User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:05, 10 October 2017

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!)

...

Articles that need serious visual work

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

Reminder: to work on

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

If it's the water.....

send me a bottle! John from Idegon (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None for me, please, not since that bad trip back in college. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm

Hi and Good Morning,

I just thought I would write this short message to ask about for which of the Governmental/the people who are in charge for the care and safety for both Mohegan Lake and Westchester County; if it is okay that if I can input a Governmental section in the CDP Template for the Mohegan Lake article. Would the County Executive, Robert P. Astorino for Westchester work good or, no? You can let me know for when you get the chance.

Thank you, Sarah.t.life (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t think that would be a good idea. The fact is that Mohegan Lake, per se has no government structure, and putting one in the infobox would be deceptive and confusing to our readers, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright then. I greatly respect that. So, that is a no, that I shouldn't put Westchester County's County Executive, Robert P. Astorino in the CDP Infobox of the Mohegan Lake article?

A kitten for you!

Sleepy kitteh is here to wish you a happy Labour Day! kthxbai ~~

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks kitty!! Have a nice nap! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't stopped by in ages BMK. I'm glad Diannnaa left this cute kitten so I could also wish you a happy labor day as well as saying hello and I hope that you are well. Your efforts here at the 'pedia are much appreciated. Ahhhhh - blink - blink - the pic is causing me to yawn so I'll close by saying cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to have you drop by for a bit. It's always nice to know that there are good folks such as you and Diannaa out there. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and good faith

I do not want to blow up that discussion at WP:AN, but I do want to oppose to your claim, me being the only one being biased, so, please, tolerate my intrusion. Since in this debate there are strongly opposite positions and all suggested compromises are only one-sidedly accepted, it is unavoidable to take sides, establishing conformation bias on both parties. I have no problem in being called biased, but I strongly object to your original claim, and the logical consequence of me being the only one, that you were not biased.

As regards AGF, I do not even give a dime on being granted such assumptions, so I also do not care about having it sucked up. I do not believe in any illusion of a safe space, I just try to act responsible to my ethical code. Since, for the time being, I estimate the damage inflicted on WP to be smaller, if Taku's drafts were allowed to remain there, or -as suggested- at some other place, than if the Hasteur-party is allowed to establish their desired bureaucracy, I keep up the belief in my own good faith, even when opposing inappropriate claims to the given extent, strictly bound by the factual, always fully de rigeur.

Furthermore, I do not mind being called a useful idiot (by Hasteur), as long as I am allowed to call Legacypac and you -perhaps to a lesser idiotic degree- useful idiots, too.

The last comment at WP:AN, with only small bias in my measures, possible was the "Suggestion for a compromise" by RoySmith. Purgy (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Hello. Why you are reverted my last edit ? He is He passed away in September 6. --Baskervill (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not fulfill WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Re: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

That wasn't malicious vandalism, just a reading comprehension failure. Thanks for catching it. 173.64.100.132 (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Hi. Didn't want to correct you on the noticeboard, but Special:Contributions/74.70.146.1 has hundreds of edits, going back over a year. -- Begoon 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I got confused between the IP who filed the complaint User:79.66.4.79, which only has edits dated today, and the IP who made the comment about "casting aspersions" User:74.70.146.1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy enough to do - an IP address is just a string of numbers, after all, unlike an actual name, which our brains are much better at recognising. IPv6 addresses are even worse... -- Begoon 11:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells

Thanks. My source didn't seem clear enough so I decided to compromise.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Being at ANI sucks, no matter what. Glad to see you haven't thrown in the towel for real though, despite how exhausting that thread looked :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would take a lot to force me to throw in the towel on Wikipedia entirely. At this point, I've got too much of myself invested in it. It can however be frustrating, aggravating, enervating and, yes, exhausting. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Führerbunker

Please explain what exactly you think the photo you reinstated adds? Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me, right? You don't see that it's blatantly obvious that a photograph of the site where the Führerbunker was once located as it exists now is totally relevant to an article about the Führerbunker? You've never heard of "before and after" photographs, used in diverse contexts to show historical change, or the evolution of a person's physical appearance over time, or any kind of change at all? You seriously want me to explain why such a photograph adds value to the article?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another contemporaneous and better photo which shows the site and signboard and so your "before and after" argument is already satisfied. So I see absolutely no value in retaining the photo.Mztourist (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two current photos is not excessive number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, if it showed something materially different or informative, but it doesn't. The only way you even know its the Führerbunker site is by comparing it to the photo of the site with the signboard, so it adds nothing. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working together and consensus

Policy advice from an editor with 4K+ edits in 4 months to an editor with 200K+ edits in 12 years

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Taking up your offer to work together, I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia works together through consensus. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Using your terminology, here are the levels of consensus, from narrowest to widest:

status quo ante - implicit consensus through silence, the lowest level of consensus. When you appeal to "status quo ante" you are appealing to the lowest level of consensus, which stops existing the moment it's challenged in good faith. Appealing to "status quo ante" when it's challenged or when a better consensus exists is a sign of article ownership.
another editor reverted - consensus through editing, which, like silence, stops existing when it's challenged by a good faith edit.
Any disputed piece of information needs to be discussed - consensus through discussion, in which the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You can't force an article to include your disputed content; it's excluded until consensus is reached.
the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy or MOS is not mandatory - not all broad consensus needs to be made into policy; guidelines like MoS represent broad consensus, too, and near-unanimous RfCs represent broad consensus perhaps even more so. The broader the discussion, and the more people agree with it, the broader the consensus. status quo ante, BRD, or local talk page consensus cannot override a broader consensus (even if it's not mandatory), and the onus is on the editor who wishes to create a new consensus.

