User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)

Reminder: to work on

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized
• The Leatherman - copyedit
• Singin' in the Rain - add from Comden & Green intro to script when it's unburied
• Irvington Historic District (Irvington, New York) - further research and expand into sep article, if possible

Hmm!

If you read the entire sentence, and not just the word "may", I think you might agree that my edit did not change the meaning in this particular case. However, revert wars get boring, so if you prefer an incorrect comma splice, so be it. Equinox ◑ 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the "incorrectness" of comma splices is vastly overrated, and prefer the meaning of the sentence as it stands, not the meaning you changed it to (which you did). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, but okay. You have to pick your battles. Thanks for playing :) Equinox ◑ 22:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you never asked a question, you made a statement. Please enjoy the home version of our game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Help, please?

this editor signed up tonight - acts like the same sock that's been hounding me at that article. I've notified Tony & The Bushranger but they may have already called it a night. This guy is teflon coated. I've asked for full PP to protect the article from him but he's causing a stir on the TP. Any suggestions? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Sorry, I didn;t see this until just now. Two things: (1) You know I'm not an admin, right? (2) I would have done what it appears that you have done, that is, gone with my instincts and the evidence that this was the same guy/different sock, and just deleted or hatted the material. It's easy enough to revert or unhat if you are shown to be wrong, but you've been around long enough to trust your nose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I look further into it, I see that they got blocked. I don't know if you hatted the discussion he started before or after the block, but I would probably have done it even before an admin had the chance to confirm and block, if my feeling about the socking was strong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BMK. You're so right about trusting my nose but then a time or two I've heard people tell me, "Your ass is in big trouble." It's my ass I don't trust. Everything worked out because of the good tips I've received from collaborators, and the incredible work of several really sharp admins who can hear a duck quacking from a mile away. It makes me appreciate them even more for the work they do and the abuse they have to endure.^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

whoops!

very much my mistake, I was aiming for the lowercase and instead ended up with the uppercase. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The addition of lowercase "the" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful

How exactly is "beautiful" not a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS? Your recent edits on Rear Window warrant an explanation. --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. To call Grace Kelly "beautiful" is not a POV edit. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kailash29792, it's not just that Grace Kelly is universally agreed to be one of history's great beauties, it's that her character in Rear Window is very specifically a world-class beauty, as evidenced by the almost unbelievably eye-popping wardrobe, the amazing makeup and hairstyles, and every other detail of her appearance, deportment, and character. She is barely more than beautiful window-dressing (no pun intended) until she decides to take an active part in the amateur "investigation". Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Yes_another_image

I just added this option to the RfC, but am beginning to have second thoughts, wondering if this may derail the RfC. I'd be happy to remove this section if you'd prefer it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know, great minds think alike. When I found out last night that that image was the lede image on Italian Wikipedia, I had the same thought as you - to offer it up as a compromise candidate, but I decided not to do it because of the confusion I thought it might cause. Now that you've done it, I'm leaning toward advising you to let it stand, and let's see what happens. If you yourself have second thoughts and want to remove it, that's OK too. I'm rather tired of the whole thing, in fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to go there to say the image would be OK by me, but I don't want to curse it by doing so, so I'll wait under there are more responses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

Hi I don't think there is any solid evidence to support this theory, the reason why I put this on the talk section as I was not sure. The thing is the first autopsy said he killed himself, then the autopsy done by the someone the family hired said there was evidence he was murdered from strangulation marks on his neck, Hess was a frail 93 year old man who could barely walk and dress himself, the official verdict is he still killed himself, its a tough one, I don't want to add anything that violates Wikipedia policies, do you think I could find a source to support the second autopsy that found the marks on the neck. There is a lot of information and sources about that, is that enough or shall we leave it as it is. Amy foster (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. I hope your holiday is a good one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazi eugenics

If you want to discuss the article on the talk page it is up to you. There is no need for me to discuss to make clean up entries. If you keep reverting I will report as vandalism. IQ125 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" is not a free pass. If an edit is disputed, you must discuss it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material

