User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

No paid editing

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

(Life is too short!)

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

...

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)
• Black Sea - a mess
• Nazi salute - postage stamps

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
• Train graveyard - lots of material out there to expand this

For the record...

I would be completely shocked if you were harassing Kintetsubuffalo, and I find myself wondering where the horrible miscommunication/mistake is that caused this conflict to spring up. I've had nothing (that I can recall) but good interactions with you both, and so all this confuses and dismays me more than a little.

But if I can offer you some advice as well: Don't pursue it right now. You clearly aren't going to be listened to by Kintetsu, so anything you say will only aggravate him further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your thinking parallels mine. I've been pondering what to do while I went about my errands today, starting by thinking that I would repost my comment (the one he rather quickly deleted) on my own talk, then moving to asking him to provide evidence or stop making the claim, progressing to talking to an admin -- not for a block or a warning, just so that someone is aware of the situation -- and ended up deciding to do absolutely nothing unless he escalates things. I'll try to avoid him whenever I can, and especially avoid reverts, even of material I think is obviously problematic, in favor of talk page discussion. So that's where I am. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And, BTW, I'm not hounding or harassing or following him, and I don't believe that there is any evidence which would indicate that I am doing so, which makes his surety that I am all the more puzzling to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Miller 2015

I asked you about Mike's most recent book, which you told me was not an acceptable single source reference, yet his earlier 2006 book is. I don't understand why you would accept one and not the other, especially as the other has benefited from nine more years of research? I also don't see how you are so sure that Göring met with Mussolini in 1924 because that's what Manvell & Fraenkel said in 1962, but Mike says in 2015 that he didn't. Yet in the very next sentence, which has a reference from Charles R Hamilton: Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich, Volume 1, Göring wrote a letter dated 19.9.1924 speaking about the rebuff. Either he did meet with Mussolini or he didn't. Mike has listed 42 reference works for his section on Göring, is that not enough for you? I also don't see how having two awards deleted amounts to my vandalising the page to be honest.Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We go by the consensus of what most historians say occurred. If one historian says differently, we don't immediately change everything on that basis, we wait to see if the new theory of what happened is accepted by the consensus. A new theory which is not yet accepted is a WP:FRINGE theory: a single source does not an accepted fact make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No one has said that your addition of trivial awards to the Goring page was "vandalism", which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:VANDALISM). I did say that your continuing to question the editorial consensus regarding it was becoming WP:DISRUPTION. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions: Why do you refer to Mike Miller as "Mike"? Is this someone you know or are connected with? How can you go through 7 years of editing Wikipedia without knowing the very basic stuff you are asking about here and on other talk pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and goodbye

I am sorry if you changed your mind about reviewing my edit request. I judge from your profile that you may not have access too scientific publications online. If that is the case, then perhaps it would be possible for you to visit a university library sometime and have someone help you out. I am not saying this to humiliate you in any way, and I do not expect you to do anything about my edit request, so it is not really about that either. I got curious as to who these hobby scholars could be, and now I know more about that.

Genuine as I try to be here, I will add, with humor, that you are also very arrogant, all of you. Grayfell is the more irritating one, as he is very disingenuous when he argues; your comments are often of much less substance, and so there is little to get upset about.

My last words. Axumtoted (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you felt the need to do a WP:DIVA exit, since those usually only happen with someone who's had a fair amount of experience on Wikipedia, and suddenly feels that they're not appreciated. I'm not sure I've ever seen a newbie with no encyclopedic improvements to their name do a diva dive out the door.

I wish I could say that Wikipedia will miss you, but it really won't: you contributed nothing, so, in all probability, we'll be missing nothing, especially since your vaunted "access to scientific publications" led you to cite unpublished theses, college newspapers, and students' oral presentations as reliable sources we should base the description of a highly controversial organization on. That shows a certain lack of judgment, which is something we really don't need more of around here.

As for "arrogance" -- yeah, I'll cop to a certain amount of that, sure. It stems from 13 years of experience, 230,000 edits, and a fairly deep understanding of the rules, procedures and character of this place. When I look back on my contributions, I can see that I made mistakes, and sometimes may have gone down the wrong path or dug in when I should have conceded, but -- hey! -- I'm a human being, and we all make those kinds of mistakes; hopefully, I've learned from them. What I also see in looking back is a lot of improvements to a lot of articles on a fairly wide variety of subjects, and I'm proud of that. Proud enough that there's really no chance of your making me feel bad with your "it's all your fault" exit, so... mission not accomplished. Maybe you'll have better luck with your next ID. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 13:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Pictures for Nazi Officials

It has come to my attention that the changes you have applied the same changes to Goering across several other biographical articles about Nazi officials. Are these edits based on a consensus decision? If so, can you provide me with a link directing me to it? Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They are based on the fact that we are an encyclopedia and not a Nazi or neo-Nazi propaganda outlet, and should not glorify Nazis by having their pictures be bigger then they need to be to identify the person. I am quite certain that you are not in favor of glorifying Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I explained before, that is not my intention. However, I think there's a fine line between glorifying Nazism and maintaining some level of conformity among the holders of offices spanning Germany's history. Before our disagreement escalates into an edit war, I was hoping we could reach a compromise.

My main issue with shrinking infobox pictures for figures like Hermann Göring , the President of the Reichstag & Vice-Chancellor) and Joachim von Ribbentrop , the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is that they are part of a long line of officeholders which can be traced back to the German Empire. Consequently, for the sake of maintaining continuity, I think the pictures of such figures should be no smaller (OR bigger) than those previously occupying the same office. With that being said, I have no problem letting you shrink images for Nazis whose offices only existed during Hitler's dictatorship. Just to name a few, this would include:

• Rudolf Hess - Deputy Führer of the Nazi Party
• Martin Bormann - Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery
• Alfred Rosenberg- Leader of the Foreign Policy Office of the NSDAP
• Joseph Goebbels - Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War & Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
• Philipp Bouhler- Chief of Chancellery of the the Führer of the NSDAP
• Reinhard Heydrich- Deputy Protector of Bohemia & Moravia

Let me know what you think. Thanks for hearing me out.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Continuity" and "conformity" are extremely poor reasons for glorifying the images of Nazis, which is what you are suggesting, whether you wish to think of it in that manner or not. So Hitler is one of a long line of Reich Chancellors, so what? How many of the previous chancellors was responsible for the death of up to 17 million people, not including those killed in the war Hitler provoked?

I totally reject your apparent contention that Hitler is simply another German Chancellor and should be presented in precisely the same way as the others. We have an obligation to our readers to present the visage of Hitler, but none at all to do so in a way that makes him look dominant and powerful. Nor should we endeavor to choose images that make him look impotent or clownish -- either choice is a violation of NPOV. We should present his image in such as way that it is easily viewable and a good, neutral likeness, but that's the extent of our obligation to the reader.

