Jump to content

User talk:Beyond My Ken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nate2357 (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 9 November 2010 (→‎Notification on "Nate2357 and Nate5713": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Note to self

You risk getting into trouble whenever you forget this.

Don't do that: Edit articles!

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I would like to contribute, but I have a question: at one of the previous AN/I threads, I accepted the suggestion of a voluntary one-way interaction ban with Xanderliptak. The thread is here, and the restriction I accepted was:

Proposed: Beyond My Ken voluntarily agrees to stay away from Xanderliptak for three months. This means no editing of pages that Xanderliptak has edited and Beyond My Ken previously has not, and no commenting to or about him unless invited to by an uninvolved party. BMK, can you agree to this to get this silliness ended? → ROUX ₪ 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion as an admin and a experienced editor, would my restriction -- which, as I said, is voluntary and not imposed by the community -- allow me to comment under the current circumstances? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask Roux his opinion as well, as the proposer of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin and can't tell you what to do. I advise following your own judgement. → ROUX ₪ 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not that entirely experienced in this area (I've managed to stay out of most of these kinds of disputes), but I think I would count as "uninvolved" in terms of that dispute, since I had nothing to do with that thread and I am inviting your comment. (You may have had a conversation at my talk page, but I don't know that we ever spoke directly. :D) I think that your voluntary restriction would not be helpful here, since comments from members of the community who have engaged would be very helpful. I would think, though, that it would be a good idea for you to make your case thoroughly and then step back, resisting arguing if he disagrees. I plan to do the same and keep my contribution there low. We can ask the input of a clearly uninvolved third party, if you'd like to be sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I did indeed post on your talk page in the thread that Xanderliptak started, but I think you are also correct that you and I never discussed anything directly. Nevertheless, in perhaps an excess of caution, I'd like to take you up on the suggestion that I contact an uninvolved third party -- an admin or senior editor experienced in these matters -- to comment on my status. I don't want to muddy the waters on the RfC/U by making a comment and then having my voluntary restriction be brought up as a reason for discounting my contribution. If I do comment, I would like to do exactly what you suggest, which is to express a viewpoint, and then remove myself from the conversation except to the extent of agreeing or disagreeing with other's viewpoints.

Would you care to post a pointer to someone whose judgment you trust, or pass a name on to me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a "formal" sanction, or merely a "gentlemen's agreement"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think formality or informality has any real bearing. The spirit is more important than the letter, I think, and BMK should make this decision on his own or with the help of a wholly uninvolved party. → ROUX ₪ 22:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm asking is whether there's an expectation of a block if he violates this agreement. In my case, I'm on an interaction ban with a particular user, but there's an exception for administrative situations. But that came after discussing it with some admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Bugs: It was "formal" in the sense that it was proposed by Roux and accepted by me at AN/I, but there was no community involvement, so it is "informal" in that sense. However, I think Roux is correct: it's my word that's at issue, so I'd like an uninvolved third-party's opinion not so I can wiggle away from my committment, but so that I can understand if what I agreed to is covered under this circumstance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any block could be imposed on the basis of my participation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet is to run it by a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the admins I generally trust appear to be potentially considered "involved". I dropped notes on the talk pages of two others, one of whom (I realized after the fact) may also be "involved" to some extent, but I believe the other is not. We'll see if either decides to comment. If I don't get a clear answer one way or the other, I guess I'll remain a spectator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone completely 100% uninvolved in this situation (indeed, as someone who knows nothing about what it's about, and who plans to remains that way forever and ever amen), I stumbled onto this because Xeno's page is on my watchlist, and followed the link because I was bored. So, I count as "uninvolved" and "an admin"; you'll have to judge for yourself whether I count as "experienced in these matters". But FWIW, my opinion in general is that it would be in Wikipedia's best interest for people who have had issues with someone who is the subject of an RFC/U to outline their opinions in the RFC; that's what RFC/U's are for. It makes no sense in that particular arena to withhold your perspective because of a voluntary interaction ban intended to reduce conflict. So I'm "inviting" you to do so. MRG's suggestion that you then not argue or comment further (except perhaps to clarify something if asked by another) seems wise, as would not actually interacting with Xanderliptak there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another (currently) uninvolved admin, I don't think there has ever been an major incident regarding a user subject to an interaction ban (formal or not) commenting at an RfC/U on an issue over which that user is involved. In fact, I've seen several interaction bans proposed which specifically allow the user in question to comment (but not fight) at an RfC/U that would benefit from said user's point of view. I don't think anyone will block you if you simply state your view of the situation, make clear your voluntary interaction ban, and try not to inflame the situation too much. If Xanderliptak feels a need to argue with your comments, I think there are enough other editors who will ask him to calm down, but you shouldn't respond to him. So basically, I'm echoing Floquenbeam's opinion here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you for your opinions. I will, then, participate in the RfC/U and try my level best to do so on the terms that have been described here. I would like my contribution, whatever form it should wind up taking, to be as accurate and well-reasoned as I can make it, and as I am a little worse for wear this evening, I will probably wait until some time tomorrow to work on what I want to say, and then, hopefully, leave the field to others. My intention is to avoid confrontation with Xanderliptak, and refuse it should it be offered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment by both BMK and Moonridden girl, and I agree with the above comments by Floquenbeam and Fetchcom. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Thomas Quinn

