IP created some concert hall articles in the German Wikipedia by using this book to reference Clapton playing there. It seems not to exist at all. --Ali1610 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I’m unsure about whereseric.com, obviously some articles/sections consist of nothing else than citations of that very website; if we decide to delete it completely, there won’t remain a lot of the content. I had no time to really check the website, but at least it seems to be an existing and autonomous web project outside of the user’s reach and influence.--XanonymusX (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My main concern was that Matthiasberoli might have been able to put his own text up at whereseric.com, in which case I would want to remove it all. Now I think that we should hold that website at arm's distance as much as possible, preferring better sources, especially for analysis and critical reviews. It should serve as a good enough source for concert dates and similar routine information. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean music vandal

Hey, the infamous Caribbean music vandal is back at 72.66.19.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); would it be possible to get him blocked again? He keeps adding unsourced material to soukous, a huge waste of time. Thanks. Neodop (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for his brand of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Love and hip hop atlanta

An anonymous user caused vandalism on the table of cast members for love and hip hop atlanta. Could you revert. I use a phone at the time being to edit, so I can't right now Zhyboo (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. Dang, that article is under constant attack by IPs, at least some of which are the same person doing the same things over and over. Also, the Real World: Go Big or Go Home article is a target. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ikr, they like make unncessary changed Zhyboo (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion, please clarify.

Hello. You deleted my undoing of another users (Geogene) undoing of some of the "notable" passengers from TWA flight 800. You said "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at TWA Flight 800." This is not true. This is the ONLY time I have ever undone anything. Ever. And I only did so ONCE, not "repeatedly" as you are accusing me of. Why are you singling me out, and not Geogene who undid the list in the first place? And I stated my reason why. I only added one of the passengers he deleted, so this is not personal. But all of the passengers listed there are notable for one reason or another.

I read the guidelines for what makes a person "notable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), and the list fits the guidelines. If you do a search on Google for any one of them, you will see the reasons why they deserve to be included in the list. I honestly do not see why this is such a big deal.

Do you truly believe that the entire French club of Montoursville Area High School are not "notable" enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia? That is an entire club of 16 children, and their five chaperones, all killed, all at once. It had a MAJOR effect on the community, and ten years later, articles were still being written about it. It is a disservice to their memory to just delete them like that. The same with Courtney Johns, the passenger I did add to the list. The comic book character Stargirl was created in her memory, as well as modeled after her, both her personality and physical appearance. Stargirl is a major DC character, who has had her own comic series, been featured on television shows (Smallville and DC Legends), is a member of the Justice League, etc. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtney_Whitmore. That may not mean anything to you, but Stargirl has her own page, and fictional characters have their place on Wikipedia. These deaths have had lasting consequences, and that makes them notable. As I said, a simple Google search shows why each name is notable. I do not believe Geogene did such a search, as the Wikipedia:Notability article suggests should be done. I will not put them back right at this moment, since I do not seem to have same privileges as others who have been here longer. But I have been unable to find any reasons on Wikipedia's guidelines that should prevent their inclusion on the list. We are not talking about their own standalone pages, just inclusion in the list of notable passengers of TWA flight 800.

This feels very much like a disagreement over an opinion of who a particular individual feels is "notable", not over actual facts or rules. Please let me know where I have gone wrong here, and why these particular people should not be on the list, with a french hockey player and a crime victims' rights advocate. What, exactly, makes Rodolphe Mérieux, physician, son of Alain Mérieux, so much more "notable" than the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigil triple seven (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:LISTPEOPLE is what I cited in my edit summary. The people in the list should be notable for something other than dying in the airplane crash. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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 and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing Dami Im cover information