The same goes for all of Hitler's henchmen, whether they were party officials, collaborating military officers, or those who held ministerial positions. Göring, for instance, was a central figure in the "Aryanization" of German and Austrian businesses, and is not to be forgiven for that simply because he held a ministerial post. I therefore reject "conformity" and "continuity" as acceptable reasons for presenting Nazis of any kind in any but the most basic and utilitarian manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Seeing as how you're unwilling to compromise on the size of the Goering's infobox picture, I am opening a vote on the page's talk page. If you want to share your argument there, you are free to do so.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zionist Organization of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [1]

Thank you for your willingness to improve Wikipedia!Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi BMK, do you know why that references list is appearing on the dispute? The links provided in the dispute do not match the apparent sources. Thanks. Barbarossa139 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

As a reminder, restoring questionably-sourced information to an article when its verification has been challenged can be seen as disruptive editing, as you've done here. I've started a talk page discussion about this problematic sourcing which you should participate in, but I do suggest you self-revert unless you are willing to fully stand by your the edit you made. -- Netoholic @ 13:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I just reminded you that the article is under discretionary sanctions in an edit summary and on your talk page, this "tit-for-tat" warning was obviously unnecessary, as the purpose of such a warning is to assure that the warned editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions - and you already knew that I knew that.

As for your other point, your challenge is wrong on its face, as SPLC is a reliable source on hate groups and does not require an additional source, so I will not be self-reverting.

Finally, thanks to your stunt, you are banned from my talk page. Don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias

Greetings! You seem intent, over several edits and articles, on exposing my perceived Nazi bias and fighting against my alleged attempts to mitigate Hitler's evils. I am hereby placing you on notice that you are failing to assume good faith about my motives, and verging into uncivil territory and this bias of yours is becoming personal against me. If you persist in this course of accusations then I will have to seek dispute resolution against your behavior. I don't mind if you refuse my edit requests and I don't mind if you refute my policy-based arguments or if you decline to agree with my idea of what belongs in articles. But when you base your disagreements on unfounded fantasies and give voice to scurrilious allegations, I feel duty-bound to defend my good name. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What good name is that? You're just a bunch of numbers, you have no name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You are banned from this page. Do not post here again. Any post will be rolled back without reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?

I didn't change the fucking layout, did I? Seriously, what in the flying fuck is your problem? Restore the MOS:LQ you keep reverting or I'll report this—and nobody's going to buy your obviously false claims that I altered the layout—that was obviously a typo that didn't require reverting everything I fucking did. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Look at the article after you edited it here and compare it to the previous state, here. Do I really need to go through the differences?

You can make your LQ changes -- as unnecessary as they are, since LQ is allowed but not required -- just stop screwing around with the layout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's right—I accidentally deleted a vertical bar which presvented an image from floating left. I just fucking said that, didn't I? Are you doing this just to be belligerent? Restore the fucking MOS:LQ already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"Allowed" but not "required"? The fuck is this horseshit? I never "screwed around with the layout", and you're only making yourself look more and more like you're acting in bad faith by continuing to say so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard.

There, are all the curses out of the way now? Can we converse like two rational sentient beings?

You made some edits. The only thing I noticed about them is that you changed image positions and sizes. I'm fully prepared to believe that changing the image was inadvertant, but I didn;t know that then. I worked hard on layuing out that page, so I restored that layout, inadvertantly (one for each of us) deleting your LQ edits, which I didn't know about, or care about. You reverted back, and I reverted again. Then you came here and started cursing at me.

I was in the process of reverting back to your version with the LQ changes combined with my version with the layout, but you didn't have the patience to wait for me to do so, as apparently wanted immediate results and you did it yourself, and I edit conflicted with you.

so, are we all good now? You have the LQ changes you want (which, no, are not required, nothing in MOS is required), and I have the layout which best suits the article. Can we go our separate ways and hopefully not interact again, and if we do, perhaps not go off the rails? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"go off the rails"—that's how I'd describe repeatedly autoreverting every edit another editor makes without any plausible explanation. Admitting you didn't know what you were reverting only makes you look worse—especially given you kept doing it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And the "Bibliography". What are you trying to prove by autoreverting every motherfucking edit I make? You're not even giving a rationale. Are you holding a grudge over something I did or said sometime? Have we had some sort of dispute in the past that you haven't gotten over? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, is it generally your habit to see every difference of opinion as a sign of something deeper than what it appears to be? Such a stance is liable to get you into numerous problems over the course of your editing career. Don't you think that, at least occasionally, it would be a good idea to assume that what you see is what is there. and that it's not a sign that someone is haboring a deep resentment toward you?Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What I see is you editwarring to revert my edits to the article with no rationale and repeated bullshit about how I "screwed with the layout". You seem intent on not answering to this yet keeping my edits out of the article. This is not behaviour I often encounter on Wikipedia. Extraordinary behaviour requires an extraordinary explanation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You can stop now, this discussion is concluded. I;m glad to have finally taken the measure of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Hi BMK -- I see that you reverted my deletion of the Beevor comment about the condition of the "famished prisoners" not being able to walk. It still remains a non sequitur observation in my opinion, especially since the mention of starvation in the preceding sentence was tied to the deaths of the Soviet soldiers in Nazi hands and not part of a discussion of POW camp conditions like the lack of sanitation, rampant dysentery, or such things. Just food for thought...--Obenritter (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's possible I was hasty-- I'll take another look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Vocabulary discussion

Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard. EEng 02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

At your cervix. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dickhead. EEng 02:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That's Mister Dickhead to you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to say . EEng 04:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: "Fubdub". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That has possibilities, actually, for a new template. Fucked Up Beyond something something something'. Or Forever something. Or Fortunately Unsaid something. EEng 05:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fucked Up Beyond Divine Un-fucking something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fucked Up Beyond Divine UnfuckaBility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the handy little book The F Word offers up not only the well-known "SNAFU" and "FUBAR", but also "FUBB" - Fucked Up Beyond Belief, "FUBIO" - Fuck yoU Bub, It's Over, "FIGMO" - Fuck It, Got My Orders, and "FUBIS" - Fuck yoU I'm Shipping out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Any hope for "MIAFUG" - MOS Is A FUcking Guideline, or "MINFUM" - MOS Is Not FUcking Mandatory, or "MINAFUP" - MOS Is Not A FUcking Policy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

