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)

If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I will be watching it.
If you leave me a message, I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

My notifications are turned off, so "pinging" me will not get my attention.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Note to self[edit]

Too much blue, do more red. BMK (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this means red links, there's a few years work that needs doing here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but it actually means to do more work on articles (which show up as red on the various edit count graphs) and less in Wikipedia space (which is blue). Sometimes Wikipedia space can be like an addictive drug, hard to resist, and I've been doing a really lousy job of resisting it lately. BMK (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow! That is a lot of red links, indeed. Way out of my area of experience, though.
What I really need to do is to process some of my backlog of photos, upload them to Commons, then see if any of them are usable in articles, and edit and expand those articles. Lately I've been taking them, but not uploading them, then when I look for something to do, the demon Noticeboard drug calls out...
Thanks for thinking of me, though, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:User page blanking[edit]

Hey, for whatever reason I didn't notice this when you did it. You might want to be careful when blanking other users' sincere statements of intent to semi-retire because of on-wiki harassment. It's not a violation of WP:POLEMIC to post such a statement on one's userpage, or even to state the reason; it's apparently even debatable whether specifically naming the other user in the dispute is a violation.

I'm not going to restore it, though, since my recent work on the Miyazawa Kenji article has given me a new lease on wiki-life, so my previous statement is invalid.

So no harm no foul, I guess.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I learned this here. If my userpage violated WP:POLEMIC then you might as well remove my username from that page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's "no harm no foul", then why did you bother to bother me about it? And, yes, it certainly violates POLEMIC to name the other party. BMK (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Then why did you not say the same thing to said other party when his user page named me? Or to Bagworm, whose user page redirects to his talk page and whose talk page makes a false claim that User:Lukeno94 and I hounded him off Wikipedia, when everyone else thinks he left Wikipedia because he was told he wasn't allowed honk his own off-wiki products or go around reverting my edits because I was the one who made them? Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What am I, the POLEMIC police? I saw yours, I didn't see the others. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, live with it. BMK (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg You can either eat it or throw it at whomever deserves a pie in the face the most. MONGO 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm not sure that my choice of face-pie recipient would be the same as yours. BMK (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You could always throw it at me! You would not be the first I assure you.--MONGO 20:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To tell the truth, although I generally love slapstick humor, pie-throwing is my least favorite variety of it. Perhaps I grew up on too many Three Stooges shorts on TV, where the pie-throwing scenes were generally pretty lack-luster. I did think the Monty Python pie-in-the-face lecture-demonstration in Live at the Hollywood Bowl was well done, though. Good pace, and just the right amount of surpirse. BMK (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your observations about the Stooges and MP:LatHB. Thank goodness that SK agreed as well! After looking at these photos I wonder if Dr, Strangelove would have its iconic place in cinema history if that ending had been used. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm very glad that Kubrick made the choice he did - with the caveat that if he had chosen the pie fight, being Kubrick, it might have been great. BMK (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Another example, Blazing Saddles. (And given his username, we'll see what MONGO thinks about this.) Really funny film, but the pie fight sequence is such a let down, especially coming after "The French Mistake" number. But then, Mel Brooks is pretty hit or miss (no pun intended) as a director. BMK (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Brooks is hit or miss but all the MONGO scenes were classic comedy, least I thought so. The pie scene was lackluster I think.--MONGO 03:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree totally re: Mongo scenes. "Candygram for Mr Mongo." BMK (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And Mongo's punch of the horse ranks right up there with the drunk Lee Marvin sitting on a horse, both of them leaning up against a wall in Cat Ballou. (I haven't mentioned the farting scene because I assume we all agree that it's earned its rightful place in film history). BMK (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Whitney Museum of American Art (original building)[edit]