You are making blind accusations without checking the sources in the article, and the article's contents. Xarhunter (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You think I don't know the article's content? I added 16% of the text, and am responsible for 18% of the edits to the article. I know what the article says. I didn't remove sourced information, I removed unsourced material which you added, as have multiple other Iranian editors. The sources support the version of Zadeh's ethnicity which has been in the article for years -- after discussion on the talk page -- including a statement from Zadeh himself, which is quoted in the article. If you change it again, I will bring you to the attention of administrators for disruptive editing and violations of neutral point of view. This is your only warning, please do not ignore it, or you could potentially find yourself blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary to make threats as you just did on my page without signing. I have noticed that you have been bullying people and claiming to be a subject matter expert. You are the one that is on notice.Xarhunter (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not signing was a mistake, the warning was not - I am dead serious about it. I've been here for 12 years and over 200,000 edits, so I know how things work. What you call "bullying people" is actually protecting the encyclopedia from people like you, who would violate WP:NPOV and bias our articles to uphold your ethnic or nationalistic aims. That's not going to happen to articles that I watch over, by you or anybody else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Xarhunter, I agree with Beyond My Ken here. Our articles follow what the reliable sources say, as informed by talk page consensus. Abandon your nationalistic agenda, please, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor. This is a worldwide encyclopedia which rejects all narrow agendas in Wikipedia's voice, while neutrally discussing nationalism without any trace of advocacy. That is our goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're advocating neutrality, so that's a form of advocacy isn't it? EEng 08:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

PS Slocum

Why do you believe that overlinking by putting the same link in twice in one sentence is a good idea? Dabbler (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The links serve two entirely different purposes, one to explain what "PS" means, and the other to explain what "steamboat" means in this context - and the connection between those two terms is far from obvious. If the same word or term had been linked twice in the same sentence, you'd have a point, but as it is, it is valuable to readers, who are unlikely to click on both links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The specific section is located here. It's nothing big that you need to be concerned about; just an IP who didn't understand what you were talking about in a warning you left them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the noice, and thanks for closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Barnstar for intrepid use of Common sense
	Letting Common sense rule at Adolph Hitler. Keep up the good work. Don't feed the Trolls. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sling and the Stone.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

as our thread has been collapsed (rightfully, I suppose), i will re-post my last response here -- to your failure to understand my first part there (″I'd be lying if I said I understood your first statement″): This might help Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.Axxxion (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry again: I may have misunderstood what yr ″I'd be lying if I said I understood your first statement″ referred to. Forget it. Some secrets are kept by KGB, some by CIA, but some are kept secret by all these criminals and they refer to how to control their respective subjects. Very human. The truth is always TOP SECRET.Axxxion (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Merrily We Live (film) poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Merrily We Live (film) poster.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

You need to give a reason when you revert someone else's edit on Wikipedia Clivemacd (talk)

You want a reason, sure: The change was not an improvement and the article was better before your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason has to be expressed in objective, not subjective terms Clivemacd (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Where do you find that in Wikipedia policy? Cite something for me, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, when you say "objective" terms, do you mean edits such as "remove superfluous word" in this edit of yours, or "remove spurious/simplistic association" in this edit or "use better verb" in this edit or "remove inappropriate word" in this edit? These are all subjective editorial decisions, and none of them are "objective". If you have a complaint, take it to the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

'In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Before_reverting Clivemacd (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Right: "not an improvement" or "better before" completely fulfills the requirement for an edit summary per the above. There is no requirement for the ES to be "objective" (whatever that is) as opposed to "subjective".