Thanks for tracking down the documentary sources for Quinn's suicide attempt and subsequent drowning. I knew about the events, but didn't have sources.

He was a very fine sculptor. I hope the Wikipedia article will help bring him out of undeserved obscurity. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but another editor (User:Lockley) actually added the first suicide ref, I just followed up. Is there anything else you're having trouble sourcing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks, I just hadn't done the work. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lockley rocks but I note elsewhere that you are dealing with User:$1LENCE D00600D He has, in my opinion, a bad case of AWM syndrome, a condition that, since it is not an illness as such, cannot be cured. Good luck working things out. Carptrash (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no desire to be put in a confrontional state with another editor, so I hope he can see his way to moderating his stance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardozo School of Law

Blogs reveal the sentiment of the crowd. My changes do not take at face value the CLAIMS made on the blogs. My changes to Cardozo's page are to show that there is, in fact, much criticism leveled against the institution. In this manner, the blog and its comments are a sound source.

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your product. I don't delete the dubious self-promoting sections written about Cardozo. Kindly, don't delete my changes, which are meant to provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.200.253 (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything sourced by a blog will be removed, per WP:SPS. If this material is factual, it should be easy enough to find a reliable source to support it. Find such a citation, and the information can be added; keep adding it with only a blog for a source, and it will continue to be removed, and you will, eventually, likely be blocked from future editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Fiction

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Center for Fiction, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://centerforfiction.org.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren Bot is in error, nothing has been copied directly from the Center for Fiction website, or even closely paraphrased. My primary source is the entry "Mercantile Library Association" in the Encyclopedia of New York City, supplemented by material from Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 and stuff from the New York Times archive. I referenced the Center for Fiction's website only for the most basic facts, and everything has been re-written to the extent allowed by the information. All facts have been properly cited, and I continue to work on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

It could be a good idea to avoid poor tone such as this. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is a specific case, and something that should have been said long ago: NCMV should either shit or get off the pot -- stand for admin, or stop acting like one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conclusion

Actually no, after I stopped using that user name I never went back to the discussion page. As a man of honor, you have apologized and I will happily do the same. I try and avoid conflict whenever possible on wiki but if that means intering with a style of minor consistencies that I have tryed hard to maintain than I must make a stand. When it comes to the italics I just don't see why they cannot be used the way I have used them. Forgive me for this entire episode. It certainly has not been something I have ever been joyous about and I have never had a contest over such a petty thing. Perhaps you will think better of me some day and I am sorry this whole conflict has come to where it has. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I very much appreciate that. As I mentioned above, I'm not really interested in conflicts with other editors, so I had already taken the "Border Wars" article off my watchlist to avoid any future problems between us. I still think that it's best not to use italics for captions for a number of reasons, among which are that italicized text is somewhat more difficult to read, and since italics are used for titles and foreigh expressions, if you have to use those in an italicized caption, it means you get that awkward situation where titles etc. are un-italicized, which I never particularly liked. On the other hand, I know what it's like to have made a considered decision about what looks best, and have someone overturn it on the basis that "the Manual of Style says so" -- which is why I try not to do things just because, but instead because I honestly think the change improves the article. In any event, I'll withdraw from that article, and will probably come across one of your other articles by happenstance alone, as they're somewhat off the general subject matter I browse. If we do meet up again, I hope it will be a happy and congenial contact.

