User talk:Beyond My Ken

Wikipedia is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMPORG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

Beyond My Ken

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

Kurban Said

I noticed your previous interactions with User talk:Gizgalasi, especially where you told her to stop editing Kurban Said and other Azerbaijan-related articles. I've recently spoken to her at a meetup and expressed Wikipedia's need for independent sources and NPOV. I have indicated to her that she could return to making edits so long as she can abide by stated policies. If you really believe that she is in violation of WP:3RR, please go through the established channels to have an administrator block her. I don't want to see another good-faith editor chased off the wiki. I have placed a Request for Comment on that page so the editors in the WikiProject Azerbaijan can provide some academic insight and bring balance to that article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If her editing behavior falls within our policies, then she'll have no problems from me. I do, however, reserve the right that any Wikipedia editor has of warning other editors about non-compliant behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angels from Hell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Martin and Stu Phillips (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) 19:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

33 Thomas Street

The claims of ownership and/or usage of equipment at 33 Thomas Street is not supported by the citation used. This material has been removed. This is not a a case of obvious information that does not need citation, this is an interpretation of unknown validity of the citation given or it's original research. Neither is appropriate. If you are able to locate a reliable source which supports this material, then please restore it.--RadioFan (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this long-standing material with a CN tag, which is all that is required. Deletion is an over-reaction. Please do not delete it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The duration the material has existed is imaterial. Please do not restore this again.--RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your actions are bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with BMK, but I wouldn't use the word beginning with b. My sense is it is a case of someone being finicky about rules about verifiability while missing the overall picture. This stuff happens in Wikipedia. The overall picture, as I see it, is this: correct detail; duration of material => sign that it's right; personal knowledge of this building => factoid about switches is correct; the "citation needed" tag should probably stay. My two cents). Takes a while for some Wikipedians to begin to trust other Wikipedians. Such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can insult all you like, it doesn't change the fact that WIkipedia is based on verifiability not original research or interpretation. Either there are references to support this or there aren't. I've worked the telecommunications industry for 20+ years, have stood in front of 5ESS, DMS10 and DMS100 an all the variations in buildings just like this, but I've not added that information to Wikipedia simply because I've seen it with my own eyes. If there are telco, regulatory or some other documents available, online or otherwise, to support the claims in that article, then great, let's add it back. Until then, it fails WP:V. You've both been around here for over 3 years, you should know this.--RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A citation needed tag was sufficient. Your removal (and edit warring to support it) was drastic, unnecessary and unhelpful to the encycylopedia - especially considering your claim to specialized knowledge that would assist in finding a source to support the material, instead of deleting it. In short, your actions were bullshit, and your attitude is totally unproductive and non-collegial. Go away, don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Croton Aqueduct

As you very well know, you recent edits on Croton Aqueduct break WP:MOS. Please stop these edits. --91.10.58.188 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)