User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

Infobox for a composer

I tried an infobox for a composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pointy Edit

How is it a pointy edit? I'm going by what you said, as explained on my talk page. A border with Orangetown is not sourced. I know, because I'm the one who added that sentence in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.141.21 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a pointy edit because you are removing information not because you believe it not to be factual, but to make a point, that if you're not allowed to add material without a citation from a reliable source when another editor disputes it, then everything must be sourced. If you were removing it because you actually did not believe that the Tappan Zee Bridge connects Greenburgh to Orangetown, then the edit would not be pointy, but you're only doing it to make a point about "consistency" - and that is the very definition of pointy editing. Cut it out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But in good conscious, how can you not practice what you preach? Though I must thank you now, as you've actually sourced the said material. Incidentally, I responded to what you wrote on the discussion page for the article, and you seem to highlight Bergen County. I believe I stated the Hudson is the boundary with Rockland and Bergen counties, in that order. It seems it's Bergen you have something against. Regardless, whereas you feel they don't border one another in any meaningful sense, I take the opposite view. The world doesn't end at the Hudson River, and it's good to provide the facts as to which towns/counties/and even states the said location borders, despite the presence of a river. Understand you opinion is not universal. Also, it seems Wikipedia does indeed recognize factual maritime boundaries. I'll look for a source regarding Rockland and Bergen counties and get a third party to confirm whether or not it would be considered reliable. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another policy it would be a good thing for you to read is the one which requires us to assume good faith of other editors. I have nothing against Bergen County (or Rockland County, for that matter), my objection to saying the Greenburgh "borders" those places is exactly what I've told you it is, that it's misleading to say that since a mile-wide river lies between them. It may also be untrue, since I'm not certain that the jurisdictions of towns and counties extend to the middle of the river, the way state boundaries do. That is why you need to stop mucking around with the article and spend some time researching to find a citation. I've told you before that if you produce a citation from a reliable source that says that Greenburgh borders Bergen County and Rockland County, I would withdraw my objection, but instead of doing that you've chosen to make pointy edits in the name of "consistency."

OK, so this discussion is done here, and I won't be adding anything to the discussion on your talk page. Any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, its "conscience" not "conscious". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Partch

I'm now doubly confused with this (with the edit comment "Why "mustt" ot have been a mistake? The writing was not as good as the originbal").

You're saying that the broken grammar in:

He has published the book Genesis of a Music, which has come considered a standard text of microtonal music theory.

is better prose than:

In 1947, he published the book Genesis of a Music, which has come to be considered a standard text of microtonal music theory.

????? It's the only place I changed the prose. Everything else was removing overlinking and fixing a redirect (custom-made instruments redirects to Experimental musical instrument—try it yourself). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. In looking over the edit again, your version is superior. If you haven't done so already, I have no objection if you restore your version. Sorry for the mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Susan Etok page

Hi Ken,

You removed a Youtube video with Susan Etok interviewing Stephen Marley. IF you watch just even the 1st minute of the video, you'll see that it does what it says on the can.

On another subject, I dont understand what is going on with this Susan Etok page it seems that some of the other editors are on a mission to kill this page. It seems a bit off. I feel quite attacked as the person that wrote it. I spent alot of time researching. Am I missing something?

I decided to write it again (after I started before in Oct) because Susan was in our local newspaper a few weeks because she just got invited to be involved in a major UK TV project in January 2012.

Lola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Susan Etok p2

Hi Ken,

I have just seen that you changed the filomgraphy ref back to imdb. Shritwood removed the imdb ref and thats why I out an amazon one. He said that Imdb wasn't reliable - but it is, it is updated by the film makers themselves.

It appears that Shritwood has something against the subject of the page. Is it fair that all my hardwork to research on this person can go to waste because one of the editors doesn't like them.

This Shritwood has also claimed that I am someone close to her. I have never met her. She comes from my town and is always in the papers here. This seems a bit like bullying on the part of the Editor Shritwood.

Lola