User talk:Beyond My Ken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia.

Beyond My Ken

"[Internet trolls] are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

Chris Mooney
"Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People"
Slate (February 14, 2014)
citing research by Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnellb and Delroy L. Paulhusc

We all tend to take Wikipedia much too seriously. It's certainly important to provide a free first-class online encyclopedia for the public, and no one can dispute how central Wikipedia has become to people searching for accurate, unbiased information, but there's little excuse for the bitterness, in-fighting and bitchiness with which many people approach editing here, which makes the experience difficult and unpleasant at times. I am generally in favor of removing the worst of those transgressors permanently, which, of course, leaves me open to the charge of not assuming good faith. Actually, I have little trouble assuming good faith, I simply refuse to keep the assumption alive in the face of evidence of misbehavior.

Beyond My Ken

"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."

Old theatrical proverb

"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."

James Oberg (paraphrased)
via Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1995)

"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

William James (attributed)

"He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."

"The Piranha Brothers"
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Episode 14, "Face the Press"
(15 September 1970)

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof
is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams
Mostly Harmless

Wikipedia is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMORPG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

Beyond My Ken
- Learn the lesson that collectively, Wikipedia doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.

- Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care.

Beyond My Ken
excerpt from "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia"
A bad penny always turns up.

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madison Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hart Benton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BMK (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Holland Tunnel[edit]

You have twice removed relevant reference to the above section on Holland Tunnel page without explanation Please do not remove again.Djflem (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a clear and cogent reason given in the edit summary: that the information, although referenced, is not pertinent to an article about the Holland Tunnel. BMK (talk)
You have removed referenced material and without it unreferenced claims. You were asked to discuss the matter on the talk page. You did not.Djflem (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't post another WP:IDHT message here. BMK (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite[edit]

(Wikiproject Beatles invite removed because of formatting problems) Thanks very much, but I generally don't join Wikiprojects. Best, BMK (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

BMK, when I said "give WPP a wide berth", I didn't mean go over to Commons and start renaming his files. Knock it off. I'll leave a more detailed message on your Commons talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Your warning is heard, loud and clear. However, just to set the record straight, I did one single rename on Commons after your "wide berth" advice, the others were done well before, as the time stamps will show. BMK (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I just wanted to say a big big thank you for your help with our "friend"

I know at times we've not seen eye to eye on things but it was nice for you to help out like you did so thank you - It's very much appreciated :)
(BTW Happy New Year - Only 8 days late Face-grin.svg)
Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that the ending was a happy one. (At least for the time being.) BMK (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "it"[edit]

"a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded" [1] B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's rude. BMK (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Manhattan Municipal Building"[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I notice you reverted my edit to the Manhattan Municipal Building article. (Besides correcting capitalization) I made the edit because the image in question is already present in the article, in the "History" section—that's what makes it redundant.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've corrected my error. BMK (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. John's Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BMK (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Mission Viejo infobox[edit]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the mayor isn't a member of the city council in this instance? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the "leader: of the city is the mayor, not the city council. BMK (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles about cities list multiple leaders, particularly in California. Isn't it sufficient that the mayor be listed first? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the Prime Minister of the UK listed in the infobox as a member of Parliament, along with all the other MPs? No difference. BMK (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The Parliament of the United Kingdom has 1,495 seats, where as the Mission Viejo City Council has 5. That's a difference, one which greatly impacts the practicality of maintaining such a listing in an infobox. Also the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is popularly elected and has significantly more power than an MP, wheras the Mayor of Mission Viejo appears to be a merely a member of the city council designated by the council itself, with few additional powers. Note also that the cited source lists the mayor and MPT on the web page for the council, so listing them together is more in keeping with the source.—Stepheng3 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament who, through the UK's process, has become the leader of the UK. Similarly, the Mayor of Mission Viejo is a member of the City Council who, through the city's process, has become the leader of that city. In both cases, the "leader" field should contain only the actual head of the government, not everyone involved in governance. BMK (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
That seems a bit misleading in this case, but I suppose I can live with it. This raises a couple questions, however. Are you okay with other city articles listing all council-members in the "leader" field, or is it just Mission Viejo which concerns you? And are you okay with the city manager and council appearing in the leader1 and leader2 fields of the Mission Viejo infobox?—Stepheng3 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If I come across other articles with the same problem, I'll make the change. Having both myor and city manager seems like a good idea to me. BMK (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
But how do you feel about all five members of the city council being listed in a collapsible list in leader_name2 parameter of the infobox? —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
We generally don't consider rank-and-file city councils members to be notable, so going out of the way to list them seems like it's not a good idea. BMK (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What about deptuy mayors, vice mayors, and mayors pro-tem?—Stepheng3 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What about the streetsweeper, and the guy who empties the waste paper baskets? BMK (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no" then. Understand that I edit a lot of articles about California municipalities and see all sorts of different approaches to the leader fields in the infobox. Nothing would please me more than to build a consensus around what should and shouldn't appear in the infobox. Some places list no leaders at all in the infobox. Some places list appointed clerks and attorneys. I'm sure good arguments can be made either way, and to some extent it's a matter of taste. Your answers to these questions will help me decide not only how to deal with Mission Viejo, but also with the other 481 California municipality articles and the editors who maintain them. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues. Best regards,—Stepheng3 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Edits on Dick Van Dyke Show[edit]