My sincere thanks once again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm going to copy these two comments over to the thread on your talk page, so the discussion stays together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is best that the italics be removed than as a gesture of good will you may remove them from the article without having to deal with myself. I have had other little conflicts about the italics but nobody has ever told me some good resons as to why they should not be used. In this case you have and I now understand why you have removed them in the past. I will definately consider not adding italics anymore but then, in accordance with consistency, I would be forced to remove them from every page I see them on and that can be a hassle. I looked over the history of the Border War article just a few minutes ago and there seemed to be at least one instance of vandalism you took care of so I do wish you will continue watching the Border War page. There are so many pages that are vandalized and I cannot keep up with it. Thanks and sorry again.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The instance of vandalism was the "Mexican victory" claim that someone added to the box. In this case the Border War wasn't like WW2 or something in which the Axis powers were completely defeated in one consecutive conflict. It is more like the Banana Wars where each event has it's own result. The so called "war" just refers to the battles in the border states that involved US military and Mexican forces and as a whole cannot be considered a Mexican or American victory. That is why I did not add US victory to the results section when I created the page.
That's very decent of you, and, at your request, I will restore the article to my watchlist. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of consistency. At times, when a serious mistake has been pointed out to me, I've gone through the articles I've done a lot of work on and made the change, but if the error was minor, I simply deal with it the next time I happen to edit the article. In that way, it all gets dealt with eventually.

Wikistalking at ANI

Can we stop talking in circles and find some sort of resolution to it? Or are we just gonna blah blah blah blah blah blah into eternity?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That IP editor out of Qatar

I'm pretty sure that your suggestions of sockpuppetry are appropriate. The editor's comments suggest to me that the IP edits are coming from indef-blocked User:Magpie1892, who's less than fond of me because I filed the ANI report which quickly led to his block (for sockpuppeteering). I'm going to follow up on your initial request for an investigation, since I can associate the blocked user with the IP edits.

And I certainly want to thank you for your sensible and supportive comments at the current ANI targeting me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Good to have a name to put with the number. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory – Defamatory comments, Ruthlessness, Pompous approach, Questionable attitude and agenda, Dictatorial - Obsessive behavior, Eager to accuse and Threaten

Hi there, I decided to send this public notice directly to you, instead of filing an official complain at the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. This will give you an opportunity to think over the things you said and did towards me. I hope you value my sincere and honest attempt and further realize that you broke my heart badly by disrupting my good faith/constructive edits and by falsely accusing me.

DEFAMATION: 1. (Law) Law the injuring of a person's good name or reputation

LIBEL: 1. a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Each and every one of all above titles which are, one way or another, connected to one’s subversive, emotionally enslaved attitude which, in real life, is subject to close scrutiny when practiced against others, and it will trigger civil law suit, if not a criminal prosecution.

So to speak, it will not go unchallenged. Those who are smart enough to know better, will behave, control their emotions to not be part of a self destructive confrontations (which might ruin others' prosperity too) for winning purposes.

We have laws to protect us against these twisted-aggressive minds with ill-spirited soul and anger which wander at the boundaries of mental disorder daily basis, which they are ready to destroy others’ lives.

Would you agree?

On the other hand, some people on the Internet with greatly appreciated anonymous comfort, come easily out of the closet and demonstrate-reveal their true colors, thinking they can get away with anything they do and say. Can they? I doubt it.

I doubt it at least here at Wikipedia.

Their words will never go unnoticed, nor will they get away with their actions without being sanctioned, if not indefinitely banned by the Wikipedia community, because of personal attacks, false accusations to gain, inflammatory and defamatory remarks, none of these practices are welcome here at the Wikipedia.

In some cases, though, Wikipedia will have to cooperate with law enforcement agencies to disclose the identity of the perpetrator, if asked through legal channels.

You might be thinking why am I here, again?

I am here because I want to resolve this issue ones and for all, so that it never comes back.

So that we, you and I can go on happily editing, doing good things to improve Wikipedia, its content and quality. That’s why I’m here.

As one link takes us to another while editing, I encountered this very article named Arnold Reisman and it looked like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnold_Reisman&diff=next&oldid=384845983

An article, with two important (one BLP) tags, desperately needed references, wikilinking and so on.

I read through and wondered why, this 76 years old PhD and professor with many published academic books, taught at many national as well as international universities had not even a single reference.