{{illm}}

The link to the other language is still there—and much more clearly so. Do you have no experience with {{illm}}? It correctly creates a redlink where there's no article on the English Wikipedia, and makes it clear to the reader that what article there is, is in a different language. The bluelink surprises the reader (who doesn't expect to be taken to a different Wiki, and probably doesn't speak the other language) and does nothing to encourage the turning of redlinks into blue ones (many of us put considerable effort into doing just that). Please see MOS:LINK#Interwiki links, which recommends using this template. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have little experience with that template, and it seems to me to be less than clear to the reader that the very short (2 or 3 letters) language code is the link, and not the much-more-obvious redlink -- but I see from the template doc that is what the template is supposed to do, which is why I self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries

Cited the relevant page (78) in Turner Diaries. The word "gender" is not in the text. The idea in the book is the System no longer recognizes any legal difference between sexes, which angers Turner as well as feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Void138 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Message to Talk Page Stalkers

Would those of you interested in the subject please keep a weather eye on Neo-Nazism? I've grown weary of the shenanigans of the resident tendentious editor there and will be taking a break from monitoring it.

(BTW, FWIW, I'm fine with a consensus of "anti-gay" in the current dispute. I was more annoyed by the ridiculous arguments put forward in favor of it, and by that editor's refusal to follow normal protocols. I cannot speak for any other editor involved, but as someone who -- at times -- has been involved in pro-gay activities, to be told that "homosexual" is essentially a banned word is an extremely annoying bit of political correctness. I'm as liberal as the day is long, but political correctness for the sake of political correctness is something up with which I will not put.)

Anyway, I'm going to keep my blood pressure in check by bypassing the article, so good luck to those who remain to monitor it. And to that particular editor, if you're reading this -- good work, full marks, mission accomplished, at least for a while. Please do keep it up, as the block that will eventually be heading your way will be even longer then, which would be a distinct improvement for Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• BMK, I’m going through a rather hectic time IRL (all good), so I won’t be much use, but I did want to take the opportunity to thank you in general for your work making sure that Wikipedia clearly and accurately describes these groups. It really is a service to the world. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tony, that's really nice of you to say, and I truly appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Interracial marriage

Dear Ken, Now you have deleted my addition to the article Interracial marriage for the second time. The first time you said it was not sourced, so I added a reference to the wikipedia articles Marriage in Israel regarding the situation in Israel and to Religion_in_Lebanon#Current_political_and_religious_issues about Lebanon, but it seems that they do not convince you ? What is the problem? That they are inside wikipedia and you want some outside sources? I find that these wikipedia articles are well-documented (the first one is actually *very* complete). I would be very thankful if you would tell me what was wrong about those sources... please. Or is it in your opinion better to add some newspaper articles (I don't like these so much because you never know it the link will still be active after a few years). Here are a few other possibilities:

Newspaper articles:

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-there-no-civil-marriage-in-israel/
• https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/civil-marriage-in-israel/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/jun/01/middle-eastern-lovers-couples-marrying-cyprus-civil-ceremony

A webpage of a Lebanese lawyer (but I do not think this link will be eternal):

• http://mattarlaw.com/marriage-in-lebanon/#mixed

American Embassy:

• https://il.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/marriage/
• https://lb.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/marriage/

Please tell me if any of these are good for you.

Best wishes Claude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.144.213 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Pretty much site with "wiki" in the name fails our reliable sourcing standards.

All of the sources you cite cover interreligious marriage, I didn't see any mention of race. While Jews are both a religion and an ethnicity, those sources either affirm (or at least remain silent) on the prospect of a gentile who has converted to Judaism being allowed to marry a Jewish person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, maybe I agree. My girl-friend is from Lebanon, and in principle I could easily (?) become a Sunni, and then we could probably get married there, so you're right that interracial marriage is quite different from interreligious ones as you can change your faith but not your race. (Then again the article on interracial marriages suddenly speaks about "intercultural marriages", maybe someone could clean up that part. ;) ).

(talk page stalker)Just interjecting, and somewhat off-topic, but who says you can't change your race? Race is a concept, a (somewhat) agreed-upon categorization. As such, it's a lot like consensus on Wikipedia: it can and does change over time and across groups. And for those who don't fit solidly within the lines someone else has drawn, it is not at all uncommon to fit into different races according to the circumstances. The idea that race is "immutabile" probably comes from old, discredited ideas, but while race is a concept rather than a fact, in general someone else decides it for you rather than giving you the option. Again, apologies for being slightly off-topic, and hope the comments may prove to be useful in some way.Jacona (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And about Judaism I don't know enough to give any statement. From what I understood reading tonight, the necessary pre-condition to be allowed to convert to Judaism is to be from a family that is at least partially Jewish, so it seems to me that they have a de facto interdiction to "interracial marriages". On the other hand, if a Jew and a Christian want to get married in Israel, I guess that the Jew could just as well get baptized and this way there would not be any formal impediment to the marriage anymore. In any case, I do not know anything about this from a first hand source, so I leave it to somebody else to write about this or to nobody at all.

Best wishes Claude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.144.213 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be talking about inter-religious marriages and not inter-racial marriages. "Sunni" is a religious belief, and not a race, Judasim is a religion, but there's a Jewish ethnicity as well, but no Jewish "race". Christianity is a group of religions practiced by people of every conceivable race and ethnicity. I just don't think what you're focusing on has anything to do with Interracial marriage. You might want to read the articles Interfaith marriage, Endogamy, and Exogamy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Assassination or murder?

You reverted of my edit at the William Luther Pierce article on the grounds that “killing for political reasons is assassination.” I'm not smart enough to know which term to apply to the killing of one crazed Nazi lunatic by another — the grandiose "assassination" or the humdrum "murder." I changed "assassination" to "murder" simply because the act is called a “murder”, not an assassination, at the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Heads up: If you feel strongly about it, you should edit George Lincoln Rockwell to call his death an assassination there as well. Chisme (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just whatever you do, don't change the bit about the train [2]. EEng 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that about the "making the trains run on time" being false, but it hardly surprises me that it was propaganda and not fact.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Mythical claims of achievement and excellence – yet another parallel to Trump. EEng 04:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chsime: It appears that the killing happened because the guy was expelled from the party, so it was based on a personal grudge, not a political motive. I've reverted myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C. K. G. Billings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Riverside Drive and Vanadis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

AE

Regarding your statement at AE about the number of reports filed in EE topic area: you are absolutely correct. Since April 20th of this year, 2018, there have been TEN ELEVEN AE reports in the topic area. If you want to find previous ones, you have to go all the way back to April of 2017. Between April 2015 and April 2017 there were FIVE reports in the topic area and iirc, two of them got dismissed as out of scope. So in the past three months there have been twice as many AE reports as in the three years between 4/15 and 4/18!