Why have you been through and removed information of Dami Im's versions from the articles of the songs she covered? You've cited WP:SONGCOVER, but most of what you removed were cited with reliable sources and meet WP:NSONGS, as they all charted in Australia, so I don't feel what you've cited supports what you've done at all. Ss112 15:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dami Im's album charted quite nicely but not the songs I removed, as far as I know. If you can cite a particular song charting, then please do so, and also say so in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean her self-titled album that the songs were later re-recorded for, or the songs on her later album Classic Carpenters. I meant the live recordings released each week after she performed them on The X Factor, which charted and in most instances were referenced. Ss112 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dami Im's Classic Carpenters Album charted in Australia, so from that perspective it meets WP:NSONGS so why are they removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwphan (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet has pointed out that even though the album the songs appear on may have charted, this doesn't apply to the songs themselves, as albums are not what WP:NSONGS refers to. Ss112 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating biography

But no references! Please take a look at Scott Allen Nollen. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of fluff and nonsense -- I took a great flensing knife to it. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that, one question remains... how did this article appear in 1913? "*Allen, Michael," An Interview with the Eclectic and Prolific Writer, Overcoming Major Illnesses, Returning to Small-Town Home After 30 Years," Omaha Reader, July 1913." I got nothing on their search page ("http://thereader.com/api/searchresults.html?cx=009909811609202909389%3A-d0iw9p9p14&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=noellen&sa=&siteurl=thereader.com%2F&ref=www.google.com%2F&ss=913j149269j7"). The bio you flensed bears a great resemblance to the Amazon author biography. And yes he may have a huge pile of books, but I don't find a lot of references about him with a google search. Thank you for your help. I got an upset offline email about how we're all so nitpicky, nominating copyright violations and cleaning out bios. Tut tut. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I can't see anything about that supposed news piece, so it appears fabricated. More pruning! Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Promotional Material

Hello, you left a message for me to say I posted some promotional material on A Song for You. I did not do that. Upon checking the history of that page, I am confused that it is saying I posted some material. I only referenced the song as having been recorded by Dami Im. You can go ahead and check on that. I am just a fan of Ms Im and not connected to her in a financial way. She released an album called Classic Carpenters this year and included a track of A Songfor You. Why is referencing that fact considered promotion? Rwphan (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Rwphan 9 Oct 2016

I sent you a warning for promotional activities after I saw you were putting Dami Im into many different song articles. I felt that your multiple contributions added up to promotion. Whether that is true or not, many of the additions do not fit the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER. The guideline says that each listed song cover must be "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" (not a source discussing the cover version or artist), or the cover version must itself be notable per WP:NSONGS. So if the song is an album track that wasn't released as a single, and didn't chart, then the cover version shouldn't be listed on the song page. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Trap Music

Trap music originated from southern hip hop. There wasn't any involvement of Dubset of any other form of electronic dance music. Therefore dubstep can not be a stylistic origin. TrapGod (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis doesn't quite match that of others. For instance, Routledge, a respected publisher, printed Professor Ursula Smartt's book Media & Entertainment Law 2/e which says that trap music "mixes 'dubstep' drops with rap's artillery-fire drum programming." Can you quote a source agreeing with your position? Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the unsigned editor's vandalism from my talk page. I appreciate your act of kindness. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I did very little; I was second to TheGracefulSlick. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I thank you both! Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic Range

Hi, I have noticed that you kept removing some information on the Dynamic range page which is related to its use in the context of image processing. But to be honest I fail to understand why this has been consistently removed. Since what it is described is an extension of its original meaning, it will be difficult to find a statement which describes its usage. At best, one can give some (several) examples where it is used not appropriately. I do believe this does not qualify as original research, since it is only documenting a common use. I believe this information can be helpful to readers of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riccardo.metere (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My problem with your contribution is that none of your sources say anything remotely similar to "Sometimes the term is improperly used in signal or image processing to indicate either the values range or its size." Rather, the sources you cite are examples of improper use – examples chosen by you. That's what the guideline at WP:No original research addresses. Wikipedia editors should not publish their own analysis of the topic.