This now ends this discussion on this page. If you have a continued beef, take it to the talk page of the article, where it should have been to begin with, and do not post about it here again. However, do no restore your edit, which, under WP:BRD, must remain deleted until there is a consensus to restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sling and the Stone.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beyond My Ken. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II

New article, which may be of interest to you. I commented on the talk page as to my initial thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

National Action (UK)

I see you reverted my edit on this page without leaving an edit summary. I was just wondering why you did this. The ideologies listed are not all specifically cited. The vast majority of sources just refer to the group as neo-Nazi and this appears to be their main ideology. That is why I believe it should be kept to just this for the opening sentence. Some of the others have been mentioned or referred to in passing in other sources but I believe it is exhaustive and unnecessary to include them all in the opening sentence when they are clearly listed just to the right in the info box and can all be seen with just a glance to the side. As seen on the pages of other political parties, most do not list all or lots of ideologies in the opening sentence, just the main ideology of the party, take Conservative Party (UK) for example. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, and we describe what other sources say about a subject. If those other sources give these as part of the group's ideology, we include them. Besides, what the hell do you think "neo-Nazi" means? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, calm down, I sought no hostility and didn't try and revert you, I just came here to discuss this. Yes I'm aware neo-Nazism incorporates these ideologies within it (which means again its pretty unnecessary to list them all). I believe these ideologies are mentioned in the main body of text (as they should be) and are in the info box, it just seems unnecessary and exhaustive to in the opening sentence. As I said most with most political organisations just the main ideology is mentioned in the lead and neo-Nazi is what the vast majority of sources cite this group as. Helper201 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Sorry to snap at you. I've revert myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "Makesouthafricagreatagain"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Makesouthafricagreatagain (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguist^unEins^uno 10:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Linguist^unEins^uno 10:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

wrong ping

Sorry, I confused you with the IP. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor‎

Please do us a favor and use edit summaries or the talk page to explain your reversions. I have difficulty treating fellow Wikipedians in a collegial manner thanks to behavior like yours. I think we all ought to strive to do better for each other. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"I have difficulty treating fellow Wikipedians in a collegial manner thanks to behavior like yours." You have difficulty treating other editors collegially because they didn't use an edit summary? Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So to put a finer point on it, you need to start communicating or I'll just start handing you the templated warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hate to let you know this, Chris Troutman, but you're not the big Wiki-honcho you apparently think you are. Please do not post on my talk page again unless you are required to by Wikipedia policy. (Hint: templating an editor is not required by Wikipedia policy). You have an absolutely frabjous day, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lack of communication at Racial hygiene

This message is to inform you that I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lack of communication at Racial hygiene.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Commas

Hey there. Sure about this? I'm kind of hoping you'll self-revert. MOS:COMMA says the second commas should be there, and I can dig up other style manuals that concur, if you really want. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the first two, which are unnecessary but not terribly objectionable, but the third is most definitely wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Wikipedia in the early years didn't bother much with standard punctuation, and I do still note the absence of a second comma in many obscure articles. Our MOS is a little odd sometimes, but in this case we're right in step with others now. And the second comma is not only not wrong; it's house style at every major publication that I'm aware of. Chicago and AP both say commas are needed before and after years when using the DMY construction, except at the end of a sentence, and also before and after states when using the city-state construction. As far as I recall, MLA concurs, although I no longer have ready access. Britannica does it that way, as do The New York Times, National Geographic and The New Yorker. It's possible that there are regional exceptions—some variations of English use punctuation much more sparingly than others—but I really don't know. (Incidentally, I am so enjoying arguing with an editor I respect about a relatively trivial matter, for a change. Thank you. ) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, and thanks for the kind words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bazooka (instrument).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bazooka (instrument).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken. The template is just part of the notification process, but someone has uploaded File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg so a non-free image for gerneal identification purposes is really no longer needed per WP:FREER. You can of course dispute the tag using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} if you like, but the licensing of the free version appears to be in order. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's great, thanks very much for the notification and the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Amsterdam Plein and Pavilion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinwheel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pix searching

• Lantern-Univ. of Wisc

This is a collection of film, radio and television books and magazines. These are hosted at Internet Archive, but the Lantern search seems easier and faster. Many of the magazines scans were donated by the US Copyright Office. Still-there are some items donated to Lantern which may not be PD as we have to define it, so do a check for renewal.