Why? Well, March 2018 is when Icewhiz began editing the topic area aggressively. He really entered it in Jan 2018 but didn't really get going till March. Icewhiz has been party to all TEN reports of the last three months, either as filer or as target (once as a commentator). And he's come into conflict with pretty much every single editor that's been active in this topic for years. From Malik Shabazz, to Piotrus, to myself, to a bunch of other people that don't even show up to AE (User Chumchum7 and Nihili Novi for example). It's basically Icewhiz and Francois Robere against the world. And they're both uncompromising, machavellian in their edits and pursuit of sanctions, and very loose with sources. Neither one has been willing to use traditional dispute resolution venues such as RSN or NPOVN.

The proliferation of AE reports, at least those filed by Icewhiz has been in large part due to the fact that he's been given a pass and enabled by some of the admins there. Once he got one of his opponents sanctioned he realized what a powerful tool AE can be in "winning" content disputes and has proceeded to utilize it (I've said several times before that often, applying discretionary sanctions to contentious topic areas is like exporting sophisticated weaponry to war torn nations - it makes the battlegrounds worse, not better... at least until one side eliminates the other).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't followed the subject area closely enough to know from my own evaluation whether your analysis is correct or not, but I'm perfectly willing to believe it could be. I take your point about DS being like bringing modern weaponry to a primitive battlefield, but I think -- at least in this case -- that results from the apparent unwillingness of admins to actually use the tools that DS gives them. After all, the weapons are supposed to be there for the peacekeepers, and not for the combatants. Your claim that certain admins are actually enabling disruptive editing is a disconcerting one, and if it's one that can be nailed down with iron-clad evidence, I would see that (if true) as desysopable actions which should be brought to a full Arbitration case. Actually, now that I think of it, a full case specifically for Poland in WWII might be necessary in any event, even though (at least theoretically) it should fall under ARBEE. Perhaps that's something you should think about. Your actions will come under scrutiny as well, of course, but if you initiate the case, you can define its scope, at least initially, and include the actions of those admins as part of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not enabling him out of malice or bias. They're enabling him out of plain ol' incompetence. Unfortunately, incompetence has never been a sufficient reason for a desysopping and it probably never will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I thought you were saying that they were taking sides and doing it deliberately. No, you're right, incompetence won't get the bit taken away. Fortunately (YMMV), I haven't come across all that many incompetent admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• BMK - single comment - I got involved after I noticed extremely shoddy sourcing (Ewa Kurek the self-published Mark Paul - see RSN) throughout the entire topic area, and defamatory hoaxes in mainspace - e.g. Stawiski (was this) or Radziłów (was this) - both of which presented anti-Jewish pogroms by Poles as Jewish persecution of Poles, followed by a German massacre (with little or no Polish involvement) of Jews. The topic area being in a "stable" state with outright hoaxes and use of non-RS (described as myth propagating to boot) - is not a state that should remain "stable".Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• How did you know to post here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have your talk page watch listed (from a few months back - either following our interaction at Holocaust denial or at ANI - don't remember) - and I've responded, briefly, on some other user talk pages who have commented at AE. I had also thought on commenting on the "ban them all" comments previously. I wanted to clarify my intentions in this topic area - in which I've been adding quite a bit of well sourced material. The tone of my comments could've been better at times, but one does get frustrated when trying to replace questionable sources(at times even a WP:QS WP:SPS, which is misrepresented to boot) with strongly sourced material.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I want to be absolutely fucking clear about this: my user talk page will not become the next battleground location in the Polish/WWII dispute, and especially it will not take comments from registered editors using IPs to hide their identity, as the comment that was just deleted obviously was. I reiterate my call for admins to step up their efforts to police this subject area and start to deal out topic bans and blocks more generously then they have to this date.
  Volunteer Marek, do not edit my talk page, that privilege is mine alone, with the exception of the removal of obvious vandalism and personal attacks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Erwin Rommel

Beyond My Ken, my "sin" before ArbCom is that I made an observation of apparent conduct at a talk page and not at the users page. This was an observation of appearance that could and has been objectively supported in good faith.

1. You made it very clear to me that my contribution and attempt to resolve an issue at Rommel was unwelcome - if not by you revert comment, then by your subsequent post to the TP.
2. I percieve that you comments in that first post to be personalised, fall to ad hominem and consequently cross the threshold of being a personal attack.
3. In consideration of the afore, I suggest that your allegation of Battlegroundy editing to be quite inappropriate in the context of your own posts and actions.
4. A discussion was already open that directly pertained to the tag I placed. Your reverting the Tag, without resolving the issue or further discussion would appear to be out of the BRD cycle. Consequently, your implied allegation of edit warring also appears inappropriate in this context.

You may wish to reconsider your comments at the talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No thanks, my comments were appropriate to your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question...

I’ll not edit war over it, but there was an RFC where the consensus was to get the short descriptions onto en wiki rather than held on wiki data. There’s a wiki project, I believe. Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems fairly useless to me. With an article titles Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, how does the short description "Discussion of theories about the sexual behavior of Adolf Hitler" add any real information. Still, if it's to block WikiData, I'll restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

feel free to reword the description...that’s one reason for the adding of it here so that it can be edited and controlled here rather than on Wikidata. I’ve been putting them in on all the articles on my watchlist and I’ve run across some real howlers from Wikidata ...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted without changing it. Do the short descriptions get displayed somewhere? And shouldn't they be at the top of the article rather than at the botoom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

they are displayed on mobile view and there’s a gadget/script that will show them for you on desktop...pretty sure you can find it on the wikiproject page. I put it at the bottom, some put it at the top, I’m not sure there is a set place yet. I prefer it at the bottom as less clutter for newb editors..Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Cliff on Astor Place

Based on previous edits I believe you may have access to Nigel Cliff's The Shakespeare Riots: Revenge, Drama, and Death in Nineteenth-Century America? Astor Place Riot has one para that's attributed in prose to Cliff, but lacks a cite; and one other cite to Cliff that lacks a page number. I've been unable to find a copy of Cliff anywhere I have access to, so if you could dig up those cites it'd be much appreciated. I might be able to ce+re-cite the one with the missing page to a different source, but the uncited para specifically summarises Cliff so there's not much option there. --Xover (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book, so I can't help you - sorry. I will take a look and see if it's available in the New York Public Library system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cool Hand Luke Martin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cool Hand Luke Martin.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) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of Fort Tyron Park

