User talk:Beyond My Ken

...

Skid Row, Los Angeles

Not sure why you continue to undo the removing of the statement "The sidewalks are lined with cardboard boxes, tents, and shopping carts." from the Skid Row, Los Angeles article. It has no source and is a broad overstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatenFiddle (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Y Done by somebody else. BMK (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1900 Galveston hurricane 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:

• Quote: "He is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's prestigious Seal of Approval"]</ref> [[Al Roker]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

[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)

 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)

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)

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)

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

OK

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No problem,  Done. BMK (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it's greatly appreciated. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, poor blocked Bob rants on his talk page for a while and then everything calms down. But when Bob rants and rants and doesn't stop, and makes personal attacks and is blocked, and then repeatedly socks to continue ranting, it's another story, I'm afraid. Sure, we should give people some leeway to blow off their steam, I have absolutely no problem with that, and have probably been the recipient of that leeway myself (and also have not been), but they've got to meet us halfway, doncha think? BMK (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Understand that I've been on the receiving end of their venting, and have grown to accept it and let them be. I understand that others (most?) will not, and I accept that some admins will choose to keep increasing the block.—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Americathon

Thank you for giving the reference. While I tend to trust IMDB (I've never seen bad information there), others here do not consider it a reliable source. But I read deeper. The only reason this entirely American 1979 film is called West German is because a retitled version was released in German in 1998. It was also released in Colombia, Norway, Portugal and Turkey at that time. A international re-release almost 20 years after the original production has nothing to do with the origin. Based on this being the source for your edit, I will go back and remove the reference to West Germany, which by the way, no longer existed by the time the film was re-released in 1998. Trackinfo (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info BMK (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

reopening discussion on ANI

I just re-opened a discussion you closed on ANI because it seems like there are a number of pretty clear violations of Wikipedia behavioral policies that need to be addressed. But I've never re-opened a closed discussion before, and I'm not sure if I did it properly. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. BMK (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Looked pretty good. I added a marker saying "Original closure" for my closing remarks, and adusted the position of yours because they were in the middle of my sig (no problem). I also put a pointer at the bottom of the discussion pointing to your re-opening comment. You might want to expand on them with specifics to continue the thread at the bottom. Thanks for the note, I hope you can get some action. BMK (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Irn (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

Given your opinion regarding the WeldNeck arbcom filing, I think you've been seriously misled by someone. I would encourage you to do some research on User:TDC and the incredible amount of false information, distortions, and propaganda he has purposefully inserted into the encyclopedia using multiple accounts. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that. Can you tell me the relationship between the two editors? BMK (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best for User:Yunshui to answer that. WeldNeck has been considered a suspected sockpuppet for some time now. He was previously accused of being User:Kauffner. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BMK. The evidence connecting WeldNeck to TDC was submitted to ArbCom via email, primarily due to privacy concerns, but also since it revealed a number of TDC's "tells". It was fairly extensive and was supplied independently by several editors in good standing. Suffice to say that, combined with checkuser data, it has convinced me and other arbitrators that WeldNeck is operated by the same user as TDC (but not Kauffner), hence the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. BMK (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Taste of Honey

I don't think that TCM site is reliable, the film clearly shows Jo in her last year of school and in 1961 the leaving age was 15 Unibond (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TCM is extremely reliable. Please read WP:OR and do not change the age of the character without a reliable source to back it up. Your experience and extrapolation from it is OR and cannot be used. BMK (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK I don't know but I believe that TCM is misled by a line from the film when Jimmy asks Jo how old she is and she replies nearly eighteen. She is clearly exaggerating her age as she has just left school. At another point her mother suggests she goes to art college, this was an option available to school leavers at that time. I don't consider this OR, it's not my experience it's just the facts in the film Unibond (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your analysis and speculation about what TCM relied on is just that -- speculation, and therefore OR, and therefore not allowed. Find a source that says something other than "17" and you're golden. BMK (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, best I can do, a review from IMDB in 2008 which mentions the school leaving age being 15, near the bottom of the article Unibond (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a reader-provided review, and therefore not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I give up Unibond (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS. Books, journals, magazines, newspapers, websites that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that's what you need to find. BMK (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