What you need to do is find a source saying explicitly that the term is improperly used. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yorkville sound

Hello and good day. I know you created the Yorkville Sound article, An wanted to let you know that several of your recent edits were incorrect and against policy. For example, you restored a large section of text that I had emoved that was uncitd. For a reference you used the Yorkville sound history. That is a weak ref and might just barely be OK if there was a secondary reference somewhere. But there isn't. As well as this you have reverted my more minor improvements to the article that improved the flow and text without an regard for these improvements. I have restored my edits and would suggest that you leave these changes alone unless you can proide good reliable sources (See WP:RS) that are independent of the company, and which support what the text says. I hope you can live with that. Also I see you have created a large number of sound company articles and wanted to ask if you have any connection or conflict with any of these companies? 104.163.139.13 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to use WP:PRIMARY sources as I have done with the Yorkville history published online. The notability of the topic is of course based on third party, independent sources. But primary sources can be used to flesh out an article, especially with regard to company history, which will be – in very many cases – the most authoritative source.

As a freelance sound engineer I am independent of all manufacturers of sound equipment. Yorkville didn't pay me, if that's what you are implying. Personally, I think most Yorkville products are not "pro" enough for me, except for some of their amplifiers, and one line of powered loudspeakers. So I would hardly be the person who is trying to make them look good. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings again!

I found another article which might need your touch... please see Gabriel Diggs. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I put the bio up for AfD. The guy is clearly under the notability requirement, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A favor

Hi, Binksternet. As you are one of the Wikipedian editors experts in several topics, including the music industry. Can you analyze this list that is in disput. If you cannot do that, not worry. Chrishonduras (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion but I have nothing to add. Sales figures are not my thing, and my Spanish is poor. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Hi, I see you've been doing the thankless but needed job of keeping up with this vandal, who is endowed with no less than superhuman persistence. It's especially problematic because many of the vandalizing edits can go unnoticed because they are superficially plausible. One of my most disappointing experiences on Wikipedia occurred when I posted to ANI about it, describing the situation and listing many of the vandal's IP addresses, only to have the thread derailed by someone who wanted to have a discussion about what the technical definition of IP hopping is. There needs to be an admin who understands the issue and is willing to do short-term range blocks on a regular basis. This problem also highlights the inadequacy of the tools available for dealing with such a case -- it shouldn't be hard to block only those IPs within a given range that are also technical matches with the vandal, but after millions of dollars spent over a decade and a half, such useful things still seem far out of reach. Manul ~ talk 12:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I am of the opinion that the time has come for Wikipedia to require user registration and a vetting period, for the purpose of helping to fight this kind of vandalism. I can understand how it was helpful at the beginning to have any and all contributions combine to grow the encyclopedia, but now that we are past five million articles we should move forward in a more deliberate manner. Of course, vandals would still game the system if registration were required, but a great big chunk of our problems would go away. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Have any range blocks been done, either currently active or expired ones? You might want to play around with rangecontribs like this and see if a decent case can be made for a given range and duration (if you haven't done so already). Manul ~ talk 23:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, great tool. I will look into it when I have more time to dig deep. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions regarding Rick Marty (and others)

IT IS OK TO DELETE THIS MESSAGE(s)

So, I hope you don't mind that I was "stalking" some of your edits last night because you edited some of the pages I watch after your talk post. But it has raised a couple questions that I was wondering if you could help me out with.

First, some of your edit summaries and a few lines in your sock puppet request said those redirects are useless (paraphrased) and misleading? But that makes me question whether I did something wrong when I created, as example, Pam Sixfin (musician) for the sole purpose of being redirected to Nashville String Machine. She has a name that I often come across in my edits and she is a member of NSM. Instead of creating and authoring an entire article, I simply made a page for it to redirect. That way if anyone comes across her name, they can click it and know who she is. I also often see (but did not create) Fred Eltringham, and his page gets redirected to The Wallflowers.

I am ok creating pages as redirects? And then, if yes, I am curious as why Rick Marty's redirect is useless while the others are ok?