No need to reply, but regarding Special:Diff/849452487, I had figured that since pages like Bryant Park, Washington Square Park, The Battery (Manhattan), Central Park, and Gramercy Park had more elaborate descriptions that Fort Tryon Park deserved a better description itself. I figured I won't get into an edit war about this, but thought the description wasn't really disagreeable. Cheers, 184.153.25.119 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hitler

You were right BMK, on Hitler being a revolutionary. Been reading the sources including one one you gave. I was wrong. I have put put Pan German before "Revolutionary" in the AH lede. Kinda cuts the allure of the R word! Also I support keeping those cats in the article which the I.P seems to want to slash. There might be a touch of whitewashing there but i'm AGF'ing.. All the cats can be sourced and the article expanded thereby. I will do it. I just thought I would drop you a T/P note on these little points. Regards, Irondome (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thnaks for the note, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your revisions of Alt-Right

Ummm... It's the other way around. I dispute Doublehammy's edits. I have no love for the Alt-Right and MGTOWs and less for neonazi's, but it's counter productive to lump them all together into a giant wall of text. Please reconsider. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you made substantial changes to a controversial article. They were objected to, and you now need to go to talk, justify your edits, and get a consensus for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I'm officially flabbergasted, after reverting changes I objected to. But still, I'll discuss things at great length and explain my edits tomorrow. It's 3AM here. You do realize you put back at least one BLP-violation (Samuel Woodward) there? He's now a neo-nazi, according to Wikipedia w/o any source to back that up. He's not even mentioned in either of the sources cited. Kleuske (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's sourced, and any number of other sources are available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

DoubleHammy

That's easy. Just follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the :yellow brick road.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd've known that, if I only had a brain! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• LOL.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Despite his voluntary interaction ban Winkelvi continues to hound me on Commons, jumping in when I'm trying to discuss something with other editors and bludgeoning the process [1] [2] [3] [4]. He appears to be trying harder and harder to get a reaction out of me. I haven't responded. Given the reasons explained in my ANI report, I assumed that his IBan extended to Commons. Is that not the case? Any help would be greatly appreciated. nagualdesign 20:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He's following me around here too. I strongly suspect he has my contributions bookmarked, turning up on talk pages minutes after I've posted there [5]. No doubt he'll be reading this in a moment. I don't want to have to spend all week collecting diffs then trying to convince uninvolved editors that there's a pattern to his behaviour. nagualdesign 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, a couple of things:

• I want to be certain that you know that I am not an admin. I closed the AN/I discussion as a NAC - non-admin closure.
• I'm sure that as a long-timer you know that sanctions on en.wiki have no bearing on Commons or vice versa. To deal with the Commons stuff, I suggest you contact an admin you trust over there -- preferably one who's an admin on both projects -- and explain the circumstances, with diffs
• The only thing I see here on en.wiki is the one talk page !vote you noted, in which Winkelvi didn't mention you at all, so I do not think that it's a violation of a standard interaction ban, per WP:IBAN. If I'm wrong, and there's something in that comment that is an indirect mention of you that I missed, I would bring it to a trusted admin here and point them to the page where the voluntary IBan is logged.

Sorry I can't be more helpful - I certainly know how annoying it can be to feel as if you're being followed around. Some of my talk page stalkers are admins, so one of them may pick up on this, but at the moment, as far as I can see, Winkelvi hasn't violated the voluntary one-way interaction ban he entered into here on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah.. I always assumed that you were an admin! My mistake. Re. the second post I left above, I realize that it's only skirting around the edges of his IBan so isn't actionable in itself. Posting it here, with the expectation that Winkelvi would probably read it moments later, was a way of (hopefully) nipping it in the bud before it begins. nagualdesign 23:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

William Mulholland

Hello, a quick query relating to the edit on William Mulholland which was reverted. Is there a better way to mention the UK in the body of the article? Kind regards, Whizz40 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I restored your edit and tweaked it a little. See what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Reads better, thanks. Whizz40 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

National Action: Details of July 2018 Court ruling

Hi there, I noticed you've recently undid my revision to the National Action page, which included details of the July 2018 Court Case. I've now raised this issue on the National Action Talk Page so that we can try and build a consensus about what to include. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks! Jono1011 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		For extensive work supporting and maintaining the quality of the pages National Socialism and Fascism. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 19 July 2018.

• Thanks, it's much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Bellows Falls, Vermont

At Bellows Falls, Vermont you continue to revert changes that were made to clean up the article and make it more inline with the MOS and with guidelines that have already gained consensus by many editors. This is not a "BRD", as you stated here, but a "BMK". There is nothing "bold" about reducing image sizes to 220px, and stating in an edit summary "resized/right justified images, per MOS:IMAGE". I am contacting you on your talk page, rather than on the article talk page, per WP:DDE. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page as required. A reminder that "cleaning up" is not one of the permissable reasons to edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I was exlicit in my edit summaries, which mentioned WP:EL (a guideline), MOS:IMAGES (Manuel of Style), and WP:LINKFARM (policy). Please do not use WP:BRD, which as you know, is a Wikipedia essay and not policy, to hinder the work of another editor. If you have concerns about my cleanup, discuss them on the article talk page. I'm urging you to please not edit war. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page, as required, so that all interested editors can participate. Disputed changes should not be restored until there is a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Magnolia, both "not a 'BRD' but a 'BMK'" and your reference to WP:DDE are extremely rude. You were probably upset and stressed, to say stuff like that, but even so — "Dealing with disruptive editors", really? Bishonen | talk 20:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC).

OMG! Did I say that? I'm soooo sorry Ken! Bishonen thank you for admonishing me, and skipping all the concerns I mentioned. This will certainly improve Bellows Falls, Vermont for Wikipedia's readers. Nice work! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion really serves no purpose. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I think "pulling a BMK" is kind of funny; I note also that Magnolia is pulling a BMK with their use of bold print. Only thing missing is the underlining. Magnolia, please don't be so flippant. I tried that tactic before--it doesn't usually work. You're a good editor, so is BMK. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hey @Drmies:, thanks for popping in.
  A "good editor"? - well, I'll have to take your word for it, to me his editing seems rather too MOS-hardlinish and inflexible for my taste, but maybe that's because I've only come across him in situations like this one, where his drive-by edits attempt to enforce MOS without discussion or consensus. In any case, good, bad, or indifferent, I've just learned that, by his own admission on his own talk page, [3] he's an editor who is not inclined to follow WP:BRD - which could explain why he gets into the kind and number of disputes he's been involved in.
  (Strangely enough, I first came across M677 on AN/I, to which he was taken over a long, dragged-out dispute in which I sided with him over Alansohn. Now I have the worst of both worlds: Alansohn's never forgiven me, saying that I am "the worst thing that's ever happoened to Wikipedia", and I've been the guy on the other side of a dispute with M677 a number of times, so I obviously scored no points with him.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Confirming Legal Definitions of Islands w/ Appropriate Citations