We're clearly looking at the page with different size windows. With my window at the standard width on a macbook the way you've set up the gallery and photos puts them on three levels with a great deal of white space as the gallery isn't below the infobox. You need to ensure that the gallery will be below the infobox at typical viewing widths or else you create the very problem you claim to be fixing. Djkeddie (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And on my standard PC laptop with standard everything, your version has reams and reams of white space, the gallery is on two levels, and the door photo is a different size from everything else. I use Firefox, but I'm going to check the page now on some other browsers. ... OK, here's what I found. I checked that page using Chrome, IE, Opera and Safari, and on all of these the page looks fine when I am logged in, however, on all of them and on Firefox, when I log out, the page looks somewhat as you describe it, which is also somewhat (but not exactly) how your layout looked to me. Therefore, using those 5 browsers, I found a setting which looks fine both when I am logged in and when I am logged out, and I've put that setting into the gallery. If you check what it looks like on the Macbook, and it looks OK, then I think we've found the solution. BMK (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The mac safari window defaults quite wide now so the issue is still is present. There's no perfect solution but I think the window should render well for most viewers. Perhaps I'll look at lengthening the article at some point so that the gallery will always be below the infobox even with very wide windows. Thanks for your efforts, I think for now it's settled. Djkeddie (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Lengthening the article will certainly help - it's always a problem when the gallery is inside the infobox's vertical range.
Just thinking - with the opening of the new Whitney, there might well be more information out there on the museum's early history which would usable in that article. Best, BMK (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Drmies expicitly told me to open a thread in a discussion where he was complaining about me, so I told him., briefly, that I thought he acted badly, and why. He then told me to "put up or shut up". I went with the latter. If Drmies doesn't want threads up questioning his actions, he shouldn't ask for them.

Ideally, he shouldn't use admin tools when his ability to be neutral is highly questionable as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You opened a thread, and the normal course of matters on AN closed it, once by me, and then a second time by an admin, with an equivalent result. I cannot speak for Drmies' purpose in advising you to open the thread, but the actual result of your doing so was that your complaint was found to have no merit. Since my close was affirmed by the admin close, there's no reason for further discussion of the issue here. BMK (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Das Einschlafen Bericht[edit]

As I was falling asleep last night, a line from the film My Cousin Vinny popped into my head. It comes when wannabe attorney Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci),a New Yawker defending two other New Yawkers charged with murdering two "good ol' boys" in Alabama, is called upon to give his opening statement to the jury, right after the prosecutor has given his. Vinny walks over to the jury box, points to the prosecutor and says:

"Uh, everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you."

Of course, his "statement" is, in fact, argument, and the prosecutor succeeds in having it stricken from the record, but it's still a lovely moment. (Not as good, of course, as when Pesci's girlfriend, "out-of-work hairdresser" Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) takes the stand and proves definitively through her automotive knowledge – "My father was a mechanic. His father was a mechanic. My mother's father was a mechanic. My three brothers are mechanics. Four uncles on my father's side are mechanics..." – that Vinny's clients are not guilty, but, after all, that's a classic scene.)

Just thought I'd share that. BMK (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

the biggest wrong[edit]

The biggest wrong was Davie's delete. That is pure vandalism. The eye opening thing that caused me to bring it to ani is that Davie is a troublemaker, having been in an ani mess just days ago. But thank you for saying that Davie was are the first to do so and this helps the situation. Thank you. I feel a little better already. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

correction. You are not an admin, thought you were. So the fact is that no admin has condemned or blocked or scolded Davie. This is so wrong. No wonder Wikipedia has a female trouble. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) No, it was not vandalism: please read WP:VANDALISM. It was a mistake, it was wrong, but not any more wrong than your attempted to short-circuit the discussion with a "delete" close when you have just !voted "delete" yourself. He made a mistake, you made a mistake, then you made another mistake, and then you came to complain about it all on AN/I, when you hadn't even discussed it with Davey2010 on his talk page. Whatever Davey2010 may or may not have been involved in earlier is not relevant to this case, and your bringing it up is simply a case of poisoning the well. Your hands are far from clean, and I suggest you withdraw your complaint before it bounces back on you. BMK (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I've been here a hell of a long time, longer than many admins, and I'm telling you: forget about it. No admin is going to block Davey2010, the most he might get is a warning. LibStar as well is not going to be blocked. There is a distinct possibility, however, that you might be blocked if you don't get down off your soapbox. Last warning, it's up to you. BMK (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, see, you got a 72 hour block, reasonable since you'd apparently been shopping around looking for an admin to block Davey2010. You just had to press the issue, huh? BMK (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Grosvenor Avenue[edit]