how about [1] Unibond (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You want to use an advertisement for a production of a play which was the basis of a film as a source for a fact about the film? BMK (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The time setting of the play and the film are the same, she is aged 15 in her last year of school. Unibond (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You need a source that refers to the girl's age in the film. I have found a citation from a reliable source that says the character in the film is 17. I don't know why, maybe she missed two years, maybe they're wrong, whatever. If you want to change it to 15 you have to find a citation from a reliable source that says that the character in the film is 15. It doesn't matter what your experience is, it doesn't matter what you just know is right. Wikipedia is all about verification, not "truth".

Now, I think I've spent more than enough time explaining this to you. Find a reliable source, you can change it, don't change it without a reliable source, it will be reverted. Any more discussion can happen on the article's talk page, not here. Don't post here again. BMK (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke Show edit

Care to explain why you reverted my edit, without any explanation?! The information I added is for a new DVD box set that will be released in November, its new information.The GateKeeper07 (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll explain, AFTER you read the two policies I quoted in the edit summary WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL. BMK (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

Per here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size we should generally use "upright=" to not overright peoples preferences. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that the MOS is a guideline,and is not mandatory. Please also remember that only people with accounts can set thumbnail preferences, so the millions of people who read Wikipedia who are not members get to see little postage stamp-sized images. It is those millions of readers we are here to serve. This aspect of the MOS is highly contentious, and, in my view, entirely wrong. BMK (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Upright" works for people who are not logged in aswell so they also see larger images. I do not understand your issue with that form of increasing the size of images? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, your "upright" version was still illegible and forced the reader to click through to see the content. I respect your knowledge and ability in medicine and science content, I would never think of overriding you there; please respect me in terms of article layout and visuals, it's a large part of what I do, and the changes I make inevitably make the article better for the reader. BMK (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

One can set it to upright=1.4 if you want to make it larger. IMO the second map is too large. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you note, I had it slightly smaller, and I could not read it well, which is why it's at the size it is now. These changes are not arbitrary, there's frequently a substantial number of preview cycles before I hit save. BMK (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure but one can create the same sizes both ways for the non logged in user. Using upright just allows those who have set preferences to have them respected. So me on two long narrow screens can see smaller pictures. While those on typically screens will see the same size you have set it at. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also per here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Standard_appendices "see also" sections are not recommended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

99.99% of articles on Wikipedia have "see also" sections. There's absolutely no reason why medical articles should be different. BMK (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This "Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection" did fit better as a see also under immunosuppression IMO. Also did you have a problem with me changing "prevalence" to "rate" and "hosts" to "person"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, my error there. Feel free. BMK (talk)

And is there anything incorrect in joining the two portal boxes such as? And way place the portal boxes in a see also section rather than with the nav temps?

Medicine portal

Viruses portal

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The portal box looks like shit between the commons box and the spoken word box because the sizes of the are different and the result is sloppy. Portals generally go in the see also section, not in external links, because they're not external links. Comingin them into the box in the see also section would get in the way of the refs, reducing it to 2 columns. Any other questions? BMK (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes do agree they look poor formated like that in the external links section. Hum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What about like this User_talk:Doc_James/sandbox#Further_reading Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For example these are about the same size when thumbnail size is set at 220px under preferences or viewed logged out. The second one is smaller for those who set thumbnails smaller. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way the first picture takes up more than half the width of my screen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What is it you want? You want me to say that you WP:OWN the article? Then come right out and say it. Otherwise, stop bothering me with this bullshit. Your shtick is medical and science content, not this. BMK (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And get yourself a decent fucking computer because 450px shouldn't be more than half of your screen. BMK (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well sorry to piss you off. You have presented no evidence that "upright=" causes any problems and have given no clear indication that you have looked at it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you've got your fucking article exactly the way you want it, and I'll be extra special careful not to improve the layout and visual appearance of any medical articles in the future, so they can look like shit as well. BMK (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your suggestion to increase image sizes is generally a good one and will do so going forwards. I do not think we have had a discussion about increasing the logged out thumbnail size in a long time. Might be good to make all thumbs that are unspecified larger. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Al Roker "meteorologist"