Hello BeyondMyKen. I am contacting you here to let you know that I have made a few changes to the Island article, including some expansions and a few inputted citations, in particular to the Legal definition of an island section. I also included references. Please let me know if you have any problem with these, etc. or would like to add some mention of these in the lead-in section. I am a Wikipedia Fellow and have been advised that this may be the best course to take. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate the amount of work you have put in. Beutber (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

COI allegation

Your recent revision of one of my edits to Rob Brezsny included the comment "You have a COI and should not be editng this article". I do not believe I have a conflict of interest wrt this article/person. What leads you to assert that? Can you direct me to any evidence or indication of a COI in this regard? Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My reasons are clearly stated in the AN/I discussion. I have nothing further to add. Please don't edit the article directly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is AfD and I am the editor that has added the majority of independent 3rd party reliable sources in citations to that article. Prohibiting me from editing and improving the article while it is up for AfD seems unfair. I'm trying to locate any specific action or comment or edit of mine that would lead you to believe I have a conflict of interest with respect to Rob Brezsny. Your comment in the AN/I discussion is as follows: " Your comments here and on the article talk page show quite clearly that you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rob Brezsny, in that you are obviously incapable of adhering to a neutral point of view concerning them. Whatever the reason is for this, I have no idea, but the inability to edit neutrally is very apparent. I would suggest that you follow the recommended procedures in the WP:COI policy and do not edit the Rob Brezsny article again, instead making suggestions for edits on the talk page, and allowing other, unbiased, editors decide whether to implement them." Could you direct me to any comment or action or edit that supports that point of view? Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having a discussion with you on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Unreadable talk page.png

Thanks for uploading File:Unreadable talk page.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Honorary Aryan

I cannot understand your use of WP:TW to revert the reliable source I added. Is "no consensus" a good reason to roll-back to a fake version on en.WP ? Being assumed you accepted on the AfD page a rewriting of the page to make is more exact ? Thanks to explain your position on tha talk-page.--Pa2chant. (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for an explaination from you on the talk page, as the person who made the changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There was an explanation here and there. I added this today. But you did not answer : Is "no consensus" a good reason to roll-back to a fake version on en.WP ? Being assumed you accepted on the AfD page a rewriting of the page to make is more exact ? --Pa2chant. (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There was no determination that it was "fake" and, yes, lack of consensus is a very good reason to revert (not "rollback") an edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A contributor said it's a quasi-hoax, and the source says such a status did not exists, and that "honorary Aryan" was just an expression. But if YOU hence object to the change, it would be fair you explain why. No consensus means just YOU don't agree, but it does not explainwhy don't you agree ? --Pa2chant. (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No, "no consensus" means that there are not a sufficient number of editors who agree with your position. This discussion should be taking place on the talk page and not here, so please don't post here about ti again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you good with Latin? Regarding the Latin translations (Tottenham Hotspur)

I was taught to use Lit. or Lit: When writing the English translation of the Latin, being that 'Lit' is referring to the 'letters of' , does that mean I was taught wrong? Also the est 'to be' changes to 'Is to' on the translation, should the 'I' on 'is' be lowercase or uppercase? Govvy (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a Latin class. We translate many foreign phrases into English, and the general case is that we simply put the English translation into parens after the foreign phrase, and we use "literally, spelled out, if there's a difference between a literal translation and an idiomatic one, but the idiomatic one is preferred. There's no reason that Latin should be any different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To Beyond my Ken

What the fuck are you doing with the Wikipedia article of Anne Frank. You shall not make mistakes. Sreeveen (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that are fucking areound with it, and I am closely examining all your previous edits right now, to see if you are a vandalism only account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries be good

Seems in your recent revert at Lap dance here you failed to explain your reasoning - no edit summary. I've undone that as it seems files (pictures) should be formatted to be adjustable depending on a user's preferences rather than a fixed size. Could you explain your reasoning? Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And what about the vast number of readers who do not have accounts anf therefore cannot adjust their image size? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My God! I've just found out you're an admin!! Good gracious. I'd expect an admin to have more sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - seems having "more sense" ain't one of the requirements :) And (as I said elsewhere) all they gotta do is click on the pretty image ... and there she be. But, maybe we shouldn't expect anons to think of that - I dunno. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My philosophy is that we should never require click-through. The images in our articles should always be presented at a reasonable size that makes the content visually understandable to any reader, even those without accounts. If they want an even larger version, fine, they can then click through, just as they can click-through to references if they want more information, but not providing them with images that are easily understanable for the information they provide is a distinct disservice to our readers, who are the sole and only reason we are here in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Yes, quite shocking to observe this discussion, its participants, and their actions over this. I would have expected all involved to be intimately familiar with Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes. But maybe this is just an elaborate conspiracy between the two of you to troll me? That's it, right? You're just trolling me? Right? Right…? :) --Xover (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, you're citing a help page as an authority. Please. Your trout is sent back as under-cooked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well… No? I'm citing a help page to explain how image thumbnails work. In particular the bit where it says that if you use |upright=1.2 you're in effect scaling the thumbnail up 20% relative to the default thumbnail size for both logged in and non-logged in users without the drawbacks that hardcoding a specific number of pixels has. In other words, you can both achieve your desired aim without any compromise. But, hey, if y'all would prefer to keep reverting eachother that's cool with me too. :) --Xover (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know quite well how "upright" works, thanks, but it really doesn't solve the problem for the masses, does it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly possible that I have misunderstood; in which case I apologize for the intrusion. But I took your aim to be to increase the size of the images for legibility, in a way that affected both logged in users and non-logged in users, without requiring anyone to click through to the image page. |upright=scaling factor achieves that (|upright=1.6 will result in a 352px thumbnail for all users; see WP:THUMBSIZE for details). Unlike, say, changing the thumbnail size in the preferences which, obviously, only works for logged in users. Incidentally, if I did misunderstand then I would appreciate an explanation as I genuinely can't think of any circumstance where hard-coding a pixel size would be necessary over using |upright= with a scaling factor (it defaults to 0.8 when no scaling factor is given, because it used to be only for portrait-format images, which is rarely what you want). --Xover (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it seems more likely that I have misunderstood, and that you are correct. I'll take that trout now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I still have your fries though? :) --Xover (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well... OK, but only if I can have some of your shake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors illustrating an optimal consensus process.

"A big chocolate shake with two straws, please." --Xover (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Article: Nordic race

re: POV edit

First of all, thanks for your efforts to build and maintain Wikipedia. You appear to be a very accomplished user; thank you for your valuable contributions to human knowledge.

