User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized
• The Leatherman - copyedit
• Singin' in the Rain - add from Comden & Green intro to script when it's unburied
• Irvington Historic District (Irvington, New York) - further research and expand into sep article, if possible

	The Special Barnstar
	Apparently I had never looked at your user page before. Your thoughts page was a particularly good read. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I certainly appreciate that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course! And did you get my ping at Talk:Soka Gakkai? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't, for some reason. I'll respond there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The below was originally posted on my talk page, and I would like a response. Thank you very much:

Please be aware that the Wikipedia convention is that if you erase a comment from your talk page (and incidentally, as an IP editor, this is not your talk page - you do not have the same control over it an editor with an account has over theirs), it means that you've read the comment and acknowledge receiving it. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken Yes, I have received it. I don't know which parts of my edits you think were opinionated, or why you deleted the whole content that I had added, but I think there were quite some substantive and substantiated information, and facts, in there. I understand that they may not reflect your views, and I definitely appreciate your challenging and replacing them. However, I don't see why it was necessary to remove the whole thing, rather than changing it and making it better. I won't pick over it, though. I'll message you on your talk page, no need to reply. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you feel that I violated any rules or policy, please kindly inform me and I'd be happy to add it back. I'm just not particularly sure about the specific details regarding the concerns that you had raised. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for catching me to that exception. I appreciate your dedication, and I would like to know how to improve the information that I had included. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comment to you, the one you immediately deleted about your additions to the article Toplessness, was quite clear:

On Wikipedia, we don't publish the personal opinions of our editors - that's called original research and a violation of the neutral point of view. Any opinions or analysis must come from people with expertise in the subject, and therefore must be accompanied by citations from reliable sources which support the views presented. Please do not restore the material you added to Toplessness, which I reverted, unless you have such citations to support it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You provided no sources at all for the several paragraphs of statements you added.[1] That makes them your opinions, until they are sourced by citations from reliable sources. I've noticed now that you've done this same thing in some of your other contributions, so this is something you need to correct in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about the late reply, and thank you for your response and advice. I understand that there was have been some content which I shouldn't have included, I can make that better in the future. However, much of it is, in my opinion, valuable stuff and if I would like to see some of it put back on, I can message you and let you know, check it over and review it first, if I feel that some would help. And do you think there was nothing worth keeping, as from what I can see, only a part of it was opinion (which I will correct and add citations for if necessary) and I have indeed often included citations. Also, I do appreciate that you have remade it for this page, and I can act to not delete the posts in the future. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not really getting it. The issue is not whether the information is "valuable" or "important", or even, actually if it's true or not, the issue is that we (the world at large) don't know you from a hole in the ground, don't know if you're an expert in the subject or simply reporting your observations without any expertise in the subject. That's because we're all either anonymous or pseudonymous, and even if we use our own names, there's no guarantee that is who we actually are. Because of all that,

