User talk:Binksternet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey @Binksternet, hope you're doing well today!

I’d like to ask whether AOR would be an acceptable genre classification for Pop Kreatif. Some sources mention AOR in relation to it, but the extent of its meaning varies.

• Music archivist Munir, in an NME interview , refers to AOR in the album-oriented rock sense.
• Another source used multiple times for the article I wrote, Radar Tasik uses under the adult-oriented rock sense and MLD, uses AOR but doesn’t clarify whether it means album-oriented rock or adult-oriented rock.
• Munir’s publication under CultureofSoul and a Whiteboard Journal article mention connections between Pop Kreatif, AOR, and Yacht Rock, but they don’t explicitly clarify AOR’s meaning.
• Stamp the Wax also referenced AOR in its historical context, but the original article is now down since 1 Jan 2025. The archived version is here. Or banbantonton under historical background (though sadly its wordpress.)
• To Discogs , it acknowledges AOR as an ambiguous abbreviation.
• The Japanese City Pop article also references its connection AOR, though to an unclear extent. And by the citation used for said article ([1], [2], [3]) itself had less developed historical context to AOR than the articles given above (ignoring Discogs.)

Given these sources, would AOR pass as a classification for Pop Kreatif? Or would the ambiguity still be an issue? Given the possibility that this was during the time in the 70's where the definition of AOR was still vague-ish. (or I could be wrong however, you're very much more qualified than me afterall). Kaliper1 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Edit to this comment: bold to italics.[reply ]

Given the confusion connected to the AOR designation, I would not put the label into an infobox without clearly saying which one it was. In the Munir interview, it's the author Daniel Peters who mixes up the AOR designation. Munir doesn't talk about rock at all, or AOR. Peters's mention of classic rock AOR is not compelling to me, because pop kreatif is not about listening to a sequence of rock songs contained in an album side. Basically, Peters made a mistake, or an unnamed editor.

I think it's better to say that pop kreatif has roots in soft rock, which everyone understands. The "adult-oriented rock" term can be introduced and explained in the article body. Pop kreatif is not album-oriented.

That discogs.com page has no listed author, and cannot be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. It's not wrong, though. It has no bearing on pop kreatif. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right noted, Thanks for the input! Kaliper1 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Congratulations on 500,000 edits, Binksternet! You've done a lot to keep those vandals, block evaders and genre warriors out, as well as fantastic work to various many articles including expanding them and cleaning them up. :) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! How kind. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How do you know about pages being vandalized, users committing block evasion and other offenses, and other edits on different pages? It seems like you made so many edits because of this. Hikingboii (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see activity patterns and I make notes. I frequently check IPs for geolocation, to get a sense of who is contributing. If I'm suspicious, I look for previous activity of the same type at the article, and I look for other activity by the current IP and also nearby IPs. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Binksternet, I hope you're doing well. I just saw that you replied on Wikipedia:Help Desk, and I appreciate your reply.

By the way, could I ask how do you find sources from the songs? I'm trying to find sources that these songs are singles, but it's so difficult to me;

1. Indila's song "Run Run" from the album Mini World

2. Aurora's song "Daydreamer" from the album A Different Kind of Human (Step 2) - I found this link from Apple Music, but it's all the source I can find.

3. Sia's song "Sunday" from the album Colour the Small One - I deleted it from single template for now

4. Birdy's song "Here You Calling" from the album Beautiful Lies - I deleted it from single template for now

In addition, I'm also in trouble to find Radio airplay link, to prove if this song is single or not, or the songs' charts performance link, or infobox song credits.