From what I can tell, you have reverted lyrics I posted due to copyright violations. Please explain why that pertains to what I posted but not to the lyrics already there. Sm5574 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The lyrics you posted were written by and broadcast on a commercial TV channel in an advertisement for that channel, so they are quite obviously copyrighted and cannot be reused -- in full -- without permission. BMK (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Re. your post at WT:NYC[edit]

As per your post here, I've removed instances of "New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority" in over four hundred articles. Best, Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for letting me know. BMK (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox change[edit]

Is there a reason for changing the infobox at St. Jean Baptiste Roman Catholic Church from the religious-building infobox to the NRHP one? The former box had space at the bottom for NRHP information, and many fields that were useful for an actively-used church which are not in the NRHP infobox. In fact, I prefer using that infobox for any church in active use over the NRHP one, which is only better for disused or abandoned churches. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there some way to add the NYC landmark designation to the church infobox? BMK (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Or, can the church template be embedded in the NRHP one? BMK (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've restored the church infobox and embedded the NRHP box in it, I don't think there are any overlapping fields. Will this work for you? BMK (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. In a perfect world we'd update the religious-building box to be able to handle all the landmark info (as many religious buildings all around the world have various local, national and international heritage designations). But for now this will do ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese[edit]

Re: Your revert on Murder of Kitty Genovese and the comment "already discussed on talk page". The only discussion I can see is the section title "Inappropriate categories added to the article - they belong on the "Kitty Genovese" redirect" which concludes the the article is an event, not a person. The same reasoning applies to Template:Persondata whose instructions say the same.

You may not be aware but the Persondata template has been deprecated. Its removal from the Kitty Genovese article was part of the effort to migrate to Wikidata i.e. general tidying. As I am taking an active role in the deprecation, I always want to understand why someone puts the template back. Periglio (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that puts a different spin on it -- you might want to note "template deprecated" on your edit summaries. And, yes, it was the category discussion I was thinking of. I'll self-revert. BMK (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Thats a good idea about adding deprecated to my edit summary, I'll do that. Periglio (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamilton Hall (Columbia University), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amsterdam Avenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BMK (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Grace School NYC[edit]

Will Chatham is highly notable. In the first ever NYC Drone Film Festival. A Grace School alumni. Why do you keep taking it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephWilliamDluzak (talkcontribs) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you tube videos don't establish notability. (Also, don't you mean Grace Church School? I don't think there is a Grace School in NYC.) --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Might be an idea to back off there. I see an impending explosion, and in such cases shrapnel injury is a very real possibility, if you get my drift. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I do, and I intended to in any case. Thanks. BMK (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Good man. It ain't going to be pretty. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Williamsburg Bridge page[edit]

Originally that picture was in a terrible spot as it broke up the lead-in to the J/M/Z tracks time table and the actual table (at least on a narrower screen width, which I failed to mention in the edit summary).