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

That's an excerpt from WP:Verifiability, one of our most basic policies. Unless and until information is supported by a citation from a WP:reliable source, it's merely one person's observations, or opinions, or unverified information, and that is why the entirety of your edit was removed, because you did not provide any sourcing whatsoever, and why it will be removed again until you can back it up with sources that are acceptable to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, BeyondMyKen. There is no need for such accusations, I understand your concerns. I wanted to add it back because I wanted to HELP, not to break rules. I received your message, and WILL add sources and citations if and when I may decide to re-include it, as I never did re-add it, because of course I wanted to make sure that you agreed first. I do add the same sources to these edits, and will continue to do so. For the time being, if it is not in your interest, then I won't return them. But I don't see any reason to revert these and other new edits. Thank you for the consideration. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BeyondMyKen, why did you remove the edit at Swing state, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swing_state&type=revision&diff=762144399&oldid=762125650? You only said it was "unsourced" but from what I know, everything was sourced, and I had already addressed the issue before, in a post on that page. Every single single, and clause and phrase that I added, had a source. Please stop reverting my edits unless you have a genuine reason to do so, as arguably with my first one, which, unlike your claims, I haven't re-instated. Thank you for the consideration. If you have no objections, I will add it back. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same objections that the other two editors who removed it had: that it is unsourced WP:OR. What you are dooing is called edit warring, and it is not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, I just saw your message, and I added one edit just now. But can you tell me where you see that with? I'm pretty sure I added citations for EVERYTHING in there. Please tell me if and where I didn't, and I'd be happy to fix that. I didn't want to "edit-war" with any editor, only to improve it and get your permission first. None of the others have replied at the article. I just don't see where you find that "original research" and none of the other contributors have specified it, not that I would disagree with their qualifications. But since you have a problem with it, I'll stop adding any more, but I'd like to know what it is that you specifically object to. Thank you very much. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my "permission" to make edits, you simply have to follow our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but you (and others) opposed my edits, and I don't understand why. So I don't understand why you'd think that either my edits or the content were a violation of policy. I understand that the material that I add must be verifiable, must have sources, can't be original, etc. But I don't understand how the information that I added didn't conform to those rules. So please clarify the reasons for your disapproval, or I will continue to not understand or misunderstand. Regards. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, and I will say only once more, you added several paragraphs worth of information without a single citation, and that is why it was removed. The reasons for its removal are all given quite clearly above. Please don't respond, as I will take any response as being deliberate trolling on your part, and your response will be deleted unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a second set of eyes on Chicago City Limits, if you have the time. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My name's on the comedy project page? Really? I had no rememberance of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you saw it on a pointer I posted on the talk page, got it. I don't think I'd be much help to you, I really know nothing about that subject. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at it. The only thing I think I could do to help you is to clean up the format. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded abrasive. I'll contribute to the article with references as and how I can with the (admittedly limited but reputable) references I have. Regards. K.S.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, keep on truckin' Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I didn't want to bother you but I was hoping you would do that! I certainly did not want to mess the table up. Thanks again! JericVgilbert (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

First off, you usually leave a message on the user's TP when you do a revert. Second, you did not provide a valid reason for the revert. If you could let me know your reasoning I would appreciate it. Also, if you want to take it to the article's TP for discussion, then let's do it... TJH2018talk 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Wikipedia you've been editing, but what you're describing practically never happpens - at least that's been my experience in 11 1/2 years and 198,000 edits; but maybe you in your less than a year of editing and 7,312 edits have found otherwise.