I really hope I can get your help and some tips to find reliable sources from internet, thank you. :) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not very good at finding out whether a song was a single unless there are sources specifically reviewing the song and calling it a single. It looks like you are jumping ahead, trying to find sources before they exist. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please stop edit warring, I will take action to prevent it if necessary. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the note. I said my piece there, and I'm laying off. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, this is unrelated to anything but when u removed my edits to the "I am music" article, carti posted what I put on instagram Edzmplays (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Edzmplays, you are talking about the page I Am Music (Playboi Carti album) where I removed your addition of Playboi Carti's incoherent post on social media. I removed it because it was not clear about when the album was coming. You said it would be March, but Playboi Carti just said, "MY ALBUM DONE". That doesn't mean it's coming in March. I told you in my edit summary that we should be using an independent source—a WP:SECONDARY source—which is exactly what RXLFZ did two hours later. The problem is fixed. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See subject. It is a fact that Falling to Pieces was featured in the film Black Hawk Down... 210.108.212.103 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's trivia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

If the media called it out as extraordinary, you could mention it and cite the journalist. Otherwise, it's not important enough to include. Binksternet (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

While the inclusion of "studio" isn't technically necessary for every studio album on Wikipedia, it is almost always. The vast majority of musical artists or bands of a certain period in their career have, Sparks included, made at least one compilation, live, or soundtrack album.

Although a seemingly minor detail, it is not redundant but in fact a helpful bit of context for readers that may or may not read past the first few sentences. Also, even though they had not made any other type of album up to that point, the average reader will likely not know that.

I know, it's minor, but I only bring this up because another user and you reverted an edit back-and-forth several times, so I wanted to be clear that there is a reasoning behind it other than just saying "other pages do it". The reverting battle, without having a discussion, is wholly unneccessary and clogs up edit histories. Davejfudge (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The word "album" without any modifier is understood to be the type you call a studio album. The word "studio" isn't necessary when it's the first album of any kind for the artist. It isn't necessary when other types of albums have not been issued for the artist up to that time—when every album so far has been a studio album. It isn't necessary when context is already understood from surrounding text.

If an artist first issues mixtapes or EPs and then puts out a normal album, we can use the word "studio" or call it "full-length" following EPs.

I often remove wikilinks to "studio album" because it's usually considered overlinking, and because the actual article about the topic is found at album. There is no article on Wikipedia about the concept of studio album as a separate entity. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I disagree with the sentiment that "album" on its own automatically implies "studio album". Please read: Album#Types_of_album Davejfudge (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That page says "most albums" are studio albums, which is my point. When people say "album", they almost always mean the type you call a studio album. If they are talking about a different type, they specify that type. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, "most" albums are. Which means some aren't. That is my point. Wikipedia is supposed to attempt to be encyclopedic and comprehensive; it's not meant to cater to anyone's assumptions. Davejfudge (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I like concise prose. I remove unneeded words from the encyclopedia. I will continue to remove the word "studio" if it is not needed in context. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What's the point? Just about every thorough album page on this website uses "studio", so clearly I'm not in a minority here. What you "like" is clearly a point of contention in a website that's supposed to build on concensus. The perfect example is Please Please Me. You know, the debut studio album by the most famous band in history.

Minor edits that fail to improve articles but rather end up being nitpicking is not helpful. Davejfudge (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One editor's "consistency" is often another editor's "nitpicking", and vice versa. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you want to bring up consistency, we should be talking about how consistent it is for good+ articles to include "studio" in it. Davejfudge (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

FA-class articles would be where you want to look. GA-class pages may have been copyedited by only two people. FA-class has been through a much more demanding group of people. The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman is FA-class. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I almost brought up "nitpicking", but I thought better of it.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

? Davejfudge (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would suggest that if and when edits "end up being nitpicking" is a wholly subjective judgement. Apologies for the sarcasm. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The first non-studio album by Sparks was very late in their chronology. That's why The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman can be called their 22nd album without having to say it was a studio album. The 21 previous albums had been the same type. Binksternet (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I addressed this above already. Davejfudge (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've thought about it for a bit. First off, to be clear, if I came off as rude, I want to it be known that I have the best of intentions, and I legitimately wanted to have a discussion, because I think the question at hand present a more broad philosophical question.