Anything which would have been renewed before 1978: UPenn copyright books Check 27th & 28th years after publication (some renewed early). For magazines it's periodicals. Bob Burns and Bazooka

More places to try for photos Just remember if you're looking at a publication like Billboard, they renewed everything and the only thing you can have there are the ads before 1978 if the ads themselves aren't copyright marked. The American Radio History site is huge-this is why searches there take so long. ;)

If you have a Newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com subscription, you can often find a photo printed in a non-renewed newspaper. (Many times, a better quality copy can be found elsewhere and can be used.)

See if this will hold you for now. ;) We hope (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I will add these to my collection of sites to search. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Haiyenslna (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but are you sure you have the right person? It doesn't seem as if I've ever edited that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINK

It also says, "a good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". Nobody is coming to the Krampus article to determine where Austria and the other countries are. That's common sense. "Hey, you know that country near the alps? You know, the one where they have Krampus? I know. Let's check the Wikipedia article to remember which one it is." That's not a common scenario. Neither is, "Hmm. This Krampus article makes me think that I should read up on Croatia so I can understand more about this subject." Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Naughty Flirt poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Naughty Flirt poster.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been replaced with a Commons image, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

polemical talk pages

I noticed your aborted section at ANI. I looked into it out of curiosity, and I couldn't help but notice that there was an anti-monarchism userbox just below a pro-totalitarian userbox. With that sort of self-contradiction (compounded by userboxes supporting fascism and Christian Identity-esque ideals, compared with an anti-alt-right userbox) I would venture to guess that the example is less deliberately polemic and more just a hot mess of anything that struck that user's fancy at the time of addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's certainly possible, and I can understand that impulse - I used to enjoy repeating George Carlin's "Commie Faggot Junkie" trope (in fact, some friends and I had "CFJ" t-shirts made up). Not self-contradictory, per se, but in the same spirit of ridiculous combinations. (A friend of mine has as an e-mail address "XXX is a Commie@yyy.com", undoubtedly because he's been called that before.) Still, here on Wikipedia, it's hard to justify the controversial userboxen when POLEMIC exists. For some reason, I'd be less concerned if the editor was to write something that was obviously satirical, chaining together self-contradictory positions in a way that was obviously a joke. As it is now, I'm uncertain if the guy is serious or not -- although his editing, when I've come across it, seems in line with the views expressed in many of the boxes.

I would be happiest if all userboxes were banned, but I know that's not going to happen, and I'm not going to tilt at that windmill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I like editors who go overboard with their userboxes. More than once, it has helped me parse strange statements from otherwise seemingly good editors by letting me know that they were extremely religious, or very interested in homeopathy, etc. Things that make no sense whatsoever coming from an experienced editor can make a lot of sense coming from an experienced editor with an agenda. Plus, (for example) it lets me find my fellow Dresden Files fans when I can't remember some plot detail during an effort to add a summary of some short story or another.

But in this case, as I said, I get the impression that this is just youthful exuberance. If they're still editing in ten years, I'll bet their userpage will look a lot simpler. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your take, but one could say much the same thing about polemic usernames, that they help to identify the biases of the editor, and yet we don't tolerate those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- they are generally harmless clutter, but this discussion reminded me that I once came across userboxes that advocated torture. I nominated them for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/Torture2. There are about half a dozen of transclusions, meaning ppl chose to put them on their user pages, which boggles the mind, but oh well... K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your take, but one could say much the same thing about polemic usernames Well, yeah. If someone's going to be a POV warrior, I'd love for them to have a username that screams POV Warrior. It'll save me a lot of time and frustration AGFing my way through every "innocent" objection they raise to actual NPOV content. That being said, I'm not saying there should be no rules; grossly offensive or hate-speech-esque usernames/boxes should be excluded, as should corporate or group names and several other types, as well.