The reason I reverted was that the photo you swapped in was not as good or interesting as the image that was there. If you disagree, open a discussion on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my year of editing and 7,313 edits, I find that this is a normal practice, at least when it comes to anti-vandalism. So, to the talk page we go...TJH2018talk 03:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And next time a long-standing seasoned editor tells you that your perception of how things are done here is wrong, you might just want to take it under advisement and consider it a learning experience, instead of digging your feet into the ground and insisting that you're right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that currently block 4 in the ArbCom request is blank, maybe you might consider moving that blank section down to the bottom? I might try myself, but I wouldn't want to be accused of editing out of my own section. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I have no interest in this, and have said so on the DR/N page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on National Endowment for Financial Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd rather someone fix whatever problem it is perceived to have, because I think it's a notable subject, but I'm not going top waste any energy fighting the SD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, its lack of Google hits screams "non notable", so I have no objection to deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Ytv, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Brojam (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gather your self-prescribed motto "Note to self: let shit go" did not go well in this instance. My edit was more about the excess spaces and I just made the heading code consistent while I was at it. Call it OCD or whatever. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Let shit go" doesn't mean don't tell people when they're doing unnecessary things, it means that at some point pursuing an issue becomes more trouble than it's worth, and at that point I should try to remember to "Let shit go" and drop the issue. One comment on your talk page doesn't even come close to qualifying for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beyond My Ken,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at this; User:C16sh may have followed it for his edits. I wouldn't know who's right, but this page and your reverts seem to contradict each other. 79.40.43.26 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tracks of the Empire Corridor run by the stations of Metro-North Railroad, but those stations are not part of the corridor. Also note the (lack of) referencing in the station list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering. The wikipedia article being the first instance I'm aware of the Corridor; I'll leave to someone more knowledgeable about it than I am to either remove these stations from the page or reinsert them in the pages C16sh and you have disagreed over. 79.40.43.26 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had this very same complaint and made the same revert for Scarborough. Looks like that table is wrong! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's over-inclusive. Generally, the MNRR shouldn't be considered to be part of the Empire Corridor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already done at the seldom edited Carol Downer and Mike Burke (journalist) or I'll report you. Motsebboh (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Checking a suspect editor's contributions for bias is not "stalking". I've looked through a lot of your edits, and made changes to some, all of them totally justifable. What comes through though is the pattern of the POV with which you appear to be editing. I suggest that you read WP:Right great wrongs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the "suspect editor" here is the one who doesn't know when consensus has been achieved in a three person discussion. Motsebboh (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one is dealing only with consensus of a three-person discussion, and I say with as someone with a significant history of being in such discussions, then there is a very real chance that consensus there might be might qualify as an instance of the False consensus effect. And there is also, very possibly, that the possibly single instance of discussion which Mostebboh might perhaps be referring to is not the only reason for the following. I might say that the above comment might show more of a jumping to conclusions based on very possibly insufficient evidence and acting on them for the effect of some form of harassment than might be good. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, John, which appears to be uninformed by Motsebboh's editing history. I suggest you peruse not only his choice of subjects to edit, but the edits he makes in them, which will quite handily support my description. He edits with a distinct POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Believe it or not I'm not here to talk about conduct. If you can forgive me for my comments at ANI, I'm having trouble verifying much of the content you added (about the founding of the CSP and the whole Domino's Pizza thing) and I'd appreciate your help. Normally I'd raise these issues on the article talk page, but given that you've un-watched that page and you're trying to avoid it while sanctions are being considered, perhaps you'd be willing to discuss these matters with me here? If we need to do some adjustment of content or sources maybe we could edit a draft in your sandbox. A note to whoever might be watching, I'm not trying to circumvent article talk; I'm just aiming to get BMK's input since they added the content and have presumably reviewed the sources, some of which I can't find online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm OK with talking here, and I don't want anything in the article that isn't accurate. (As for your comments on AN/I, I didn't take offense at them, they were accurate, although I disagree with your opinions that sanctions are necessary.) So, questions: do you think the Right Web citation is not adequate, are you looking to back it up with an additional cite? What, exactly, is your concern? - I'll be glad to do some research and see what I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I got an email back from the person I contacted at CSP, saying that they had never seen the annual reports I was asking about, but that they would do some digging and get back to me. I'll let you know what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My two main concerns are that Right Web isn't reliable--can you find a more reliable source relaying this same info?--and I don't have access to the 1987 WaPo story, so without knowing what it says I don't know what content in the paragraph it verifies. In particular I was looking for a source to verify "Perle's bulldog" but came up with nothing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started doing some research, which will probably come in bits and pieces. To begin with, this book confirms Gaffney's moniker as "Perle's bulldog", and if you scroll down to the next page, it confirms Gaffney's ouster after Perle left the DOD, and also confirms the "Domino's Pizza" remark by Perle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This report by the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute of the New School has some confirming information, and a lot of new information which could be integrated into the article. Scroll down to section IV: Closing the Circle: The Role of Corporate-Backed Think Tanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another book Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America has a chapter called "Frank Gaffney and the DOmino's Pizza of Policy", but unfortunately there is no e-book, and no preview online. I've ordered the print book and will let you know when I get it if it has aany confirming material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent Washington Post article on Gaffney: [2], which confirms Sid Blumenthal's 1987 article. I'm still tracking down that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's where I am on the 1987 Sidney Bluemental Washington Post article: it most certainly exists, I've found numerous references to it on Google Books. It was the first of a three part series on Perle by Blumenthal. The Washington Post historical archive has a letter to the editor that refers to it (I didn't buy it), and it is apparently mentioned in the paper's "Index" and "What's Inside" that day, but the article itself is not in the archive. My supposition is that Blumenthal may have retained copyright of the article, but that's just a guess on my part. My next step is to see if the article was re-published in book form by Blumenthal, but I'll have to do that later, I need to stop for the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I'll review and adjust the citations accordingly, I just don't have time at the moment. If I don't get to this in the next few days then you're welcome to remind me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for the article itself, but it's existence is testified by its use as a reference in numerous books, as shown here. Of course, that's no substitute for knowing the actual content of the article - but I believe some of the sources I linked to above could be used to bolster the existing ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. But I'm confused as to how you made this edit adding both content and source without having read the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're giving me too much credit: my recollection is that the content and source were already in the article, I didn't add it. The only question was confirming it to comply with WP:V. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, good work finding it. I looked in the Post's archive but it wasn't listed for some reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, you may be right. It was a footnote in the Right Web article, so it could well have been me who added it to the CSP article, on the basis of that footnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I do a lot of work on conservative organizations and find sites like Right Web and Sourcewatch to be helpful, even if they don't make it into our articles. In any case, I've done some trimming based on WP:V. If you want some of that material restored, and can find reliable sources supporting it, then I'd be happy to add it back in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, I did a revision history search, which showed that I added it here. My mistake was not adding "as cited in..." the Right Web article, which is what I usually do for second-hand references.

