User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:47, 15 August 2015

...

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International Finance Centre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Image:HK ifc Apple Store Outside View 201112.jpg|First [[Apple Store]] in Hong Kong, [IFC mall]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done BMK (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bob Barker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

On September 16, 1999, Barker was in [[Washington, D.C.]], to testify before Congress regarding [[Ca[tive elephants|HR 2929: the Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act]], the proposed

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir

"For what?"?? Have you read the source? It says they won 3, so yeah, it needs a source saying that they won more than that. ...and you can't use grammy.com's winners search page, because searching for the BTC gets no results (I finally figured out that you have to search Carol Cymbala). But, if you're so interested in this "stub" article, why don't you add a section for the choir (which would include awards and such) -- instead of just casually reverting a valid edit like I made? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked "For what" to understand what part of the sentence you were concerned about, the existence of the Choir, the notability of it or what, and you have answered that it's the number of Grammy Awards. BMK (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this search of the Grammy Awards site, they won six Grammys. BMK (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I said. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you're doubting that those Awards are for BTC albums, cross-check them against their discography. BMK (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting that. But if you were interested in other editors (like me) helping to improve that article, instead of reverting my edit (which, by doing so, also reverted my correction of the EL template), you could have asked your question on my talk page (which is the place to ask questions). Which would have shown an effort to cooperate and collaborate. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are really interested in improving articles, you'd do the research instead of just slapping on a tag and then roaring here to rudely bitch at me when I removed it. You've now spent about 10 times as much effort in this brouhaha because of your drive-by tagging as you would have if you would had just fixed it. Tags should be a last resort, not the first. BMK (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[additional comments deleted as unnecessary]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Sheik (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruth Miller (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) 09:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Mistake

Sorry, I accidentally posted to your talk page when the message was intended for someone else! My bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see you got your answer (unfortunately the one you didn't want) from Moonriddengirl. BMK (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hitler 25 April 1945.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hitler 25 April 1945.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done BMK (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK

OK, point taken. Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no problem with removing fields that will never be used, such as "Narrator" for a film that has no narrator. BMK (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that look like shit and need to be fixed

Degenerate art

Um. Is this going to be a list? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate)

Um, maybe. BMK (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Oh goody! Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Why did my sig above not have a time or date I wonder? Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have used three tildes instead of four? That gives only the sig. Five tildes gives only the time/date stamp.
Three tildes: BMK (talk) Five tildes: 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems logical. couldn't resist adding to your list. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have resisted. That article is fine. BMK (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to listen to this frightening user?

Can't I just delete his post to my talk page, do I have to engage with this frightening person? He's starting to harass me. Cityside189 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With certain exceptions, all editors are allowed to delete comments from their talk page. BMK (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, that editor and the unqualified moderator with whom he was interacting have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. Weird (Good hand bad hand?? Maybe.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and yes, weird indeed. BMK (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall seeing anything exactly like it in years. The unqualified moderator was definitely either a troll or some other sort of disruptive editor. Cityside189, on the face, looks like a new user with a bad attitude (a tendency to assume bad faith because Wikipedia is said to be dominated by cabals, gangs, and tag teams), but the timing of the arrival of the two is just either a strange coincidence or no coincidence. I have to think it is good hand bad hand. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this kind of "good hand/bad hand" behavior before:

Most commonly, trolling at noticeboards. Editors that either don't know better or should know better get sucked into being concerned, helping, etc. and then vigorously defend one or more of the socks and/or attack those who are better informed.
Less commonly, long-time editors using a sock account or an IP to make edits they wouldn't otherwise make with their main account. When caught, they follow the Große Lüge technique. Again, sometimes they end up conning editor(s) who then defend them.

Both happen with more frequency than they should. Sadly, many trolls seem to know this is a possibility, and it encourages then. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it happens because the trolls know that too many people see AGF as a reason to almost never do anything to protect the project, even when the truth has become pretty damn obvious. BMK (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was entertaining ...

I take a wiki-break for the weekend (my time zone), and I return to find the strange newbie has been indeffed as a sock. No wonder things didn't smell right. Thanks to all who participated. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you started the ball rolling, thanks for that! BMK (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Nickelodeon Suites Resort Orlando (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to A&W and Space Camp

Washington Heights, Manhattan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to College of Physicians and Surgeons

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bronxdale and Laconia

Bronx Community Board 11 doesn't recognize Bronxdale or Laconia as actual neighborhoods. There have been press stories about this. One example: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/nyregion/a-bronx-neighborhood-fights-for-its-spot-on-the-map.html. We also don't list Bronxdale or Laconia on our website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/bxcb11/html/home/home.shtml. Jeremy Warneke (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the CB doesn;t recognize them, and that's news, is plenty of proof that they actually are neighborhoods. BMK (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred A. Leuchter dob

From my experience editing this encyclopedia dobs are generally reliable from any source. The more extravagant the claim the more reliable the source must be, specifically when it comes to negative or even positive information regarding the subject. Other than the two sources mentioned, google has set his dob as Feb 7. I have little reason to believe a source would lie about this. Date of birth are almost always reliable as the claim is so trivial. 173.72.102.21 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience is incorrect. Any fact, including DOBs, must be supported by a citation from a reliable source when it is disputed by another editor, per WP:Verifiability. Neither source you provided was reliable. BMK (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Beyond My Ken. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information (to gauge how much to change), your word count is 1074 or 1087, using separate tools. Thanks for your patience! - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,

Done. BMK (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's greatly appreciated.