Hey, User Ken, you seem like you might know. What neighborhood is Grosvenor Avenue in? Riverdale ends at the HH Pkwy and Fieldston at 250th St. What starts north of 250th? Thanks. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. The southern part of Grosvenor Avenue, between 246th and 250th is definitely in Fieldston, but I'm not exactly sure what neighborhood the part that heads north and then curves around back to 250th/Iselin Avenue is in. Possibly North Riverdale, but I think it's on the wrong side of the ridge (which is why I assume the avenue circles back, because of the change in elevation). Google Maps [1] includes it as part of Fieldston, which makes geographical sense. Even though the Fieldston Historic District ends at 250th Street [2], perhaps our article is incorrect in saying that the neighborhood stops there as well. The area is part of Bronx Community Board 8, but I don't see anything on their website which would help identify the neighborhood. [3].
Given the paucity of information, I'd be inclined to say that it's part of the current neighborhood of Fieldston, if not part of the original development or the area under the supervision of the Fieldston Property Owners Association [4], but I'm far from certain about that. The Riverdale Country Day School has their "Hill Campus" in that area, and carefully declines to name the neighbohood in their description;[5] Horace Mann does the same [6] If I was making things up, I might call it "North Fieldston".
Sorry I can't be more help. Do you have any idea what the people who live in the area call it? BMK (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've asked at WikiProject New York City for anyone with knowledge of Bronx neighborhood boundaries and names to comment here, so let's see if anyone responds. BMK (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've responded at WT:NYC, but I am also posting here to confirm. @Wikiuser100:, Grosvenor Avenue is definitely in Fieldston. Epic Genius (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Epic Genius has posted a response while I was composing mine. I'll have to redraft it as I had not been clear in my original post here I was enquiring about the partial loop of Grosvenor that starts at Iselin and returns at 250th St., not the part below 250th Street down to 246th clearly in Fieldston.

I appreciate both your responses. Perhaps a tentative answer to my specific enquiry lies in the second sentence of this passage from the North Riverdale page: "One of the geographic characteristics which gives all of Riverdale its suburban quality is that it lies on a high ridge which separates it from the rest of the city.[1] The highest part of the ridge, at 284.5 feet above sea level, lies in North Riverdale, near Iselin Avenue and 250th Street."[2]

If the high point in North Riverdale lies near the junction of Iselin Ave. and 250th St., and both Iselin and Grosvenor continue north of 250th, then it appears the Grosvenor "loop" in question lies in North Riverdale – at least according to the Federal Writers' Project (1939) cited.

Certainly the spot indicated appears to be very near the high point as perceived from the air. A good deal of very large scale residential construction sloping downhill nearby on the Grosvenor loop caught my attention flying over it the other day circling north into LaGuardia. It was hard to miss, and looks much the same as here on Google Earth: [7]. That's what got me curious enough to look it up here at WP.