But even something like that "enhanced interrogation hur-de-hur I'm so edgy" userbox is merely borderline, from where I sit. I'm not sure if it's acceptable or not, though I tend to lean towards "no" because anyone who survived "enhanced interrogation techniques" who reads that is bound to get real mad real quick, and I don't blame them for a second. Same thing for anyone related to someone who was subject to them. Or anyone with a sympathetic streak.

On the other hand, I might be okay with them having it because; hey, now I know what I'm getting into when one of those editors starts a section at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse complaining about the article's anti-American POV. I don't have to engage with a half-dozen back-and-forth exchanges before I figure out that the quality of sources and arguments this editor will be presenting is going to be Pbbbt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Worms

Re [2], it seems unlikely you missed it, but a can of similar worms was open recently at VPP. I support your position, FWIW (~0). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss it, because I don't hang around the Pump very much, only when I've brought something up, or I'm pointed to something interesting. I'll take a look at the discussion, but I'm sure it just trailed off with no conclusion. Thanks for the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting at RFCN. The name was indeed appalling. But since I've been labelled as a "hard line anti-Nazi" and "Nazi hunter" in certain circles, I decided to go with the less confrontational method, vs reporting the user to WP:UFAA. Thanks again! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I really was shocked and appalled.

BTW, I think you may enjoy hearing that an IP whose edits I've reverted on various concentration camp articles has called me a Holocaust denier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also BTW, I would take being called a "hard-line anti-Nazi" or a "Nazi hunter" as a badge of honor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jingle Bells

[[File:Gemini VI Jingle Bells (90bpm) (Kevin MacLeod) (ISRC USUAN1100187).oga|thumb|Radio transmission between Gemini VI, Gemini VII and Mission Control in Houston]] shows up as a redlink for me. I click on it and it asks me to upload a file. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there, but it looks as if someone has found a working file. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks very much. We haven't had much snow so far this season, so another snowflake is quite welcome! Happy Holidays to you as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you liked Steve Martin's holiday wishes? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of funny videos...

For some reason, I felt compelled to watch again my favorite Dennis Leary video. [3]. Ain't it the friggin' Wiki-truth? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

AN3 postmortem

Hi, sorry for the mess at AN3. I was unaware of the recent ANI drama stirred up by BrightR. It does look to me like you are being pursued and targeted inappropriately by BrightR. That being said, try not to let the haters get your goat. It is hard for me from the outside to see your side when you are goaded into anger and edit warring (not that I blame you in this case). So in the future, try to take the high road. If BrightR bugs you again, I would seek intervention. See you around! Malinaccier (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Whitehall Terminal

Hi BMK. I meant to undo this edit you made to Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal, but I pressed Rollback instead. My apologies. I notified Jon Kolbert about a bug in which HTTPS URLs malfunction if they begin with https://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res= (these pages show up as blank frames). So for now, I undid this edit, but I kept the https://books.google.com URL because it works just fine. epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the Times URLs down below, or I wouldn't have reverted, as I had seen the threat about KolbertBot on AN/I, I just saw the change of https to http on Google Books, which when I checked, the https worked properly. Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Beyond My Ken, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Thanks, Ben, I hope you have a wonderful holiday! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

David Galula

The interesting thing about that image you found, aside from the fact that, once again, Mediawiki failed to inform me of an edit conflict when we both edited the dimensions in the rationale at the same time, is that the "sketch" very much appears to me to have used it as a basis, without credit. -- Begoon 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps it should be nominated for deletion at Commons as copyright infringement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I raised it at COM:VPC. -- Begoon 00:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Inquisitive Potato" Award

	"The Inquisitive Potato" Award
	I award you the second Inquisitive Potato award. For your inquiring, curious, probing mind as you seek to make Wikipedia better and for the useless drama that seems to follow you around here as a result. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Wow. My thanks to both of you, and my best wishes for a great holiday season in return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jingle Bells undo

Revision as of 19:25, 25 November 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 812066721 by Lawikitejana (talk) Sorry, but not acceptable without a ource) "