It's more of a semantics issue on calling Al Roker a "meteorologist", and I personally don't feel that calling him such is appropriate given that he lacks a degree in meteorology. Broadcast media will call their TV weatherman a meteorologist regardless of whether or not they technically are, as a means of giving them better credibility to viewers. Additionally, Al Roker's seal from the American Meteorological Society is expired and has not been renewed, which renders that aspect null. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He's got approval of the AMS, that makes him a meteorologist - the expiration is just bureaucracy. If it makes you feel better, just consider his decades of on-the-job training as the equivalent (and more) of a college degree. BMK (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, his seal is expired which renders that null. Meteorology implies scientific study of the weather, whereas Roker's work is predominantly focused on forecasting (broadcast media). Juliancolton's recent edit seems like a decent compromise between our positions, though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It just hasn't been renewed, it doesn't make it disappear from history, like an unperson in 1984. I know what meteorology is, thanks. BMK (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Thanks to what I think is some creative and less than helpful use of translucent pages, the WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant is a mess. But in short thank you for tidying up the page, but you need to place you opinion in the Discussion section of the AN not on Technophant's talk page so that the opinion is recorded in the history of WP:AN, not in the history of user talk:Technophant. So please add you opinion to the AN page and delete the duplicate from the user talk page. -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll do that. BMK (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS Well, I tried to do that, but, frankly, I can't tell where one ends and the other begins, and it looks like I may have voted twice because of it. If you know where my !vote should go, you have my permission to move it, and if I did indeed !vote twice, you also have my permission to delete the duplicated !vote. If this is a hassle for you, don't sweat it, I believe I'm in the minority so my !vote doesn't make that much difference. I can just go in and delete it (them). Let me know, and thanks again. BMK (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you have three votes (counting the initial first level bullet).

• My impression is that the applicant is trying to Wikilawyer his way out of a block. That deos not sit well with me. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not seeing it. The comments from Technophant in this discussion are not at all convincing to me that he's here to edit in a way that will improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose BMK (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest blanking the section at User_talk:Technophant#Continued_discussion_from_other_editors and merging its content in with your 16 August comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Although the first is not labelled as such, it was meant as a comment, not as a !vote. BMK (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did something, I don't know what the heck it was. I thought I deleted the last "oppose" comment (24th) and merged the middle "oppose" with the comment from the 16th, but now I can't find the merged text anywhere -- and that's OK with me. I hope no one does that kind of thing again, the transclusion really screwed everything up. It seems to me that a simple pointer to the user talk page if the discussion was supposed to take place there, or a transfer of text from the talk page to AN, if that was were the discussion was intended to be, would have been much less confusing and more productive. BMK (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You did it right. It's the third bullet under #Discussion. And yes, this would have been much easier with an ordinary unblock request IMO. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay! I did something right! Thanks. BMK (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tammany Hall

@Beyond My Ken: I noticed your edit. Why, if I may ask? Lotje (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pleae read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size and truTV. Lotje (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philadelphia High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cherry Blossom Festival (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) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Already  Fixed. BMK (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delany

Please look at what you're undoing. Yes, the FIRST retirement announcement link was from Facebook. But all subsequent things you've undone had a link to an announcement from Temple University. You're just blindly undoing without checking the link first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Oops. My bad. Talking to the wrong person. This is how my day is going. Apologies. Mea maxima culpa. Kdring (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)