So, EG, what's your call on the "loop"? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: Let's continue this on the WT:NYC talkpage, where we are more likely to get more feedback. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Ultan, Lloyd. "Riverdale" in Jackson, Kenneth T. (ed.), (2010) The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd edition). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, p.1109
  2. ^ Federal Writers' Project. (1939) New York City Guide. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-403-02921-X (Reprinted by Scholarly Press, 1976; often referred to as WPA Guide to New York City), p. 510

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of ArbCom Cases[edit]

The discussion of ArbCom cases, and questions about ArbCom cases, on the talk pages of clerks is not permitted and is considered tendentious. Consider this to be a formal caution. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I disbelieve you at all, but as a matter of interest, could you point out where this rule is published? BMK (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The best I could find is this, on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks: "If you require the assistance of a clerk for a general matter, you should post to WT:AC/C (or e-mail the clerks' mailing list if discretion is required); for assistance with a specific and currently-open case, then in the first instance contact the designated case clerk (who is listed at the top of each case page) on their talk page or by e-mail."; italics in the original, bold is mine. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly understand the purpose of such a rule as Robert cites, since discussion should generally take place on the Arb case talk pages. I guess the instructions you cite mean to contact the clerk, but that other editors shouldn't chime in if it's on the talk page? Pinging @Robert McClenon. BMK (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case in point, which was Collect and others, I had posted that rule on the case talk page. It might have been even better if the caution had referred to that case rather than to cases in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
My thanks to both of you for the explanation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Rajasthan[edit]

Hi there. Regarding this edit, I'm not sure if you realized that the AfD was already closed before you added this. Just pointing it out in case you want to revert yourself, or get in touch with the closing admin directly if you think the close should be reviewed. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize it, and I will revert it. Thanks for the catch. BMK (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles[edit]

Hi. I don't know if you remember me - I have positive memories of interactions with you in the past. Are you sure about this ? On my 23" it doesn't look so great - at both Maximum and "Restore Down" settings. SlightSmile 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a change which still works for me -- how is it for you? BMK (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the 45em does but it looks fine now. Thanks. SlightSmile 16:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The "2" just divides it into 2 columns (and, in fact, is deprecated), while the "45em" sets up columns of that size. If your set-up doesn't accommodate more than one column of 45em, all you'll see is one column. Ta da! BMK (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "private"[edit]

I would like to explain why I capitalized the word private as you seemed to have quite an angry response to my edits. I capitalized it in good faith after seeing that "private" was capitalized in almost all other info box's governing body section and the first word in most of the parts was capitalized as well. I just wanted to explain why, I'm not trying to harm wikipedia or blatantly hurt it but the way that private is written out in info boxes is Private when it is in the governing body section. - SantiLak (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that your actions were in good faith, but, in general, infobox fields do not need to be capitalized. People do so out of habit, but it's totally unnecessary. Rest assured that I am not angry at you for any reason. Thanks for contacting me. BMK (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

coi ed.[edit]

Good message at ani./ We will soon develop standard procedures for this sort of thing. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- I certainly hope so. BMK (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Incivility, AN/I non-resolution, irony AfD concerns and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


While I think that Archangel, Russia is the better name (see Talk:Arkhangelsk#Archangel--My comments are so old that were made before common name was replaced with frequent usage in reliable soureces), if you make bold move and it is reverted, do not move the page again but use the WP:RM process. This scenario is discussed at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves. If you do decide to craft a RM, please let me know as I would like to take part in such a discussion. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI post[edit]

  • WOW! It sure as heck looks that way, doesn't it? I think what you're seeing, though, is what happens when I type something really fast, then get distracted and don't correct it before posting - just awful! BMK (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd hoped that was the case, but that has to win the award for "worst written post by an experienced editor". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly vote for it! BMK (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

I added a message today to a still-open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884#Further discussion. Would you have a moment to comment? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's in the archive, it's not "open" -- and you shouldn't be editing there. BMK (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits. BMK (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know I couldn't edit the ANI archive. I'm so fed up with that editor. I've been so careful to avoid him and keep my part of the IBAN. He can't resist the petty bullying. My edit was completely in good faith, and had nothing to do with him. I had hoped the IBAN would end that. I'm so angry. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If you think you have a legitimate beef, start a new AN/I report -- but be aware that the previous two reports have not resulted in sanctions against anyone, which I take as an indication that the community's reaction is fractured enough that no admin sees a consensus in the discussion. What's worse, however (from your point of view, and probably also from Alansohn's), is that the number of people backing a topic ban on New Jersey articles for both of you is growing every time there's a new report (and we've had, I think, four of them in the last month or so). So, given that, my opinion is that you start a new report at your own risk. BMK (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