As for adding stuff you've trimmed to bring the article in line with the source, I saw in the history that you had done that, but I didn't actually look at the edit itself. Maybe I'll get a chance later on, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: Here's another source you can take a look at, if you can find it online:

• Stone, Peter H. (December 23, 1995) "Ice-cold warrior" National Journal v.27 n.51-52 p.3146

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. :-( --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't seen it, just a reference to it elsewhere. Oh well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was typing up my comment on the talk page before you commented on my talkpage. I don't like to template the regulars but please note WP:3RR. You have reverted the addition of tags 5 or 6 times now within 12 hours. Please stop or you will get blocked. I would be happy to reply to any reasonable comments on the talk page. Woody (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your letting me know that you made your edit before my comment was posted - I hadn't yet checked the time stanps, because I was busy responding to your comment on the article, talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By your edit-summaries, this and your preceding edits that undid User:Madreterra's edits there were about a lack of sourcing. But all I see your edits doing is removing links ("Jewish" as Jewish American and "Italian" as Italian people). You left the actual displayed content, and it is indeed sourced. Did you mean to remove the sentence altogether, or are you disputing that these links are correct for the terms? DMacks (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same. 79.40.43.26 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fucked that up totally, I've self-reverted and offered Madreterra my apology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that you chose to hector me for commenting instead of !voting , given that this RfA is sailing through anyway (in your words) and there is no need for my vote. I find it even more amusing that you haven't !voted on it as yet. I'm moving my comments to your talk page to avoid derailing the discussion and taking the focus away from the candidate. 2605:6000:E963:6A00:919B:487F:8C2F:1964 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You find it amusing that I'm not going to !vote until I'm certain of what my !vote is? Odd sense of humor you have there. I suppose you'd prefer me to !vote before I know what my !vote is going to be. Perhaps I should contact the precogs from Minority Report who could tell me what my !vote is going to be, so I could make that my !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time by all means - and please extend others the courtesy of letting them take their time or abstain (as in my case). Peace. 2605:6000:E963:6A00:919B:487F:8C2F:1964 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not "abstaining", as an IP you're not allowed to !vote, and if you created an account at this moment, the vote would be thrown out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:David Gordon 2014.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to post this to two different threads? TimothyJosephWood 01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, did I? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Well, that was weird. Thanks for pointing it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computers, as things that are run by magic, are sometimes unpredictable. TimothyJosephWood 01:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. There are probably too many images atm, but it should have a better ratio to text after further expansion. Ceoil (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I look forward to seeing the expansion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the facelift yesterday on Catham Phenix National Bank and Trust Company. Benji the Pen (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you moved this page for the wrong reason. The synagogue with the new spelling is not the one the article talks about. All the references, including the historic society's m documents use the spelling as it was. The one in Washington Heights uses the spelling you changed the article to. Please revert the changes. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I believe this is the synagogue in Washington Heights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nope, this is the lower East side one.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, I'll fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've undone the mess I created. If you could do me a favor, double-check me and tell me what's left to do, or do it yourself, whichever you prefer. My apologies, and my thanks for pointing my mistake out to me, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beyond My Ken,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Wikipediad well here: [3]. Thanks. I was busy singing. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. May I ask, what kind of singing? (I was a singer in musicals and a chorus singer in my youth.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Beyond My Ken, I was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the expanded or short version of Template:Cite news is preferred. I've always used expanded reference templates since it seems to speed up copy pasta, but I would use the other if it made it more convenient for other editors. Thx, Benji the Pen (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking vertical vs. horizontal? If so, I used to think vertical was better, because all those parameters (especially in multiple references back-to-back) sometimes made it hard to see where the text ended and then picked up again, but since I've gotten more used to them, my opinion has switched, and -- except for infoboxes -- I now prefer the horizontal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I meant horizontal/vertical. I've always wondered if picking one or the other would violate an unspoken code of etiquette, so thanks for clarifying that it is up to preference. Benji the Pen (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I nominate the article into GA status? I think it would probably pass. What do you feel about it? Triplecaña (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not big on GA, so I'd prefer you not nominate it. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a message regarding additions to the movie box. Can you add fields regarding voices to animated films and so forth. In these films the actors provide voices for the characters. This is essential for people who are interested in those types of movies. Those who star in these movies gives voices to the characters. --88.90.217.227 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask this question at Template talk:Infobox Film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about this instead: if you're so convinced it can be replaced with a free images in half an hour take some responsibility for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia and go out and find that image instead of continuing to remove promotional images, which are meant to be used widely and without express permission to do so. Maybe you might consider that you're being treated like dirt because you treat the hard work of other editors like dirt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about that? Your definition of "responsibility" is demanding that other editors clean up after your mistakes because you're too . . . lazy? Unwilling? stubborn? contrary? bored? . . . to do it yourself. I've uploaded a few thousand images myself, and I don't have to divert my attention from stuff I place a higher priority on to do whatever work you don't care enough to get right. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you assume that it's a mistake because you haven't done the necessary WP:BEFORE work. I suggest you concentrate on uploading images and stop attempting to cripple the encyclopedia by deleting the work of other editors unnecessarily. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... don't presume to apologize for me again - I'm perfectly capable of apologizing for myself if I think it's necessary. The 184 IP is a disruptive editor, most probably a sock, and you're just feeding it.