See this edit in a screen width of 1024px:

It appears reverting my move combined with my other intermediate edits on the (now-smaller) table made the pic show up in a better place.

Interesting (strange?) --SkipperRipper (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Picture still breaks the text/table when window is further narrowed down. --SkipperRipper (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

One last more: I had to move the picture down. It's better, but still not great. --SkipperRipper (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So it's better back where I moved it to in the first place? Not a surprise. :\ --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't get a swelled head. In terms of the visual layout of the article, it's best where I had it, but if the choice is between the last place you put it (in the "popcult" section., where it entirely overwhlemed the text) and where it is now, where it is now wins hands down. BMK (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
"It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia." - upper right corner of this page. --SkipperRipper (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, what a riposte. BMK (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Front[edit]

I reverted WP:block evasion. If you want to take credit for the edit, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Yes, please leave it in, I'll take responsibility. BMK (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Referencing lists[edit]

It doesn't matter whether you think it looks better or not, the fact is that Wikipedia has determined that sight-disadvantaged users who are using machine reading cannot distinguish a hierarchical listing. After experimenting with what will work, the format that I adopted has passed "muster". As to typesize, this is also a remnant of old arguments as to how to compress space. Since you really don't do much in adding to the content of the articles but seem bothered about style, I thought I would explain these issues more fully. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you;re mistaken. The format that didn't "pass muster" was the one where a subheading was made using a semi-colon, because a semi-colon starts a definition and the screeen reader gets confused. The subheading made using simple bold, as far as I know, is perfectly fine for screen readers. BMK (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Se,for instance, this discussion in 2013. BMK (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was very forcibly told by a number of administrators that the listing that was preferred for machine readers is in crating a sub-heading. I would prefer the other form myself, but am going on what was told. I will do some checking but this is a style that has been in place for years without any challenges. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, admins get their buttons because they're trusted, they're not necessarily more knowledgeable than other editors. BMK (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, here's a point I forgot that I wanted to make - I don't think it matters is the screen reader sees the bolded sub-section title as a sub-section title per se. It will see the "References" section title, and then the bolded word "Notes" followed by citations, and I preseme that is sufficient for the listener to understand what is happening. I don't think that not being explicitly told that "Notes" is a sub-section is a problem. BMK (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image sizes[edit]

A loooong time ago,it was determined that 200px was a reasonable default for infobox image sizes especially in film articles. Sometimes that doesn't work out, so 150px and 100px were also substituted, but using no limit makes the infobox unwieldy especially since many of the images are actually tiny to begin with so leaving them at thumb size is even worse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I believe you're mistaken. The size that was considered reasonable was 220px, not 200px. I still prefer 225px for the most part, but I can live with 220px. BMK (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see, for instance, this discussion back in May 2014, in which it is explicitly said that the default size is 220px. BMK (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again, if that is the default, I can live with it, although other editors had insisted that it was 200px. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I remember 220 is that I argued for 225 (this is before the discussion I linked above) as the best size. 220 is close enough. BMK (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:NE Ent. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit was unhelpful. If you cannot find a way to express your opinion within the guidelines, please keep it to yourself. Msnicki (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A reminder that you have been asked not to post here unless required to by Wikipedia policy. There was no requirement in this case. Please do not post here again. BMK (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not block for comments of that nature. NE Ent chooses to involve himself in many conflicts, acting as a de facto administrator. It is common practice on this project that administrators are expected to grin and bear it when a users vent, for a block in such circumstances only increases disruption. NE Ent, if he wants to focus on resolving conflicts, he needs to be able to receive such criticisms without resorting to blocks. You are welcome to say that the comment is obnoxious and that it offends you or to refute it. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
BMK it takes all kinds of people to write a work. Some write. Some review. Some help resolve conflicts. Some teach new editors. Please be more tolerant of those who contribute in different ways than you do. Jehochman Talk 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am quite tolerant of the many different types of editors who contribute productively to the project in various ways. I see nothing in NE Ent's history to convince me that he is of that kind. I see him as a free rider, using the common resources of the community and giving little or nothing in return. More than that, he actually burdens the community with his busybodiness and pretense towards being an ombudsman. In my opinion, such editors should be banned. BMK (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose, though I think you will get better results if you try to be more friendly and suggest helpful ways for such editors to become involved. Jehochman Talk 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Recursive acronym[edit]

