User talk:Beyond My Ken

About your messages on my talk page

Hello,

I have read, and acknowledged, all 4 of the messages you've left me on my talk page as of Wednesday, August 11, 2010. But do know that the primary reason I wasn't responding was that (at first) I wasn't sure where TO leave responses. I see you've accused me of "sock puppeting", though. I left a comment on that as well.

I don't know if you believe me/them or not, but they ARE 100% truthful.

Thesomeone987 (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987

No, I do not believe that those IPs are not you, the edits are too similar in style and subject. Basically, you need to go to school and learn more about Wikipedia and how it works:

• Read the policy pages that are in the "Welcome" message someone left on your talk page;
• Edit only with your current account, do not use IPs;
• Do not make changes to articles without being able to back them up with citations from reliable source when you are asked to;
• Do not continue to make the same edits again when you are reverted;
• Talk to other editors when they revert your edits or question your information.

Wikipedia is a collegial project "staffed" by volunteers. When you do the kind of stuff you've been doing, your wasting the time of people who could be fixing article or adding new information. If you want to stick around here, please shape up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you don't believe me..... I don't know how to change that as of yet. However, believe me or not about this, but the primary things I edit are red links or links that redirect to other pages. I find it annoying to click those links, and I wanted to save other people the trouble of being redirected from pages/reaching a linked non-existent page. Thesomeone987 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987

Redlinks may or may not be helpful. If the redlink to to a subject which should have a Wikipedia article, or which is likely to have one in the future, then it's best to leave it alone, as the redlink serves as a reminder to editors that an article is missing. Absent those circumstances, then redlinks should be removed as distracting.

However, that being said, I have looked at all of your edits under this username, and your description of your editing is complete inaccurate - you do not primarily edit redlinks. Why would you make such a statement when anyone who wants to can look at your edits and see for themself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

John Pershing

I explained my edits to the article on the talk page, as you requested. After doing this, I again removed it, but then reverted back to your version, just in case I am unaware of something. If you have a chance to look at the talk page, and WP:CREDENTIAL, I would appreciate it. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there, but in a nutshell, I think you're right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lorenz Diener

Since you've re-worded the claims at Lorenz Diener, including now labeling him as the founder of 4-chan, I presume you were able to locate and verify the given sources? Or did you find others? Would appreciate your input as I'm sure you didn't just randomly alter a WP:BLP. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I merely copy edited the article, I did not alter any substance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You altered it to indicate him as the founder of 4chan instead of "4 ch"; if you're saying this was just copyediting, then that needs to be changed back. Looking at your "vote" in the AFD, I presumed that you had actually located and read the sources, my bad. That being the case, could you please expand on why you feel this article satisfies our policies and what sources you're substantiating your position on? Since there appears to be some off site canvasing, I would appreciate established editors articulating their positions a little more throughly so that a good discussion can occur. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that "4 ch" was not intended to mean "4chan"? What I saw was an article written by someone whose English wasn't the very best, and my intention was merely to fix that. If you think I goofed, change it, it's fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles on high IQ

I just started editing articles related to "High IQ society" and wondered if you had any interest in updating them. I edited the navbox Template:High_IQ to add some of the IQ tests as new group "Testing". Take a few days to reflect, and answer below or back. Or, if you have no interest, then feel free to delete this message. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate images

Okay, they're not exactly the same, but they're the same subject from slightly different angles. What's more, neither angle is particularly interesting, being just a bit of concrete and a stick. - Denimadept (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong again, they are photos of two different pieces of debris, not the same from two angles. Are they the most interesting images in the world? No. Would I have substituted another image for one of them if another, better image connected to the original bridge was available? Yes. Are they hurting the article in any way? No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my first statement, on closer inspection, they do seem to be the same debris from different angles - my apologies. I'll take one of them out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Garderobe

See Talk:Garderobe. The information I commented out on Bürresheim Castle, which you've resurrected, seems largely irrelevant to me (and another user on the talk page). Just wondered why you felt it was worth putting back in? There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of buildings that have garderobes; I'm not sure why this one is worth singling out. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's worth singling out because someone added information on it. If hundreds or thousands of entries on the garderobes of other castle were to be added to the article, then there would be the question of selectivity to consider, but that's not the case here: the single example in the article serves as an exemplar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I agree: seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Have invited comment on the talk page and will go with the consensus. Cheers. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Non-sequitur"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what a non-sequitur is, there's no need to link it for me, I just don't understand how it applies here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is NoMad a copyvio

I saw the article for NoMad that you had worked on extensively a few months ago. I know that you didn't create the article, but a check shows that the text is a near exact match with this link. It wouldn't be the first time that an article mirroring Wikipedia matched the content of an article but I wanted to see if you had any more information of the provenance of the text used to create the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's the sequence of events as I think I understand it:

• User:Richardfalk2, who I believe to be Richard Falk, the Communications Manager of Kew Management, a real estate company with interests in the NoMad area, commissioned someone to write a Wikipedia article on NoMad, a newly emerging neighborhood in Manhattan;
• I came across the article and realized that it had been put up by someone with a conflict of interest, and that the article was overly promotional in tone;
• I had discussions with Falk, on the article talk page, my talk page and his talk page about the article and his conflict, advising him to read and follow COI policy;
• I substantially redid the article, removing material that was boosterish in tone, adding considerable material, rewriting, rearranging and adding images;
• At that time, I had looked through the Kew Management website and did not see any text that looked as if it had been lifted from the website for the article;
• I've continued to maintain the article since;
• Now, I look at the Kew website, which looks very different now from what it did when I first saw it, and there's text there that mirrors our article text;
• My presumption is that Falk had the website redone, using text from the article he had commissioned, so that parts of it that survived into our current article give the impression that text has been lifted from there; OR, Falk lifted text from some version of our article without attributing it.

So... I don't think there's actually been any copyvio on our part - if there has been it's come from Falk, since the article text he put up when he added the article is no longer his to control. However, it would probably behoove us to change the wording of our article anyway, since it could give the appearance that it might be a copyvio, even if it isn't. It's a Caesar's wife situation.

I'll try to do some work on it this evening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Border War

If you ar refering to the Battle of Casas Grandes than here is my explanation, when I wrote the border war article I was mistaken about who won that engagement. The federals won and i wrote that they lost. The rebels eventully took contol of the area but the battle was a defeat for them, look at the article itself. I fixed my mistake, and if the sentence did not make sense than I believe you, it happens sometimes.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)