Well, then, you'd best hurry back over there and undo someone's unsourced info on the Swedish version that you left entirely intact. I was looking for sources to credit for the Spanish versions, but had not yet found one that worked for WP:RS, etc. If you're going to remove whatever doesn't presently have a source, that's legitimate, but at least be consistent about it. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your point is fair enough. I've restored your info on the Spanish version with a "citation needed" tag, and added that tag to the graf about the Swedish version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, it's been a pleasure working with you! I hope your holidays are everything you want them to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

David Irving (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Hare

Moxie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eddie Foy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, please explain this edit : [4]. This is correctly sourced, and you might think what you want about the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian newspapers, but this is sourced. In any case, this article does not reflect the fact that Anatoly Sharyi is a highly controversial personality in Ukraine. I'm trying to balance it using reliable sources. BobbyVinton (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider the source to be reliable for this information. Please find another source with a potential POV problem in relation to the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Beyond My Ken!!


Hi Beyond My Ken, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and best wishes to you in return! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Great to hear from you! I hope your holidays are good to you. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Still waiting for some snow...

Hey BMK, just thought I'd drop by and wish you well as we get to the end of the year. As always, it's been a pleasure working with you on Wikipedia, and I look forward to the coming year. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I hope all is well where you are, and the holidays are good for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome, and thank you for yours, and for being one of the reliable people. Happy Holidays to you, and a great New Year! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over a gallery?

Thanks for commenting on the last of the edits. Having three galleries is problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No, three galleries is not problematic. I've just posted on your talk page, asking you to let me know what the specific problem is, so we can work together to solve it, but three galleries has nothing to do with anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks, it is appreciated. Happy Holidays to you as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncommented reverts

Any reason you just reverted two of my very undramatic and clarifying edits? Ogress 20:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Because various parts of them did not improve the articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

HEY FELLOW EDITOR, HOW ABOUT EXPLAINING HOW INSTEAD OF REVERTING AGAIN. YOUR INITIAL REVERT HAD NO EDIT SUMMARY. You know better to ever do that. Ever. Ogress 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, how about following WP:BRD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you and yours a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Especially a propos as I'm just about to sit down to a Christmas dinner of roast turkey. It smells great in here! Please do have a good holiday yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please enjoy your feast, and rest assured that I am not at all upset with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I'm really pleased about that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some? :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We were so disappointed at Thanksgiving not to have turkey leftovers, that my wife bought a humongous turkey for tonight, so just send me your e-mail and I'll send you some! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazis and Slavs

Are you really disputing the Nazis classified Slavs as Aryans? All the available evidence shows that the Slavs were regarded as Aryans. It's a myth that the Slavs were classified as "non-Aryan". The Nazis never spoke of a Slavic race and acknowledged racially there was no distinction between a German and a Pole, a Russian or a Czech. The Nuremberg Laws mentioned the Poles as a racially minority living in Germany that were of related blood. An Ahnenpass document gave examples of Aryans as "Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". Himmler described the Russians as Aryans in an anti-Bolshevik brochure titled "The Schutzstaffel organization as anti-Bolshevik struggle". After the invasion of Poland, ethnic Poles were put in the Aryan side separate from Jews in the General Government. There are lots of other examples.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am disputing it, and you have not provided any citations from reliable sources to show that it is true. In point of fact, the Slavs were, in particular, after Jews, the Nazi's model for untermenschen. The Jews they planned to eliminate, but as for the Slavs, they planned to take their land, kill all their elites, enslave them, limit their education and rule over them with an Iron fist, things they would never do if they thought they were Aryan. In fact, because of interbreeding between Aryans and Slavs, they carefully culled through Slavic children to find those who had "Aryan" features, who they then kidnapped and took to Germany, to be raised by German families. Again, this would only be the case if they saw a very clear distinction between Aryans and Slavs. Your "myth" is, actually, a fact that is accepted by all reputable historians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Nuremberg Laws make no mention whatsoever of Slavs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute that some individual Nazis such as Hitler and Himmler regarded some Slavic ethnic groups as racially inferior.