When tempted to rationalize your edit with "status quo ante" or "MOS is not mandatory" or "it hasn't been discussed", remember that broader community consensus is better than implicit consensus, local consensus, or no consensus. Bright☀ 09:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinions on the interpretation of policy and guidelines. My offer to "work together" was in relation to the IPC list on Nude swimming, not a general offer to become Wikibuddies in a grand collaboration. Now that you've succeeded in driving me away from that article, the offer is no longer applicable. Your interpretations continue to be wrong, and when you implement them -- as I have no doubt you will -- you will continue to harm Wikipedia by damaging the quality of the articles you degrade.

As a preventative measure, I wish to point you to WP:HARASSMENT, which I suggest you read carefully, just in case you are considering the possibility of combing through my contributions to find other articles from which you can mass-delete IPC sections. Doing so would almost certainly be construed as harassment, so I suggest that you refrain from that action, if you were contemplating it.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would endeavor not to post on my talk page, including to respond to this, unless you are required to by Wikipedia policy. In return, I will do the same in regard to your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages

While ENWP allows sources in other languages (WP:NOENG is policy) it is sometimes necessary to shop for specific language speaking editors when dealing with sourced material from other countries. I have a small list of go-to people for things like Vietnamese, Nordic languages etc for that purpose. It is not in itself indicative of any problem. So a Farsi speaker who is having trouble making themselves (and their sourced material) understood pinging someone who also speaks Farsi (and English) better should generally be taken as an attempt to work collaboratively rather than canvassing. (Posting this here because of the principle, I think the specific editor in question in this case has has bigger problems) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, calling in an editor to help with language issues is not an problem, but in this specific case, they were being called in under the guise of being a "third opinion", and that is a problem. The entire point of WP:3O is that editors in dispute may well listen to the views of a totally uninvolved neutral party, and in doing so break their deadlock, so calling in an editor selected by one of the parties ostensibly as a 3O is a sham. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oradour-sur-Glane massacre

How is adding an Infobox, removing repeated xrefs and moving a photo down into the gallery not improvements? Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox added nothing of consequence, the photo was better where it was, and the repeated wikilinks (not "xrefs") were helpful to readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox always add something, repeated xrefs are not helpful and contrary to MoS. I have just read on the Admin Noticeboard about the recent closure of a discussion about your edit-warring and non-consensual changes and will open a new discussion if necessary. Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

And regarding Tulle massacre, your knowledge of the difference between policy -- which is mandatory -- and guidelines - which are not -- is deficient. You're quoting something as policy (such as MoS), when in fact it is a guideline. MoS is not mandatory.

In any case, you should not be restoring edits that have been reverted, you should be discussing them on the article talk page (and not here). Please do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the person who has reverted my edits of 3 different pages recently, I have tried politely to discuss these with you on your page rather than on the relevant article talk pages. Your response is unsurprising given the comments that I have just read regarding your attitude and past behavior on the Admin noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't want to talk to you here, I want to talk to you on the article talk page where other editors can express their opinions and where discussions about the article are supposed to take place.

As for your take on my attitude and past behavior, that's like saying you can tell a person's character by listening only to their critics, plus the other malcontents and assholes who show up to take advantage of the transparency of Wikipedia. You're welcome to your opinion, however wrong it is, but luckily I don't make decisions about editing based on whether people like me or not. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, and will continue to do that to the best of my ability as long as I continue to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No spam & no sockpuppetry.

One might think innocent until proven guilty. You've made a mistake & identified the wrong person. 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where & how do I a definitive ruling? This is a silly waste of everyone's time & energyu - especially when accuracy is involved. 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English professor? Write sentences much? In any case, my energyu is mine to waste. Don't post here again, I don't like talking to sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your false accusations are just that: false accusations!2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, in that case, please do carry on.

Interesting fact: Do you know that you're the first sockpuppet of a banned editor ever in the entire history of Wikipedia to point out that they've been falsely accused? Amazing, huh?