Me not knowing the revision history of the article, (actually I didn’t have to know anything, I just had to make good faith edits to improve it,) I did go and search the Internet whether the subject had reliable sources talking about him and his works.

As I mostly did exactly that, which was finding references to save, otherwise notable (also stub tagged) articles, I went ahead looking for some sources.

Yes, when I saw this article, I started Goggling. It took some what of four hours to find solid, reliable, academic references. I then created a new (references) section and inserted four of the references I found.

I was very happy, indeed extremely happy to be able to contribute to, and improve, the article. After all, this was all about isn’t it? We all try to make WP accurate, rich in contend with utmost level of quality.

And it looked like this after my hectic, time consuming but rewarding effort:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnold_Reisman&diff=next&oldid=392986671

Yes, I was happy.

But what happened next was hard to believe and even very scary.

An editor named Beyond My Ken, (which is you,) arrived and reverted all my good faith edits (reliable references, wikilinks and typos) which I spent hours to find and he posted a message at my talk page saying this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fusion_is_the_future#Once_again.2C_a_reminder

He was thinking, accusing me in an incredible-offensive manner, that I was Arnold Reisman, (a sock puppet as he described it!)

He didn't even bother checking my good faith edits first, whether references were all good and reliable, then ask politly if I was him or one of his associates.

No, he didn’t do that.

He did NOT assume good faith.

He just started offending me and not only tried to disrupt my good faith editings, he also scared me off.

I was in shock.

I explained him kindly that I was not him the subject, that I have never heard of Arnold Reisman in my entire life, until I, that very day encountered his article.

Little later, after back and forth arguments, he said he believed me and reverted himself, restoring all my edits and even removing the two (one BLP) tags which was good he did. Subsequently he apologized.

This was very nice of him to do so. I accepted his apology and continued looking for some more references. Shortly after, I found the fifth academic source.

Then he came back even more angry and aggressive and said that I was NOT what I said I was, that I was intimately associated with Reisman.

Go figure...

I said to myself “No, this is unreal. It can not be true.”

I told him that this was going out of hand. I further said: "I sense somewhat of a disrespectful behavior attributed to between-the-lines threat."

This user's conduct was not in line with that of the WP's Five Pillar rules.

I asked another editor to intervene (third opinion) which whom I came to know when he reviewed my two newly created articles which he praised my works.

He arrived and said something which made me even more scared. He said:

  • Perhaps it would be best to move on for now...better safe than sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 2:10 pm, 26 October 2010, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC-2)

This third-opinion editor was also threatening me. Why should I be better safe than sorry? I just made good faith edits with five references and they were still there. They ARE still there. Nobody deleted them. I didn't do anything to be scared off!

He was also asking me to stay away from the article which I had a hard time to understand and accept.

Why? I improved the article and was still improving. BLP tag along with the other one was removed by Beyond My Ken because of the references I provided. Why should I be punished for that? That's why we all are here, aren't we? To improve the articles in desperate need of TLC.

All my attempts including repeated questions about editing, new references for his books and about WP guidelines, were flatly rejected Beyond My Ken.

I started to think that I was dealing with an angry-aggressive editor who had a clear agenda with deep seeded obsession and ready-to-crash attitude against the subject and also against a good faith editor which should never be tolerated in WP community, nor should have a place in real life we live in.

I walked away and gave myself three days to think over about what to do.

I came back with new suggestions. This time I posted them at editor’s (Beyond My Ken's) talk page, hoping that it would help him understand that his behavior and attitude should be/must be adjusted, at least here at WP.

I further provided him, after lengthy work on Google, five more reliable sources for Resiman’s books which most of them are from national libraries from around the world.

I asked him about these sources whether we could use them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=next&oldid=393657681

He came back even more angry, still not understanding the essence of my approach as a good faith editor, and said these inflammatory things to me including the threats (again,) and this time also with defamatory comments, downgrading Reisman's reputation and credibility in public, which is a crime punishable by law.

And this was happening openly at WP, in front of everybody.

In his response to my lengthy post searching a consensus (agreement,) he said this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=393657681

Almost immediately after he posted his comments as a response to my post, he deleted then both. He knew then, what he did was against Wikipedia's strict guidelines which we all have to follow and abide. Otherwise he could be sanctioned and could get serious consequences here at WP. Not to mention, his defamatory comments towards Reisman was/is a crime punishable by law.

Yes, he deleted them. But the problem was, we could not really delete anything at Wikipedia. Everything what we do and say remains on the record for good.