However, according to the official laws of the Third Reich, Slavs were regarded as racially equal to the Germans:

According to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of the Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law.

Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, p. 63

The Ahnenpass document stated:

Aryan ("German blood") is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be.

In German: "Arischer Abstammung (= „deutschblütig“) ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volk ausgesehen, fremdrassischen Bluteinschlag ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraum lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z. B. ein Engländer oder ein Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat, in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der USA oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.

Christopher J. Wells, Deutsch: Eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945, p. 447

When the Nuremberg Laws were announced, the Nazis used the Poles as an example of a racial minority of "related blood":

A member of any minority group demonstrates his ability to serve the German Reich when, without surrendering membership in his own specific Volk group, he loyally carries out his civil duties to the Reich, such as service in the armed forces, etc. Reich citizenship is, therefore, open to racially related groups living in Germany, such as Poles, Danes, and others. It is an altogether different matter with German nationals of alien blood and race. They do not fulfill the blood prerequisites for Reich citizenship. The Jews, who constitute an alien body among all European peoples, are especially characterized by racial foreignness. Jews, therefore, cannot be seen as being fit for service to the German Volk and Reich. Hence, they must necessarily remain excluded from Reich citizenship.

Anson Rabinbach, ‎Sander L. Gilman, The Third Reich Sourcebook, p. 214

It is important to distinguish between Aryan and Nordic. The two terms were not interchangeable during the Third Reich. The most influential racial theorist of the Third Reich Hans F. K. Günther dismissed the ideas of a "Germanic race" and a "Slavic race". Before the war, there was no ban on sexual relations between Germans and any Slavic ethnic group. Many Nazis themselves had obvious Slavic ancestry. The Nazis were also aware many Germans had Slavic ancestry. As late as 1938 the Slavs used in the Nuremberg Laws classifying people as Aryans. Even after the war began not all sexual relations between Germans and Poles or Germans and Czechs were prohibited. Throughout the war Poles were placed on the "Aryan side" separate from those classified as Jews. Poles are Slavs so if Slavs were classified as non-Aryan why were they placed on the Aryan side? Being an Aryan did not mean exemption from Nazi persecution, the first people persecuted were German and thus Aryan socialists, communists and other political opponents. Thousands of German Aryans were persecuted during Aktion T4, etc. I've not come across a single primary source from the Nazis that described the Slavs as Untermenschen, although certain Slavic ethnic groups such as the Poles and Russians were described as untermenschen after WW2 began, I have not seen as a document that specifically says "Slavs" as untermenschen like the Jews, Gypsies, etc. Even the infamous "Der Untermensch" pamphlet of 1942 used some Slavs as Aryans and part of the European peoples in comparison to the Untermenschen. Also, some Slavic countries were allied to Germany during WW2.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

/* Shenanigans at AfD */

I'm not sure how AFD works now but long ago users who had red username or red talk-page were assumed to be less active wikipedians and there was slight increased presumption of WP:SPA going on. The reason I gave the welcome message was so that he would not have a red talk-page next to his name. Maybe AFD runs differently now but I learned under the tutelage of u/useight and u/balloonman. (sorry i forgot wiki-formatting) all I know now is reddit and quora... LaceyUF (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You were so concerned that Oscar's Oasis not have a redlinked talk page that you reached out and created one for them by posting a comment there, despite the fact that you do not know them, and regardless of the fact that about 100+ other Wikipedia accounts were created about the same time and you did nothing for them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not interested in "getting this straight" you are just trying to assert the validity of your opinion, which is invalid so I suggest you drop it. You'll only make yourself look bad. It takes firetruck-all of 10 seconds to click a red talk page and type the curly braces and WP:WELCOME on their page—hardly an ***expression of concern***. You can read my edit history and the questions I asked at the science ref desk. I'm no dull knife. I have an EE degree. Wikipedia has lost 90% of the credibility it once had, just ask anyone out in the real world. 67.233.34.199 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)