And then my next question is actually about him. His page redirected to Dirty Looks (band). You said that there is no verifiable information saying that he was a member and you removed his name. Of course, that will sometimes happen when there is a rotating door of members ("rotating door of members" is a quote from a website I saw) and the band website has shutdown after the death of the owner/singer. With 50 guys listed on that page, I bet that some of the members cannot even list all of the other members. I am sure a lot of those other guys don't have references anymore, as well, with the band page being down. But if you put "Rick Marty" and "Dirty Looks" (each in quotes) into a Google search, there are 200 listings. Some of which even talk about him dating Bobbie Brown (which you also deleted last night). Even searching "Richard Madenfort" and "Nashville" has 1200 results. So, how can you say that you cannot find references for these?

I want to learn. Those names have been on a couple pages that I watch. I may have even added the link when I updated some of them. Is this all because of his "fan club" and now he can never be on Wikipedia? If so, then you really need to look at all of the spam Taylor Swift gets, lol. Ok, that was a joke and it may not have come across as such "in print" but it made sense in my head. Basically, I want to learn. As well as help. So, anything you can tell me will benefit me, the issue at hand, and WP as a whole.

17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Kellymoat (talk)

At least Pam Sixflin is mentioned in the NSM article. The Rick Marty/Richard Madenfort guy is not listed in the article Disney–ABC Television Group, so it doesn't help the reader at all.

I think a redlink which holds promise as a future article should ideally stay red until an article is written. That is, unless there are a few sentences of text about the topic inside another related article. In that case, the redirect is useful. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the many results that show up when "Rick Marty" and "Dirty Looks" are put into a Google search query; I saw those, too, but none of them looked like reliable sources. For instance, Discogs.com allows users to edit the pages, so that makes it unreliable. When I typed in "Rick Marty" and "Bobbie Brown" all I got websites that copy text from Wikipedia, and a blog or two. Nothing reliable. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jjx04

I gave the user a warning for edit war after the user undid revision without see the article's talk page for OK Computer. Would you handle it among others. 123.136.112.219 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Sabbath singles

Hi Binksternet, Apologies for the interruption. I'm wondering if you could help out with some potential fixes around some Black Sabbath singles articles. There was a long standing issue with the Infobox information on Children of the Grave, fixed in this edit by an IP. But on review, the previous & next singles don't match up across various articles - both CotG and After Forever (song) list Tomorrow's Dream (song) as the "next" single. And the {{Black Sabbath}} Navbox seems to only list some of these singles. Where would I go to find some definitive sources? Thanks in advance for any advise you can offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's just one source for this. Billboard magazine would list the ones that charted, but you want every single, not just the hits, and I bet you want release dates for all of these. The All Music Guide to Rock has a listing of every album in order, but not all the singles or when they were released. So I don't have an answer. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; it is appreciated. Looks like the issue has been resolved by other editors, so I might chase them up for their sources. Cheers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Engineers sometimes are distracted ;-)

Hi, Michael your user page is an interesting read, but you can make it even better. Here is how:

You wrote:

"I was an active child except when I was reading books, which was often."

But "often" is an adverb, and you need an adjective, like "frequent". If you had ended your sentence with "which was often fun", it would be correct. But - fun or not - it is not the message you wanted to convey, right?

Is that correct? 85.193.210.113 (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've made some research and now I see that your sentence was correct. The problem is that English itself is illogical, especially for someone like me, a geek obsessed with logic.

Here is what I found in Google Search - option Verbatim:

• "it was often, but" 541k 1.8k
  
• "it was frequent, but" 44k 9
  
• "it was frequently, but" 46k 316    -   sounds terrible to me
  

Off course the word "but" is irrelevant, but it helped me to filter out unwanted words, because Google Search ignores punctuation so it is impossible to find whole sentences. 85.193.210.113 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

High fidelity

An excellent edit. So I am not completely ignored by you. BTW - I am at your age, an engineer too. 85.193.210.113 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my work on Kate Bush?