You can see my post and his response at the revision history I provided above.

Here is the transcript of his deleted response:

I think:
 + # Your English has gotten considerably better since our first communication. 

 + # You are not what you say you are. 

 + # You are in some way intimately connected to the Reisman accounts. 

 + # That you may add anything you wish to the Reisman article. If the source is unreliable, as in being self-published, I will delete it. 

 + # I will then remove every unsourced fact from the article. 

 + # Having reduced the article to a stub, I will then nominate it for deletion. 

 + # I will then re-open the SPI. 

 + # Wikipedia will be improved by having one less article about a non-notable person, and one less sockpuppet of a indefintiely blocked user. 

 +  

 + Have a nice day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 5:08 pm, 29 October 2010, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC-2)

Now, I am here to ask you Beyond My Ken, whether you are willing to participate to improve this subject’s article. This is perfectly inline with improving the Wikipedia.

When you tell me stay away, I'll stay here much longer. As I still don't know why are you treating this subject badly and causing injustice, it is my prorogative to stay or go. As long as my edits are good and accepted by the community I'll stay. That’s why we all are here.

There are at least five references from different national libraries around the world along with reviews pointing out Resiman's books.

Please discuss with me whether these references could be used.

One of his books for example, Turkey's modernization: refugees from Nazism and Atatürk's vision

Evidence keeps coming about Reisman and his credibility and notability as an author too.

Can we use them, if not, why?

Please refrain yourself from making personal attacks and accusations.

  • If you have any doubt about me, I will strongly suggest that you go ahead and re-open (revive) that SPI report you talked about and do not forget to include my name too, in that SPI-ANI report. As you said: "So that administrators can take a look and see if your editing justifies an indefinite block or not."

Is that a good deal to you?

But then, my proposition is this:

  • If it turns out that I am indeed a sockpuppet as you accused me I was, I will never-ever edit at Wikipedia again.

If it turns out that I am not a sockpuppet as you accused me of being one, and since all my good faith edits are still there Arnold Reisman, as we speak, then, you publicly apologize infront of everybody, pack your things up and leave Wikipedia.

And never, ever come back.

Does it sound like a good idea to you? The choice is yours.

If you decide not to file SPI, then do not disrupt me from making good faith edits anymore.

I can and I will whenever/wherever I want to edit here at Wikipedia, as long as my edits are constructive and serving well (contributing) to Wikipedia.

As long as you are polite with me and you demonstrate that you respect the fellow editors, my doors are open for you Ken. I hope we can make a sensible accord to end this ongoing problem. Thanks, Fusion is the future (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Fusion, I suggest you to thoroughly read WP:NLT, because your post at least includes what is called a "perceived legal threat" against BeyondMyKen, if not a blatant one. Editors are often blocked indefinitely for this sort of thing, and by threatening to sue him you are surely asking for trouble. You might want to seriously reconsider your post and do some retracting, or you may find yourself in some hot water. Cheers... Doc talk 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me very far-fetched at this point, that Fusion's behavior is simply that of a casual user upset at being mistaken for someone else; I find it quite supportive of my original supposition that Fusion is another sock- or meatpuppet of the indef-blocked User: Arnold Reisman, upset because he is not being allowed to edit the article Arnold Reisman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Reisman were as verbose as this one, there's bound to be a few "tells" in the similarity of phrasing and such. Good Lord, what a rant... Doc talk 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. Maybe later today I'll take a look at Reisman's talk page contribs and see if I can find any points of similarity, and if the evidence seems persuasive, I'll re-open the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC banner

No reason I can start adding {{WikiProject New York City}} if you'd like. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing I can easily change all instances of {{WikiProject New York}} to {{WikiProject New York City}} with AWB. That may not get 100% of them, but almost all (as well as tagging a number of pages that are presently untagged.) All it takes is time. If you're interested in using AWB, it's not terribly difficult... Please post to my talk if you need to follow up on this or something else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right I am going three levels deep in Category:New York City and Category:New York City stubs. I will add {{WikiProject New York City}} to pages that do not exist and replace the instances of {{WikiProject New York}} with {{WikiProject New York City}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation - your input is required

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification on "Nate2357 and Nate5713"

Template:Sub-set:ANI-notice I repied to your concern on the same noticeboard, I am sorry that I never used the above template before. --Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&oldid=395673605"