My issue really isn't so much about consistency or nitpicking, but it's about placing trust in every single reader that shows up. The omission of the context "studio" assumes that absolutely everyone makes the same implication that you do. Why should be remove tiny bits of context, although redundant to many people, that some people, however small a group, may need? We haven't even discussed people that do not speak English, whose only reference for a piece of information misses a piece of context upon translation. For a website that strives to be encyclopaedic, who are we to ignore that one single person?

I hope it comes across what I'm trying to say here. Davejfudge (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

But where does that stance end? Should we always say "electric bass" or "bass guitar" rather than simply "bass" when the context is, say, heavy metal music which does not generally have upright bass or keyboard bass? Should we always say "Atlanta, Georgia", rather than Atlanta by itself, so folks don't mistake it for Atlanta, Wisconsin, or Atlanta, Mississippi or whatever?

Wikipedia should follow the usual writing style in English. That style is seen in the literature as leaving out the "studio" more often than not when an album recorded in a studio is being discussed. Adding "studio" every time is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

1st paragraph: Yes, to both questions. If anything, it benefits to add them, unless maybe if it's wikilinked.

2nd paragraph: Fair enough, I suppose. I'm just not one for ambiguities that require out-of-page context to immediately get all the information. Davejfudge (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I heartily disagree with your stance in favor of disambiguating everything. People don't write like that; they rely on context quite a bit. I don't have anything more to add. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(talk page stalker) I can say personally, that I always assume "album" to mean "studio album" unless I see a modifier like "live", "compilation", "bootleg", "video", etc. But most discographies do use the sub-headings "Studio albums" and "Live albums", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, personally you're free to agree, but letting those feeling interfere is an example of bias. What's the point in reversing an edit three times for personal reasons? Davejfudge (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is less of a "feeling" and more of my "understanding" of what I have read for the past 18 years at Wikipedia (and elsewhere, as it happens). If there is already some clear policy at Wikipedia that invalidates this understanding, I'd be very grateful for you to direct me to it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the reason I'm here at all. I felt bad for an editor that this was done to, and I was worried it would be done to me too, so I came here to explain my reasoning.

It has still not been addressed. Davejfudge (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I thought it was all about a Sparks album (or a Sparks studio album). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Why the sarcasm? I'm being serious, I wanted a discussion. Davejfudge (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was being serious: that's how you started this thread. I'll just leave you to continue the discussion. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

On the Flashdance (soundtrack) page an IP user removed a sentence without providing a summary. I reverted it since it seemed like a perfectly acceptable piece of information, but they reverted me. Can they be blocked? Danaphile (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The removals are annoying, but they haven't risen to the point of blocking the IP address, nor even semi-protecting the page. The first thing to do is start a talk page discussion about how the sentence should stay in, and see if they comment. I'll keep an eye on the page as well. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

From different IP addresses, what seems to be the same person keeps vandalizing the page to say that it was written by Country Johnny Mathis, something corroborated by very few sources and zero reliable ones. I'm doing my part to keep undoing the edits but it's just creating an edit war which isn't fun. Do you have any idea how to stop this person? Elephant445956 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, Would you mind adding the following Italian IP Special:Contributions/5.90.62.23 to the SPI you started on Giubbotto? The individual is pushing the same edits to the personal life section of the Chris Brown article that most of Giubbotto other socks also request or make themselves when they gain extended confirmed access. Thanks. Isjadd773 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is it possible that the IP 24.249.20.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you reported today, is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Eagles hard rock vandal, given the similar geolocation of Rhode Island? Or is this a different user? wizzito | say hello! 22:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see a few different hands using that IP over time. Our friend the hard rock vandal may have used the recently blocked IP back in late 2021, making simplistic genre changes. The more recent style is a person who has better control of the language. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Binksternet I know it’s painful for some of us to acknowledge, but people who are in the United States unlawfully are illegal immigrants. Insisting to no end that they are undocumented is misinformation. This especially when they have more documents tied to their name than citizens in many cases due to documents in their country and numerous arrest and court paper documents in the country of their illegal occupation. Plus the link used in the article for supposedly undocumented immigrants redirect to a Wikipedia page for illegal immigration. So it’s misinformation when you insist as you did on calling them undocumented rather than the correct term of of illegal immigrants. Please avoid POV pushing on Wikipedia. If you have a political belief about immigration policy, Wikipedia is not the place to settle it. Continued violations of Wikipedia policies may result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. 66.50.167.228 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was just following music industry sources such as Rolling Stone ("...the White House shared 17 seconds of propaganda in which Border Patrol agents appear to arrest an undocumented immigrant") and Billboard ("... a recent White House video glorifying the deportation of undocumented immigrants").