My sources are reliable, because they came from BILLBOARD, a very important source, which counts sales around all the US, by information taken from Nielsen SoundScan. I want to know, why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josegerman188 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between Billboard's online advice column and the published sales figures of the acknowledged sales certification groups. The online advice column is not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Garrix discography

You were one of a few dozen editors pinged into a conversation there. While most of those editors are probably ignoring that discussion, I wanted to specifically (re-)request your input since the confusion seems to stem from long-ago edits you did to that page. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at the issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

I have removed the unsourced claim you made in User talk:172.56.32.163. Feel free to re-assert with additional evidence but keep in mind that you appear to have a LinkedIn entry and I have touched, skin-to-bronze Noel's sacred name upon the Plaque.--172.56.32.163 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you want, User:Jnc? A checkuser looking you up to see about violations of WP:MULTIPLE? I don't see what your angle is, editing logged out as a series of IPs when you have a usable registered account. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my darling, darling man. You are so wrong. I am a privileged person, but I am not Noel Chiappa. I am unfit to tie his shoelaces or shine his shoes, as are you. Oh dear. Let me admire you. I admire that you that do not hide behind the mask of anonimity. I admire your 4 FAs. But even if you had a million edits, the question remains: what did you accomplish? Oh, I do not want to be such a hard taskmaster. Oh, I know. Study the Galileo affair for a while. Take your time. Wait. Stay your hand. Transcend. Dare to be like Noel.--Judtojud (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a Wednesday evening event in SF

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

Please copy and share this on other talk pages. We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather at the Wikimedia Foundation lounge to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no meaty agenda this month, but we will allow a brief period for:

• Open mic for anybody who attended WikiConference North America 2016 in San Diego last week and wants to share their takeaway
• Question & answer
• Open mic for announcements
• Maybe a focus on some topical election article editing with Ben?

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, a stool or counter and do your own thing.

---

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, October 2016.

---

PS: Mark your calendars ahead now for the 3rd Wednesday in November, the 30th (the week after Thanksgiving), at 6 p.m. when our WikiSalon will host a super awesome top secret mystery guest mingling in our midst. We will announce specifics at the upcoming WikiSalon.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen, Jacob, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hanoi vandal

Is the description of their geolocation out of date? I saw your edits to the LTA page, but this newest IP geolocates to the Phillipines instead of Hanoi or the surrounding areas. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe the vandal is currently in the Philippines. Let me look further. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's really the same guy. The common thread is the interest in establishing "soft rock" as a genre or category. I added the Philippines to the LTA page description. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

Hi again. Would you be willing to weigh in this RfC regarding AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the album ratings template like Metacritic, because the website is another review aggregator. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Fighters (LoCash album)

I saw you remove Richard Madenfort from The Fighters (LoCash album). Can you please do me a favor and, if you come across the names Richard Madenfort or Rick Marty in any other album articles, remove it? They were hoaxes put in by a sockpuppetteer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the names, because they come from the guy who was investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noneof yourbusiness48. There is a Facebook page up under the name, with posts about being a guitarist in bands. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please help me by seeking out and destroying any evidence of his name on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

On it. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Move to split Garage rock article

An editor has made a motion to split the Garage rock article. I was actually thinking about trimming certain things--I had planned to nominate it for FAC, and I was planning that there would be some tree-trimming and modifications. I also felt that there were some other improvements that could be made--I did feel some of my more recent additions were a bit too-dry and needed more summary and less band mentions. But, I am concerned that with the new move to split, that the process may go too far and end up to the detriment of the article. Certain sections that I thought were really good (California, Australia, psychedelic, etc.) may get jettisoned or disfigured in a negative way. The article may become stark in a way that is not fair to a genre of its breadth. It may loose the coverage of international scenes. So, I am worried that the changes will get carried out in a detrimental way. Quite frankly, right now I'm not sure if I can trust any of the present panelists to do the changes in a sensitive and prudent way. I also think that some of the proposals being thrown around undermine some of the sound judgments you made when you reviewed the article last year. You dont't have to agree with me on every count, but I feel that you are eminently qualified to be part of this process, because right now I'm afraid that the article is going to get torn to shreds. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)