And while we're on the subject, who the heck are you? You appeared on the noticeboards a couple of days ago and suddenly you are all over the place. You've had an account since 2005, but you have a paltry 8,500 edits, only 36% of which are to articles, barely more then you've made to Wikipedia space (30.8%). I don't think you have the experience to be offering advice and opinions on AN and AN/I, and should instead spend your time improving the encyclopedia, which is the purpose we're here for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. That's all a bit uncivil isn't it? Paltry - what an interesting adjective ... it's both judgmental and pushes the boundary on WP:CIVIL. I didn't apologize for you. My words were "I'm sorry" not "we're sorry". I did point out that you failed to notify him (and I should have realized that yesterday, and done the notification). Yes, they are disruptive, yes possibly a sock (which I pointed out yesterday). But who knows, with a little kindness and encouragement, maybe today's 15-year old troll will one day be an accomplished editor - which we need more of. I'm most distressed to see editor after editor beaten down by red tape and incivility, often by Admins who should know better. Recall that there are 5 pillars to Wikipedia, and one of them is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility WP:5P4. I think you might have just violated that one yourself; I have myself too on occasion. I'm simply trying to apply that.

Who am I? I came to ANI the other day because I'm involved in [4] - and while that's ongoing, I've tried to help out in some other discussions, where there seems to be need. Have I said anything inappropriate or wrong in any of those discussions? That's not my intent - please tell me so I can fix. I've got plenty of experience at ANI - I've been here before (and I've also popped into other discussions during my previous visits). And I've been brought to ANI by other editors on the wrong side of things. And having been blocked before on trumped up charges, I can sympathize with many of those here - something that those that have long stopped caring about WP:5P4 and WP:BITE. Quite frankly, if I can stop 1 or 2 editors from being so alienated that they run away, that does improve the encyclopedia. Is that wrong? Nfitz (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse bluntness with incivility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use unnecessary adjectives that are only there to deride. Don't accuse someone of apologizing for you when they clearly did no such thing. Bluntness is fine. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly apologized for me. "Beyond My Ken should have done X but didn't. I'm sorry about that." Don't be sorry, and don;t post on my talk page again, I have absolutely no faith that you're here to imrpove the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: you've chosen to miss out a clearly quite important piece of that sentence, "You should have been notified by User:Beyond My Ken or myself. I'm sorry." Clearly you are taking it out of context. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about this....