"Painful" is the lack of awareness in folks that immigrants are vital for the US labor market. The US has a 500,000-person shortage of labor, and we should be working closely with Mexico to hammer out a realistic system of immigration which helps everybody involved. Your whole life in the US has benefited from cheap food and cheap housekeeping from immigrant labor of all statuses including undocumented, "illegal", and green card holders. The immigrants are not the problem; they are the solution. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Binksternet excuse my diplomatic travel. Isn’t what you say here a classic acknowledgement of violations concerning wp:npov and wp:notaforum?

If you think you know where I’ve traveled and/or what county I’ve spent my whole life in, if you think that slavery/cheap labor is good for the country’s economy, if you think I have lack of awareness, if you think we should be negotiating with Mexico, if you think I’m benefiting from cheap/slave labor — what do these things have to do with Wikipedia editing? These are things maybe you talk to your senator over, run for office over, or torch a Tesla over, right? Seems like some problematic editing, Binksternet. 108.31.88.248 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I should add, Binksternet that Rolling Stone is a deprecated source. The defense was that the revert was just adding the same incorrect terminology (such as undocumented immigrant) that the article mentioned. However the article shouldn’t even be cited. I’m afraid there’s an agenda here in this edit revert and not a neutral point of view. 2600:4040:2355:B900:A598:13CD:DAC3:F478 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think dehumanizing terms are good for the encyclopedia everyone can edit.

Rolling Stone is fine for music and culture issues such as this one. Billboard is the music industry standard—which you did not acknowledge.

Low-paid work is not slave labor. If the work is so menial that only immigrants will do it, then immigrants should be offered the job. I don't understand why you think having a sensible guest-worker/immigration arrangement with Mexico would be a problem for the US economy. Economists say we should be welcoming them.[4] [5] [6] Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Again, Binksternet, your continued comments here are very much indicative that you are POV pushing and using this as a forum. The article cited is very clearly something having to do with politics and culture, which this source is deprecated for. 2600:4040:2355:B900:A598:13CD:DAC3:F478 (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here you have used two IPs from the Washington DC area, and one proxy from Puerto Rico, which raises questions about your editing history, and whether you are evading a block. Clearly you are angry with the world these days, which is a valid stance, but you are turning against constructive efforts to improve people's lives, and resorting to vandalism nonsense like this. If you think I should lose my editing privileges, you are free to start a discussion about it with the admins, but with your Tesla vandalism on display, you will likely experience a boomerang effect. I will continue to do what I do to improve the world. Billboard will continue to be a responsible voice in the music industry. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

the Negative Feedback article. It had recent blocks of text added to lead only, from a couple of former editors (one blocked), and because the added large blocks were text without source, it violated both WP:VERIFY and WP:INTRO. We removed these unsourced blocks of text. An apparent Hindi editor came on and reverted our good faith, policy-supportive edits.

I subsequently—as here, with clear explanation—reverted their reversion, so that the WP:VER noncompliant material is back out again. But I will not continue, so as to respect 3RR.

But the unsourced, blocked editor-derived content should not be allowed back in. (Ignore the other edits intervening regaring the "Short description", they are immaterial.)