The Incivility, AN/I non-resolution, irony AfD concerns arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Its really strange[edit]

I find myself agreeing with you on AN/I in some cases. AlbinoFerret 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that too. BMK (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


I noticed Almighty Camel was a troll all along, so thanks for taking care of him. Sorry I fed the troll for awhile, but I will learn from the mistake. Again, thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I hope you're not thinking that I blocked him, since I'm not an admin and so I can't do that. All I did was to call attention to him. BMK (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
He was blocked by Rschen7754. BMK (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry I was not clear, I met the fact that you brought it to attention. I know an admin blocked him, my fault for the discrepancy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, all clear now! Thanks! BMK (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I would check on the Clinton Foundation article if I were you. Some edits are similar to what caused a conflict with Almighty Camel or were done by a troublesome editor. Not saying there is a connection, but I just think you would know better if their edits are actually helpful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not feeling physically all that well at the moment - 'll look as soon as I can. BMK (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Took a look. Could be the same guy, I dunno. Let's see what he does to the change I made. If he's legit, it shouldn't bother him at all, as it simply clarifies matters. BMK (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I just wanted you to be aware, since you are better at handling these situations than I would. Hopefully it's not the same guy, he was real bothersome to say the least.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

TPS: Just wanna let y'all know...[edit]

...That because a particularly bothersome editor has explicitly refused my request not to ping me anymore*, I've had to turn off my notifications again. (I turned them on about a month ago as an experiment, which clearly hasn't worked out well.) So that means if you want my attention, I'm afraid you're going to have to drop me a comment here. I'd also remind people that pinging is, in any event, not an acceptable substitute for any notifications required by Wikipedia policy.

(*Hijiri88, I am not referring to you.)

It's a beautiful spring day here, I hope you're all having a nice weekend. BMK (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice: You don't seem to get it. I've banned you from posting on this page. That is well within my purview, and if you keep posting here, as you have attempted to do three times today, despite the ban, you may very well end up being blocked for disruptive editing. If you doubt this, please consult an admin you trust and ask.
Do not attempt to post here again. BMK (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sid Caesar[edit]

You're right, Carl Reiner had already worked on Caesar's Hour as well as Your Show of Shows by the time he did The Dick Van Dyke Show. For some reason I felt positive that the Caesar's Hour title came afterward, a little later in the '60s. Good catch! Jack Breeze (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. BMK (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Intestinal bug[edit]

Making it uncomfortable to edit. Had it since Sunday, so hopefully it'll go away again soon. I'll be on and off (the pot, and the project). BMK (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well rats. I hope that you get to feeling better soon!! MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Moi aussi. BMK (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

St Joseph Co cathedral article[edit]

This is the first time I have tried to add something to Wikipedia. I do not know how to put a citation in an article. I know what a footnote should say and where it goes in the article, but I do not know how to do it online. Please help. I do not know what the instruction <ref> and <ref/> means.

I would like to add pictures and do not know how to do that either.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawntoo (talkcontribs) 02:30, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Kitty Genovese[edit]

Hi -- I find edit warring abhorrent, so I'm hoping you'll just self revert this one. The fact that she worked as a bar manager is already mentioned in the immediate preceding paragraph, so there is no reason to repeat it. Is there? Best, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The "immediate preceding paragraph" is in the previous section of the article, and people frequently do not read articles as a whole, but skip to the section that they wish to know more about -- in this case the one about the attack. The description of what her job is seems pertinent to the narative, is not prejudicial in any way that I can see, and has been in the article for a long time. I see no reason to self-revert it, and you are aware, I assume, that reverting it yourself would be a violation of WP:BRD. If you want to continue to make an issue of it, bring it up on the article's talk page, and we'll see what other editors think, but there's no reason to continue to discuss it here. BMK (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you decided to edit-war your preferred version rather then discussing it on the talk page, soo your "abhorrence" of edit-warring isn't all that strong, I guess. BMK (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Top hat[edit]