The sentence that was reverted:

"Advances in population genetics have further refined some of the proto-genetic European racial categorisations of the early 20th century as epitomized by Hans F. K. Günther's European race map of 1922 which bears a remarkable resemblance to 21st century haplogroup maps."

Thank you for diligently monitoring the article and ensuring all edits conform to Wiki editing policies. I like your objective tone.

My goal is to clarify the progression from 20th century to 21st century thinking about the genetic landscape of Europe. The relevant genomics literature, far from "further undermining" racial categories, has been criticized for reviving them. A neutral POV would indicate continual refinement of population science from proto-genetic theories to the present-day haplogroups. What would be a neutral way to convey that?

I agree that it's a POV, but it's intended to be a neutral POV (in accordance with the norms of an encyclopedia). It is the view of the genomics community that haplogroups should be used in place of race as population descriptors. That is the fundamental message of the sentence I constructed, which is also supported by the existing references in the paragraph. For the article about the "Nordic race," it seems fitting to point out how views have evolved with the emergence of population genetics. The two maps included in the article bear a striking resemblance despite being from different centuries. The connection between old "race" categories and new "population" categories has been noted in the genomics literature. That is the idea I'm trying to convey.

As a possible solution, I could change the wording of the sentence to be more reflective of the specific language of the referenced material. I could also include the sources below to better support the statement.

For more clarification, I've added two additional references which discuss the progression from race to haplogroup as population labels. The NYT piece linked below also discusses the reemergence of racialist categorization in the age of population genetics. Please have a look at these references and let me know what you conclude.

New sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html https://www.genome.gov/10001683/ethical-issues-in-developing-a-haplotype-map-with-socially-defined-populations/

Existing sources which support a new sentence that conveys "refine" as opposed to "undermine" (specific reference to "undermining" European racial/ethnic categories is not described in any of the references in the article): http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&

Regards,

BDS2006 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You edit was reverted because it was unsourced and (presumably) represented your own personal opinion, hence your "POV". This is not allowed on Wikipedia - please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Do not restore the edit without providing a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to produce a sentence that conveys the continuity of interest in human classification which gave rise to the Nordic concept in the first place. What was called the "Nordic race" a century ago may now be called R-U106. Genomics has refined the crude categorizations of the past. Please check the linked sources or see the relevant excerpt below:

"True, genetics has led to real breakthroughs in medicine, but it is also the latest in a centuries-long effort to understand biological differences. “In a sense, genetics is a modern version of what early scientists were doing in terms of their studies of skulls or blood type,” says Ann Morning, a sociologist at New York University."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/genetics-race-ancestry-tests/510962/

Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

BDS2006 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please argue your point on the talk page, concisely. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that any edit to the contents of the article would be contentious, I settled for "citation needed" as an interim solution. It appears even that is contentious. I have presented my argument for doing so on the talk page, as you requested. The original objection to my edit ("unsourced POV") is not a valid objection for existing material in the article? BDS2006 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page please. BMK knows a lot, but not everything, and his talk page is so obscure, no one looks at it. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So true, so true, it's not at all like ANI2 over at your place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I presented my case in the article's talk page; I'll let the community take it from here. Thanks to both of you for the civil exchange and for your prolific contributions to WP. Please excuse my ineptitude. BDS2006 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No apology necessary, BDS. Your contributions are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics – pseudomedicine?

Please note the title of the Template:Alternative medicine sidebar, not just the template location. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics is not "pseudomedicine" it is a pseudoscience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

MPD

If you have good evidence of socking, then file. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert to David Duke

The source is a Ron Stallworth phone conversation with David Duke. There is nothing using Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources prohibiting the use of Entertainment Weekly as a source.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires.[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles."

On the other hand, I'll agree with your revert and drop the subject if you can point out how Entertainment Weekly is questionable under that definition. And if you're going to cite your warning on your talk page, you made a revert that's questionable under Wikipedia rules, and you need to hear about it. --Guiletheme (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion should be on the article talk page, not my user talk page, but I'm opening a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is rude, unhelpful, ultimately achieves nothing, and will get you blocked again. Are you sure this is what you want to do? --John (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually. @John:, believe it or not, no, that was not what I intended to do. To be honest, I considered doing it, because I think you're entirely wrong about images needing to be all the same size (I think every image should get the space it needs to properly present its visual material), but I took a quick look at the article and decided I could live with it, so my intention was to do nothing. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly how I hit whatever button I hit to revert it.

I've self-reverted. My thanks for bringing it to my attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Fort DeSoto Park

Hi! Looking at your recent edit to Fort DeSoto Park...I agree with your edit caption, that 3 infoboxes seems excessive! However, of the infoboxes that are left, neither reflects the article title and current state as a park, home to arguably the "best beach in the USA" (although the red tide is lurking only a few miles away)! It's complicated, because this is really three articles in one, Should it be split into more than one article? I know you're good at this stuff... Could you consider giving it a second look? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don;t think splitting itup is a good idea, but I will take another look at some point to see if there's a batter solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless efforts to keep sock puppets, and Neo-Nazis "at bay" on Wikipedia and for removing non-WP:RS additions and cites. Carry on, Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek, that's especially important to me because of who it comes from! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thirded. (is that a word?) You do a damn good job keeping arseholes from disrupting Nazi-related articles and keeping trash wording and sources out of them BMK. Respect. Irondome (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks folks, it's all in a day's work! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not built by slaves is mainstream thinking now

[4][5][6][7] took 60 seconds, I am sure I can find more but need to go out. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Move at Helmuth James von Moltke

Hi Beyond, I wanted to thank you for your move 0f Helmuth James von Moltke, which I supported at Talk:Helmuth James von Moltke#Requested Move: "Graf" should not be in article title, where I received pushback on the idea. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I happen to see a reference to him in a book I'm reading, and was surprised at the non-English naming convention used in the article title. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Gertrude Stein