Why is hEART, the European Association for Research in Transportation, not a recursive acronym? You undid my revision in January 2013, but for me, it fits. hEART the European Association for Research in Transportation, if you skip "the", "for", and "in". It was part of the plans of the authors (whom I am not one of), if you look at their webpage: (green letter to emphasize on recursivity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonind (talkcontribs) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, something about it still seems wrong to me, but I'll restore it to the list. BMK (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to release Image under (CC BY 3.0)[edit]

Hello, I recently used this image in a non-profit project I am working on. The picture of yours that I used, was keyed so that only the bell tower was visable, and used in a larger video composition for a matter of seconds. I am trying to keep all the assets in the project (CC BY 3.0), so that the work may be copyrighted-- not for financial or proprietary reasons, but to ensure that others may not alter the project in a demeaning way. I originally thought the GNU lisence would allow me to do this, but after reviewing it (it had been a while), it seems that this is not allowed.

Soooo, I am writing to ask if you would consider releasing the picture to me at (CC BY 3.0), so that I may opyright the larger work as mentioned. As of now, "The Bells" are the only file that is preventing me from doing so.

Thank you. Meinrobert (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The files is already labelled as "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license." Is that sufficient for you? BMK (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be my misunderstanding of the lisence, but what I am trying to avoid is having to release the work under SA. This is due to the nature of the work, which features a particular person, that I would not want to release as SA. So, if I understand the lisence correctly, if you were able to release the photo to me at (CC BY 3.0), I could then attribute the photo, and copyright the work....again, solely for protection against defamation, and not for commercial purposes.Meinrobert (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, how would you like to go about this? If you want to do this privately, use the "Email this user" link on the left and we can continue that way. BMK (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reversal of my revision to the Clara Bow page[edit]

The Metric system is the world's standard system of measurement used by all countries but two, the US being one. Wikipedia exists on the internet, which exists worldwide. All measurements should be listed in Metric units. If Imperial units are to be added, they should only appear after the Metric unit in parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talkcontribs) 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia policy is that articles on American subjects are written in American English and use standard American measurements. I agree that this should be metric, but it is not. If you go around changing all measurements to metric, even on articles where policy indicates that non-metric should be used, you will soon be blocked from editing -- so I wouldn't start a crusade, if I were you. BMK (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello BMK. No one can sat that your didn't try. Sorry I didn't ping you at the 3rr report. It was late and I was finding the Clara Bow Incident to be a dull and uninteresting sequel to the original film :-) Before heading to bed I had looked at the edit count for KR and noticed the same thing you did. The 150 edits (at the time I checked) spread out over 8 years can happen but has the hallmarks of a throwaway/sleeper account. The dozen or so past edits that I checked seemed legit so the Metric crusade was "curiouser and curiouser" to me. Now that I've seen your comments on KR's talk page I think you are correct and our chain was being well and truly yanked. I hope the snow isn't making life too difficult for you. More bad news though temps here have been in the 70s all week and the snow that had been piling up since Xmas night is gone. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries re: no ping, absolutely not a problem.

I suppose I should have gained Kubrickrules' trust by letting him know that many years ago a friend of mine was the roommate of Kubrick's second wife, the dancer Ruth Sobotka. With my Kubrick bona fides thus established, I'm sure he would have followed my lead anywhere.

The snow here has been much less than anticipated. The overreaction to the possibility of more snow caused more problems than the storm itself. Best, BMK (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a neat coincidence from you past. The "X degrees of separation" is fascinating. Glad the storm wasn't too bad. Jon Stewart had a funny segment about the hype surrounding it. Enjoy your Friday and the weekend ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowery at Midnight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BMK (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)