In regard to your edit - "Some sources have taken this to describe an early folding top hat" this refers to Dollman's patent, the two reference from de Bono and Sichel nether mention Dolllman, so to be accurate may suggest one can either (a) remove the two references ( have tried buy another user has reinstated them) (b) if keep both, as they basically state the date of hat and not Dollman then need to reword to remove conclusion of this ( hence my undo of your edit) or (c) please can you add in reference to a Source who cites Dollman's 1812 hat as the earliest/first collapsible one.

Also why add back in male vs female point? It is moot to whether he created the hat, may well say the patent doesn't state the colour of the hat was grey, black or another other colour. Doug at Ascot Top Hats (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add anything, I reverted your edits. As an editor with a conflict of interest who has made promotional edits to the article, I do not believe you should edit the article directly. Make suggestions on the article's talk page (not here), and other, unconflicted, editors can decide whether to implement them or not. BMK (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you did not revert my just edit, but you also revereted another apparently unconflicted editor who had changed it specifically as references did not state that the "this" referred to Dollman in the references. I reverted your edit as it made article inaccurate, given that the point was apparently accepted point by a pervious unconflicted editor who did changed it. (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

why are you such an idiot?[edit]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that I am, but if I am, I might have been born that way, or at least born with the propensity towards idiocy. I might have learned to be an idiot at M.I.T or Boston University, or during my working life. Or perhaps, just perhaps, any latent idiocy in my character was brought out by the absurd and illogical social structure of Wikipedia. I guess it would be interesting to know, but I doubt that any research dollars are going to be released to fund a study to find out.
Now, a question for you! Why do you not have the courage of your convictions? Why do you hide behind a series of open proxies and other IPs to make your petty vandalistic edits? Don't you believe what you write? Aren't you willing to take whatever consequences might come your way from expressing your opinions? Are you really the kind of coward who hides behind a corner after loosing your spitball at your nemesis?
All interesting questions, but hardly worth pursuing unless you're planning on coming forward and identifying yourself -- so unless you are, please don't take this as an invitation to respond. (And my thanks to Jackmcbarn for deleting your edits.) BMK (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess we know now who the mystery vandal is. BMK (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


This was not helpful. There's already a thread at ANI about it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be. I have my own, thanks. BMK (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll be blunter - please stop stirring the shit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Take your "sheer bloody arrogance" and hit the road, Jack. We have no need to encourage racists. BMK (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Took another look at the history there. Let's see: I see IndelibleHulk stirring the shit just as fast as he can, I see you stirring the shit,repeatedly, and I see a number of other editors trying to provide a neutrally worded section title as required -- except that you and IndelibleHulk keep reverting them. So don't come around here accusing me of "stirring the shit", when you are one of the prime culprits of doing exactly that, for which you should be sanctioned. Now stay the fuck off my talk page, I can't stand hyprocrisy that dresses itself up in the robe of righteousness. BMK (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Louis Auguste Say[edit]