		The Offtopic Barnstar
		For your contribution to merrily derailing an AfD! Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I'll treasure it always. (Or at least until I clear my page). Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Love the steel wool sheep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this protection request for the Jane Morgan article. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polite thing to do. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, nothing at all I can do about it. Once Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tagged it as an NFCC violation, the image was effectively dead. Just to recap:

• HW tags the image as an NFCC #1 violation, removes image from article
• I dispute the violation and add a disputing tag to the image (no free images available), restore to article
• Interlude: HW removes, not being willing to wait for determination whether it's actually a violation or not; I restore; rinse and repeat
• I open a discussion on the article talk page, HW replies with disdain
• An IP requests the page be protected, and it is

• (Interesting the way that IP popped up just in time to ask for page protection and then disappeared.)

• I file an edit request: since the image has yet to be determined as in violation, please return to the article
• Another editor removes both HW's and my tag from the image as being "too contentious", suggests FfD
• Response to my request for restoration: get a consensus first
• B-Bot marks the image as orphaned
• Since the image will now be automatically deleted after a week, HW has no reason to continue to discuss, no reason to take it to FfD, no reason to do anything but wait for the automatic deletion
• Result: The image will be deleted, HW's tagging will be de facto upheld, and the system continues on its merry way, with no way for one editor's personal opinion about an NFCC violation to be disputed or overturned, in effect giving the tagging editor the ability to get images deleted at will.

Happy days are here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does a link to Jane Morgan's talk page prevent the image from being declared orphan? 87.19.188.227 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe so. Image has to be used in an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a link to File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg on Talk:Jane Morgan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, NFCC forbids non-free images on talk pages. See this and this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the link, thanks for pointing it out. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your always-informative improvements to the article about Hudson Heights. I lived in the neighborhood for a decade (before it was named Hudson Heights by the gentrifiers) and I have fond memories of the place. I remember all the streets in the article and, with the exceptions of Alex Rose, Mother Cabrini, and Margaret Corbin, I had never heard of the people for whom all the streets are named. Fascinating! (More interesting by far than the street names in Midtown and in Turtle Bay, two other Manhattan neighborhoods in which I lived.) Thanks again. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I live in the neighborhood now, after 31 years in the Flatiron District and 7 in the East Village before that. I literally knew nothing about anything here or the rest of Washington Heights (or Inwood) before I moved here, so the past 3 years have been quite interesting, learning the history of a new place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert. The question being posed at the RfC concerns the size of the image; so why is it necessary to include all of the rest of the sidebar as well? It's quite lengthy - my edit reduced the page size by 11,713 bytes. I carefully checked the two copies of the sidebar, and the portion that I removed was identical between the two versions.

Also, your revert has removed the signature which is desirable in an RfC so that what gets copied to the RfC listing pages is (reasonably) neutral, containing only the question being posed, and not the ancillary discussion, !votes etc.

Please consider how it will appear at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography - the next bot update to that page is due at or soon after 00:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is the result of an editor (me) asking for comments, so your fiddling with the contents was not appropriate, since you are not me.

It is important to have the sample sidebars look the same as a regular one, so that the effect of the size of the swatiska can be properly judged - that was not possible with the change you've made. However, I have reduced the size of both sidebars by eliminating all but the first member of each list, so now they look the same, but are greatly reduced in size. As for the signature, you should never have added my signature to the page in the first place, that also is not your privilege to do. You only needed to remind me to do it and I would have added it at once. I have restored my signature in the same place for the functionality you suggest.

Please do not alter another editor's RfC without their permission again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar spirit to what Redrose64 said: Just because you start an RfC doesn't mean you own it. For example if someone wanted to add an option E in some manner, it would be reasonable. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your fairly aggressive attitude on the AfD talk page, or comments such as "You need to listen to what you're being told", are necessary. Could you perhaps tone it down? Hayek79 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as soon as you stop your WP:I don't like it behavior, which is pretty damn annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not being fair. I've provided reasons for not including both the references and the description in the infobox, to which you have so far declined to respond. Hayek79 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post here again, you're boring me to tears, and I have better things to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]