L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic reference

Regarding your recent edit on a drama board, you may wish to admire this classic. Choor monster (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic indeed. BMK (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI en espanol

Thanks for this. I was attempting to explain to the user (in my very poor Spanish) that they cannot harass Spanish admins here and should find the Spanish Wikipedia's version of WP:UTRS to appeal their block, but supposedly Spanish Wikipedia does not have an equivalent of WP:UTRS, so I think the user is simply out of luck. At any rate I've done all I can. If they don't stop appealing to eswiki admins here then they should be blocked, but I don't have the tools. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste

OK, I got your message about not making edits solely to remove or avoid redirects because it is a waste of my time, but isn't it waste of your time to not only undo my "wasted" edits but also to re-insert redirects, like you did with this edit (which was part of a larger edit, on the way to my rating the article as Start class)?--BillFlis (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't read the policy page I pointed you to, because it says nothing about wasting your time. BMK (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough

This was already hatted in my attempt to have everyone move on. If you feel more is needed, it's your prerogative. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my strikethrough since on consideration I don't think it would be helpful, but somehow Alakzi needs to realize that creating sock after sock to post semi-ranting comments is not in his best interest, or, frankly, in ours. If he continues, he's on the path to being indef blocked, which I doubt very much that he wants. He seems to have his sensitivity dial turned up to 11. BMK (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't strike me as the type where increasing block times and stripping more user rights helps. In this specific case, it's not acting as a deterrent, it's only causing more damage when admins flex more authority. I don't think it's exactly WP:BEANS if we just acknowledge the alternative to just letting them vent.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "letting them vent" means allowing them to sock with impunity. How then do we, the community as represented by admins, carry out the sockpuppet policy in other cases with a straight face, when we allow a mockery to be made of it? What's so valuable about Alakzi that they merit that degree of special consideration?

I work in show business, which is (essentially) a meritocracy, so I have no problem with having rules be flexible. I've worked with assholes who are geniuses and I'd work with them again, but I've also worked with assholes whose output is not worth the hassle, and I avoid them in the future. What you're saying boils down to, I think, that Alakzi is worth this degree of disruption, but I'd like to understand what the evidence of that is, particularly when apologies appear to provoke the same degree of ranting as do negative comments. BMK (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Voting reflect why I think they are "worth" it. However, something needs to change either in their reaction or other's reaction to them (or both).—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to read your comment again, because the only thing you said there which might amount to evidence that Alakzi is deserving of the ultra-special treatment of being allowed to sock and rant is "Very productive editor..." The rest of your comment is almost entirely negative. BMK (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't written with the proper WP:WEIGHT. The biggest factor would be "I have generally agreed with Alakzi's reasoning for the end result." Not saying this person has the talent of Steve Jobs, buy by all account Jobs was an asshole to work with.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. It'd be a mockery of the sockpuppetry policy if I voted on an afd from this account and from my main and nobody cared, or if Bob got blocked for edit warring and then TotallyNotBob turned up to carry on. When Bob gets blocked and then Bob's Spleen turns up to vent, that happens all the time, about much more minor things than being mistaken for a prolific controversial socker. Just let it go. Opabinia externa (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 :::::I think you might want to read your comment again, because the only thing you said there which might amount to evidence that Alakzi is deserving of the ultra-special treatment of being allowed to sock and rant is "Very productive editor..."  The rest of your comment is almost entirely negative. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::Yeah, it wasn't written with the proper [[WP:WEIGHT]].  The biggest factor would be "I have generally agreed with Alakzi's reasoning for the <u>end result</u>."  Not saying this person has the talent of Steve Jobs, buy by all account Jobs was an asshole to work with.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 22:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
+Let it go. It'd be a mockery of the sockpuppetry policy if I voted on an afd from this account and from my main and nobody cared, or if Bob got blocked for edit warring and then TotallyNotBob turned up to carry on. When Bob gets blocked and then Bob's Spleen turns up to vent, that happens all the time, about much more minor things than being mistaken for a prolific controversial socker. Just let it go. [[User:Opabinia externa|Opabinia externa]] ([[User talk:Opabinia externa|talk]]) 22:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)