In short, please keep the new status quo, before the reversion returning the unsourced material. We could not have proceeded to make the lead of that article compliant, more respectfully of WP and its policies, than we did. 98.226.86.66 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, that page is a patchwork because it gets adjusted by drive-by editors who probably understand one aspect but don't have a bird's-eye view of the breadth of the topic. Thanks for bringing up the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for stopping by. I am sorry if my further edits interrupted yours. And thanks for—hopefully—putting an end to the return of bad content issue. Bless you. ;) 98.226.86.66 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Davejfudge (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you recognize this user's mo from past work you've done in this content area? Their first two minutes were improbably efficient (pristine sandbox creation, page creation, project banners, AfC submission. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Confused what the question is. Are you asking if I'm a former user already acquainted the system or a bot? This is my first account on wikipedia and I found the system pretty intuitive. Wasn't rocket science or anything. I created the draft in the sandbox when I began editing on Wikipedia. I don't think I saved anything until I was "finished", because I was slightly confused between the difference between saving and publishing the draft (or whatever it said) and was hesitant to click anything until it was ready for submission, so everything that immediately followed was, well, immediate. Davejfudge (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

With due respect, Davejfudge has accused a longtime trusted user of edit warring, then started an ANI procedure against them for disagreeing. Davejfudge has put their own behaviors under scrutiny, by filing at ANI. I'm asking the right question of the right user. I'm not asking Davejfudge anything right now. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I genuinely didn't know what or to whom you were asking. Davejfudge (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

)

BusterD, I can see how you might question whether Davejfudge is an experienced editor returning, perhaps evading a block, as they have been quite busy in the three weeks they have been active. If one were to investigate in that direction, one would want to see whether there is a history of edit-warring and blocks at articles having to do with the musical group Sparks, which appears to be the main focus of Davejfudge. To start that process, I would take the time machine back ten years to UK editor User:Mrwallace05 who was active in various music topics (but not Sparks), and who evaded their block with IPs and socks, many of which were editing Sparks topics. See the archived sockpuppet investigation page, prior to being merged with another puppetmaster; a merge which I think created confusion. The involved UK IPs 213.205.192.222 and 86.158.105.232 were doing Sparks stuff in 2016 and 2017.[7] [8] Various socks were created and blocked, for instance Shikari 123 in 2014,[9] Johnnydelusional16 in 2016[10] and Scandiblues2 in 2019.[11] Hombres12 was active in 2021–2022 on the same sorts of pages including Sparks.[12] [13] In 2022, I was suspicious of Rhythmspirit ,[14] but no blocks resulted despite many warnings. All of these IPs and registered users were focused strongly on the genre parameter in the infobox, edit-warring extensively on that issue alone. Our friend Davejfudge is not doing that. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just a heads up, that IP editor is really not interested, they've been incessantly reverting their edits back between three different editors now. Rusted AutoParts 03:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I requested page protection. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I’m looking for the official sources regarding the Funkytown Cartel video and I was wondering do you have any links from legitimate sources. Let me know. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No idea what this is about. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think 2603:6010:8600:26B:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the Youngstown music vandal at all. That vandal's tells are a.) editing through mobile web and b.) using incredibly generic edit summaries, neither of which that /64 is doing. The range geolocates to Mount Vernon, Ohio, which is a Columbus suburb that is nowhere near Youngstown. I also don't think that the Youngstown music vandal is interested in PBS shows either. wizzito | say hello! 20:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're generally not that bad when identifying LTAs, but in some cases like this you tend to be way off the mark. No hate intended. wizzito | say hello! 20:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I was a bit bewildered by that aspect. There could be two different disruptive persons in the same area. The one I was intending to indicate was a person I encountered first four years ago at "The Thunder Rolls" where they kept removing anything remotely feminist about the song. The person was using IPs from Mount Vernon, Ohio.[15] [16] [17] They were definitely into editing TV show pages. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm guessing that vandal you mentioned is most likely the same person, but they are not remotely in the same area as the Youngstown one. Columbus and Youngstown are entirely separate metro areas. wizzito | say hello! 20:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The so-called Youngstown vandal also edits from western Pennsylvania. They get around. Which is why I lumped our Mt Vernon friend into the same bucket. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed a Mt Vernon IP range from the page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal. Thanks for alerting me to the different styles. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=1283241577"

Hidden category:

• Noindexed pages