But, professor, you seem to have a deficit in your reading comprehension skills, considering that I asked you not to post here again and you did it anyway. So... let me repeat it again: you -- and any other sockpuppet you may come up with in the future -- are banned from posting anything on this page. If you do it again, your comment will be deleted without being read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links

[1] [2]. Plus the interesting comments at ArbComm and [3] Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks, I didn't realize it was that far back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIN

There is currently a discussion at WP:AIN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry P. Smith (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK - thanks for once again helping to rid Wikipedia of the blocked/banned user English Patriot Man in his latest form/sock, Henry P. Smith. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I hope we have a bit of a reprieve before he returns again. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by history, that's a ten day window ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick revert with little explanation

You just reverted a substantial amount of work I did on the Rommel article. Surely, many of my changes were worth keeping. I know that due to has become acceptable in informal writing to mean almost any causal connection, and it's used as a catch-all when a lazy writer or speaker doesn't want to specify the connection between elements of a sentence. But formal writing seems to demand greater precision of thinking and expression and attendant usage of words. Due to "grew up" in the language as an adjectival phrase, because due is an adjective. Again, I realize that the language changes constantly and that the use of words and phrases changes, but I think that for a body of work, such as Wikipedia, which strives for clarity, formality, and precision, we should strongly consider this universal, haphazard overuse of due to. Looking at the corrections I made, you can see many cases that demonstrate that "for" or "because of" or some other simple word combination makes the writing more precise and less clunky and obtuse. Surely you could have discussed this before reverting. It hardly seems you had time to look at each change and understand it, and consider how it might have been better, more precise, clearer. Cheers. Holy (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion necessary then, and I don't believe any is necessary now. "Because of" is simply not better English usage than "due to". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy post RfC discussion

Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Dutt High School#Dutta, Datta, let's call the whole thing off

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dutt High School#Dutta, Datta, let's call the whole thing off. Worldbruce (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Truman Show delusion

You've got me baffled on this one. I get that you're saying it isn't a requirement that brothers have the same last name, but in this case, they do. There's no reason to use both of their first and last names so close together. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bombing of Dresden in World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sp error in name

"SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt → Reich Main Security Office – Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be located at their common English-language names if one is available. That is the case here, where "Reich Main Securty Office" is the standard name of this organization in English, and the German name is highly obscure, known only to afficiandos of this subject. BMK (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)" sp securty = security?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you're asking me about an obvious typo I made 2 years and 4 months ago? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am much too lowly an organism in WP to ask anyone anything but you just may be the person that knows what to do with it? I certainly do not and have no intention of learning any thing more about WP and its dungeons than what is readily apparent from what I find on any given page. I am a midnight flasher--as long as that "12" is flashing and the prop works then I have a machine otherwise it might as well be a pile of plastic and metal, save an early creation of the clockmaker John Harrison.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have a clue what you're on about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a strategy to problem solving 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained image removal

I'm confused about why you did this without using the article's talk page where the inclusion of that image was being discussed. Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not confused at all, please don't be disingenuous. It was removed because it's just another example of your attempting to insert the name of Emil Eikner into as many articles as possible, as reported at AN/I. If the editors on the article's talk page decide that it's worthwhile to be in the article, fine, but as spam it was eminently removable, which is what I did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice didn't seem to help

2600:8800:3982:3EC0:194E:E87A:2510:F53C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just makes one ineffectual edit after another. Reported to aiv Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sorta gave him up as a lost cause and hoped he didn't do any substantive damage. I hope AIV will do something, since (at least the edits I looked at) aren't obvious vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've put in a word supporting your report at AIV, and I've again reverted their edits. Let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added a bit. If Wldr or MaterialScientist sees it, probably would get a block. Otherwise, who knows...Should edits like that be reverted? If it doesn't affect the appearance nor makes editing difficult. What is the Wiki name of such an inconsequential edit anyway? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latter added the block. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truman Show delusion

I replied to you on my talk page about a week ago further inquiring about your mindset for your edit. I feel like I'm missing something and wanted to pick your brain on how you reached the conclusion you did. Thanks in advance. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question, it's not my problem that you refuse to understand my point. The two brothers are two individuals, and they should be listed as two individuals, regardless of the fact that they share a last name. Please respect the individuality of these two people and don't lump them together as if they did not have separate identities. I don't care to discuss this any further, as this discussion is, frankly, a waste of my time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion

Hello, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination). NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 I replied to you on my talk page [[User_talk:Sock#The_Truman_Show_delusion|about a week ago]] further inquiring about your mindset for your edit. I feel like I'm missing something and wanted to pick your brain on how you reached the conclusion you did. Thanks in advance. [[User:Sock|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''Sock'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sock|<span style="color:#FF00FF">(<s>tock</s> talk)</span>]] 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 :I have answered your question, it's not my problem that you refuse to understand my point.  The two brothers are two individuals, and they should be listed as two individuals, regardless of the fact that they share a last name. Please respect the individuality of these two people and don't lump them together as if they did not have separate identities. I don't care to discuss this any further, as this discussion is, frankly, a waste of my time. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 01:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
+== You may be interested in this discussion ==
+Hello, you may be interested in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination)]]. [[User:Nikolaiho|'''<span style="color:red;">Nik</span><span style="color:orange;">ol</span><span style="color:purple;">ai</span><span style="color:red;">Ho</span>''']]<sup><span class="unicode" style="color:Indigo;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em LightSlateGray">[[User talk:Nikolaiho|☎️]]</span></sup> 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)