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)

(ec) Although there are exceptions, we generally do not accept You Tube videos as reliable sources, because there are serious problems with establishing their legitimacy and because many of them violate copyright laws, something that Wikipedia is very concerned about, and works hard to avoid.

As for the editing of the article, I don't think anyone is deliberately trying to kill it, they are simply attempting to insure that it adheres to our policies on verifiability and notability. Not everyone -- even people in the news -- are notable enough to have an article here, and not all sources of information are considered reliable enough to be used in articles. People have differing views on where the lines should be drawn, which is why there's a bit of back-and-forth in the article editing. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collective and collaborative project, and that most articles are the result of just the kind of editing you're seeing now on Susan Essien Etok. Since the article is at Articles for Discussion, where a consensus will determine whether it will be kept or not, the best thing you can do is some Google searching -- Google News would be best -- to find more and better citations from reliable sources to "beef up" the article. The better it is sourced, the more likely it is to survive the AfD. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lola: It is often the case that an editor who writes a new article about a person has some connection to that person. In order to keep Wikipedia neutral and unbiased, we ask that editors with such a conflict of interest identify themselves, so other editors can make sure that the conflicted editor isn't trying to bias the article. In severe cases, we ask that the COI editor not edit the article directly, just make suggestions on its talk page. If you're not connected to Susan Etok, then you have nothing to worry about, but if you are, it is probably best to say so.

Also, please remember, whatever attracted you to the subject of Susan Etok, you're probably writing out of personal interest in her, and that's fine, but we here do not have any particular personal interest, we have to make sure that the article is properly written, properly sources, fair and unbiased. This is especially true for article about living people - we even have a specific policy for biographies of living persons, which is stricter than our general policies.

Just hang in there, keep working on sourcing, and do your best to make sure the article is what Wikipedia needs it to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, as the creator of the article, you are allowed to participate in the AfD discussion, and you should do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Something Golden

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Here is something golden for your talk page or barnstar gallery. Your reputation is golden with me, even as you claim some say otherwise, which I find difficult to believe, but I'll be happy to straighten these confused people out if you send them my way. :) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the people I mentioned see this here! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks for reverting the change to my talk page. I don't consider a request to revisit an AFD !vote to be canvassing, on the contrary. So we good. We good :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem here either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-reference‎‎

BR is fine but you forgot the D. Toddst1 (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that mass deletion of popcult sections goes against general consensus. If you have specific objections, that's one thing, but deleting a section wholesale is just not on, and that goes whether you're an admin or a rank-and-file editor. Please don't do it again. 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Mass deletion of crap is just fine. And you should know better yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about your recent election to be Supreme Arbiter of Crap.

Well, it's your article to watch now, it's off my watchlist - hopefully it's on yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Data and copyright

Data can not be copyrighted. You can research this more and find out that this is true, or you can continue to look ignorant about this issue. I really don't care. Others will keep reverting your incorrect blanking of non-copyrighted material. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And you can learn a little more by reading my comment on the article talk page. This is not data', it is reasearch rolled into a number which is not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied there: Template talk:Corruption Perceptions/Corruption perceptions index. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susan McKeown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keen, The Bottom Line and Gypsy (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) 11:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done All fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

The editor you reported, Vanished user v8hjw98h4iufv8j23iortualifjho, does not appear to be registered. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he just left out the last two characters: it's supposed to be User:Vanished user v8hjw98h4iufv8j23iortualifjhoi3. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think this is a case of a vanished user returning to edit; it looks like the most recent edits were made before the name change, although it's hard to be sure. If there is overlap, it's only by one or two edits, so I doubt any action is needed here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the case. I tried variations on capitals but got nowhere. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I just did Special:ListUsers/Vanished user v and compared the results; it was the first one that came up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about dropping the two characters. My concern was not that this was an actual vanished user, but that the name creates that impression, which is deceptive. It was on that basis that I thought action might be taken. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that this editor is a legitimate vanished user? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I answered my own question - I should have checked into it further before I brought it up. Sorry for the trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmdoctor1

Why are you making changes. In the case of Cinema 16, my doctoral dissertation is the most complete work ever done on that subject. The dissertation is publically available, confirmed by the reference library of New York University. Anyone can find it and use it. This is an important reference work on this topic that would be a boon to scholars interested in this topic. I don't understand why you are preventing this note. I do not understand your motivation. If you want Wikipedia to work, please stop this or explain to me what is going on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your doctoral theseis is an unpublished work, which means it has not been vetted by a publisher. It, or indeed any other unpublished thesis, does not qualift as a reliable source. Get it published, then it can be cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if these messages are getting to you. I don't know the system yet. You can also reach me at filmdoctor@excite.com and we can communicate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a big orange bar comes on on the page I'm working on when I get a new message, but you have to wait until I see it for me to respond. There's no need for us to go off-wiki, discussion here is fine. Also, please "sign" your comments by putting 4 tildes at the end, the system will add your username and a time & date stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to wikipedia users if I am doing the wrong thing. I put things in references since there was no category called Publications, Bibliography etc where it would more appropriately go. I just want people to have access to some information that is 1)an important contribution to the topic, and 2)available to scholarship. What do you want me to do to have you let others know how to find helpful, scholarly work. Maybe this was not "vetted" by a publisher (as if they know best). It was written under the guidance of senior graduate faculty at New York University who know far more about this topic than any publisher. The dissertation advisor was Jay Leyda, one of the major film historians of his time. He also worked for a while with the "founder" of Russian cinema, Segei Eisenstein. This work is pretty vetted, and in a scholarly way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are making wikipedia better. I fear you are making it less useful. I cannot spend more time re-entering this information just to have it wiped out by you. I think this information should be in wikipedia because it is helpful to users. But I will give up. I don't have the energy to fight what I believe is unfair to wikipedia users. I have a life that I have to get back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmdoctor1

It most likely will never be published. I have not sought that. It is, however, completely available to the public. It contains truly helpful information and has over one hundred footnotes identifying the source of all the material in it. What more do you want?