Who is the other brother? What are his dates? All the research I've come across so far only refers to him as 'Louis Say.' The brother is 'Jean-Baptiste Say.' I would've appreciated if you had reached out to me before doing the reverse merge.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why - do you own the article? I merged to what seems the most sensible choice considering the data available to me, an uninvolved and unbiased editor. If you disagree, start a RM request. BMK (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be correct about Jean-Baptiste Say, but wrong about the common name for Louis Auguste Say. I'm making an adjustment to the article to fix the first, the other is still in your ballpark, "Louis Auguste Say" still appears to me to be the WP:COMMONNAME. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am absolutely not interested, have zero interest, will never find it interesting, to argue online with you. There is an 'under construction' tag for a reason. I am reading a couple of articles about him to add in-line references, from what was nothing but a stub before. It would be good manners of you to let me expand the page first. There are so many articles to create and improve on Wikipedia. Can you please let me do this while the 'under construction' tag is there and then come back to it later if you are still interested? Otherwise I will let you do it and come back to it once you are done. The way you are changing the layout is particularly disruptive, as I intend to add more to the 'early life' section, and other subsections. I really have zero interest in interacting with you in an edit-conflict/combative manner. I hope you have a nice day. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You can do that once I undo the damage you did when I restructed the article in Wikifashion, instead of one made up of single-paragraph sections. Please take a look at the text of the "under construction" tag, which invites other editors to participate. Let me get back to what I'm doing, and then you can do whatever it is you want to do. BMK (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know when you are done. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am done. BMK (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian S. Wood[edit]

Hi. Just letting you know that the Ian S. Wood who wrote Crimes of Loyalty is not the same person as the University of Leeds medievalist Ian S. Wood. The one that writes about Northern Ireland is a journalist and occasional lecturer rather than a full-time academic. Just in case you're wondering why I'm reverting so many of your edits. Keresaspa (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. BMK (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IAC Building captions[edit]

Per WP:CAPFRAG captions should start with a capital letter. Indeed these captions are sentence fragments and do not need a period at the end, but should still be capitalized. Also adding the year provides context to the Jean Nouvel construction. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS IS NOT GOD. BMK (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Auditorium Building, Chicago[edit]

Greetings, Beyond My Ken. I have started a discussion about the name of the Auditorium Building article, which you recently moved. Feel free to join in the discussion, in the "Article name" section on the article's talk page. Mudwater (Talk) 02:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hijacking another editor's reference"[edit]

Please provide a Wikipedia policy reference. Shouldn't you be more concerned that Britannicus misrepresented a scholar's opinion? Also, please stop edit warring and then accuse me of edit warring! Do not undo my edit unless you can substantiate your re-edit. Thepointofit (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Article talk page. BMK (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was my content deleted?[edit]

hi I inserted a valid content on 'Fashion blogs around the world' section here . I noticed there were only a few countries which were mentioned. There was no entry as far as India was concerned. Neither I advertised a particular person nor I inserted any skeptical / deceitful fact. Why wasn't it inserted? Is there anything personal with India or Wikipedia team is too lazy to research facts? If you don't need correct information, why to put an edit section and authorize users to edit it? Is it sort of a gimmick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avisonly (talkcontribs) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It was reverted because it was unsourced, and it appeared to be in violation of WP:PROMO, exactly what I said in my edit summary. BMK (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Horst Wessel Song[edit]

I have reverted your edits on The Horst Wessel Song. You are introducing errors into the article. I AGF, but must warn you that even with good intent, you must be careful not to degrade the work that has been done by others. Please use the help desk, or the sandbox before you make further attempts at editing the main space. Please feel free to ask for help. (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That material was in the article before I began editing it. [8] BMK (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this will make sense to you, but you may find that you are better off confining your edits to this site. Thank you for your time in this matter. (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sweetie, is it hard for you to skulk around using open proxies and miscellaneous IPs? Don't you really want to show your face and let the world give you the praise that's surely due you for unmasking such a skunk as myself? Shouldn't a Wiki-hero like you be able to hold his head up and say "Yes, it was me, it was all me, and I'm proud of everything I did?" I would imagine you have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that you're not getting what's rightfully due you.
Poor lamb, poor poor little lamb. BMK (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia[edit]

How is a link to Hathi fulltext not an EL? -- M2545 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I've self-reverted and added "full text" to the description. My apologies. BMK (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)