I am not here to complain but rather to comment on the substance of what Stein meant when she wrote about Oakland. She was not speaking of Oakland as a whole but rather about the specific neighborhood of her childhood. She grew up on a bucolic ten acre parcel, her childhood home surrounded by orchards. When she returned to Oakland 45 years later, she tried to find her childhood home, and she found that it and the orchards were gone, and there were dozens of newer homes that had been built on those ten acres. The notion that she was denouncing Oakland as a boring, anodyne city that cannot compare with Paris (or San Francisco) is a common but incorrect misreading. See this explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, but it's good to know. If I use the expression again, I'll do so in a general sense with her meaning, and not about Oakland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Leave it to Cullen to ruin a good story. Funny, all these years I thought this was what WP:NOTHERE referred to. EEng 01:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to be of service, EEng. If it is of any consolation, I first read NOTHERE as "no there" as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I still do sometimes. "NOTHERE" is visually semantically amibiguous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really think that, but I'm willing to lie a bit for a slight joke. See also [8] EEng 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Only a bit on user talk pages, I hope, EEng. Do we have an article on "truth is not truth" yet? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Only twice have I made joke edits in article space; see User:EEng#Museum_of_Naughty_Edits. If you can come up with sufficient sourcing for T-is-not-T, I'll do the hooking. EEng 02:21, 27 August 2018 (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. Bright☀ 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers: Please note that I've asked the above editor in the past to enter into a voluntary mutual IBan between us, but they refused to do so, on the grounds that I needed to be taught a lesson, and they were concerned for my future as Wikipedia editor if they weren't able to carry out that task. [9] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Trans women were identified as "men"

I don't follow the logic of your edit summary.[10] With gender reassignment surgery unavailable, a trans woman would have appeared (from her anatomy) to be a "man", not a woman. If arrested for wearing women's clothing (licenses for that were suspended in 1933), or for having sex with a "another" man, they would have been considered "homosexuals" by the authorities, then tagged like any other legally-male sex offender at the camps: with a pink triangle.

Also, the cited source is not a blog. TGDOR.org is an event site published by the Transgender Foundation of America. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My basic point is that the Nazis didn't even admit to the possibility that female homosexuality existed, so the only homosexuals that were locked up were men or people that appeared to them to be men. I can come up with a cite for that -- from an historian, and not from an advocacy group -- if you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible you're mixing up terminology in your head? This isn't talking about female homosexuals. It's talking about transgender women. They were (as you put it) "people that appeared to them to be men", and if arrested for having sex with a man, were tagged with a pink triangle. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence, from a neutral reliable source, that this ever happened? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you still asking about lesbians being arrested and sent to camps, or do you get now that this is about trans women? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Either one, actually. I have always "gotten" the difference between a lesbian and a trans woman, the belief that I don't understand that is totally in your head. I am asking you to provide some factual evidence from a neutral reliable source that a trans woman, a person who appeared to the Nazis to be a woman, was arrested, sent to a concentration camp, and was required to wear the pink triangle. I'd also like evidence, if there is any, that this fate befell lesbians as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I see the point where we're not understanding each other: When you write "a trans woman, a person who appeared to the Nazis to be a woman", that reads as a contradiction to me. That's because in 1930s Germany, almost every trans woman (I'm aware of two exceptions) had a penis. Very few (probably none by the late 1930s) had access to hormone treatments. If one were arrested and strip searched, she would not have been identified by a hostile German police officer as a woman. She was, in the eyes of German law, a "man". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer

I'm currently going through LTA and archiving old cases; As you seem to have encountered this guy before, is he still active? I'm not able to tell based off of the LTA page itself.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 04:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Money emoji: I haven't seen anything from them in quite a while, so I think it's safe to be archived -- it can always be taken out if they resurface. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to historical revisionism

See Talk:Historical revisionism#New moral findings = negationism? there, please. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

108.34.206.74 - thanks for the link. I found it interesting to read Talk:Historical revisionism#RfC: Is there a distinct historiography by the name of "historical revisionism"?. It was a pity that User:Ludvikus got himself blocked.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Observation

I get the feeling that BrightR does not like me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, one of those days. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Streicher and sock puppets

Well, that makes sense. Since the material added came from a highly reliable source (my book on Streicher....), I thought it was a reasonable addition. But, as I think about it, since it was from my work I probably should have left well enough alone, aside from the sock puppetry. Bytwerk (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the EPN sock used two valid sources, Kershaw and your book (sorry, didn't even realize you were the author of that source - I'm so used to see pseudonyms on Wikipedia, and "Bytwerk" read quickly looked like the possibly computer-related "Bytewerk" to me).

The deal here is that the edits of banned editors are removable on sight, which is why I removed it, but that editors in good standing can restore those edits, as long as they take responsibility for them, as if they were their own. You can restore the material, but, frankly, I don't think we need the quote from your book, which merely repeats what the previous paragraph says. No problem with restoring the first section only, sourcing it to Kershaw and your book - just use the edit summary to say that you're taking responsibility for the edit. Or, if you feel awkward doing that because you are one of the sources, let me know and Ill be happy to take care of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your (first) reversion of my edits to "Bazooka (instrument)"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my move of the {{refimprove}} template to the top of the article. I recall that you point out that the MOS is a guideline, but would like to point out that the template itself recommends that it be placed at the top of of an article to which it applies. I agree with this because if it is placed in the "References" (etc.) section it is buried at or near the bottom of the article. When it is at the top it draws more attention to the problem, especially in larger articles and in narrower browser windows, which push the citations section further down, often out of immediate view. Also, since the references' code is not usually physically in that section, but scattered throughout the article next to the statements they are supporting, it makes more sense to me to place that cleanup template at the top.

Would you please be so kind as to explain your views on this subject, as a cursory examination of this page does not yield an answer, nor does your main user page? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used by readers. Wikipedia is edited by editors. For the most part -- with the possible excepotion of the NPOV tag -- clean up tags put at the top of an article mean nothing to our readers, they just get in the way of reading the article, and disfigure it in the process. That information is of interest to editors, and the place where editors interested in fixing references look is at the bottom of the article, where the references are, which is where it makes sense to put the refimprove tag -- near the references that need improving.

We write Wikipedia for the readers who use it, and not for the editors who edit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder: aren't editors also users, and shouldn't something useful to them be dealt whit a bit more considerately? As you say, BMK, many templates at the top of a page mean little or nothing to non-editing users, but are very usefully located for editors. 95.248.230.230 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't make the encyclopedia for editors, we make it for our readers, and their needs are paramount. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A case can be made for the argument that what makes life easier to editors helps the readers. 95.248.230.230 (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A case can be made that Donald Trump is an excellent President, but like your speculation, it is false. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I have little interest in debating with an editor with an account who edits with an IP to hide their identity, so there's no need to continue this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your privilege. Mine is to edit without an account. 95.248.230.230 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And it's mine, also, to doubt that is the case, or, at the very least, to suspect that you edit under multiple IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that I do - I got my IPs allocated dynamically. 95.248.230.230 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Halayeb

Why don't you want to mention and highlight the name that is used by the locals themselves and is used often in English? I don't understand. Maybe it wasn't appropriate for me to do it before getting consensus, but let's come to an agreement then. I gave you more than one reference and proofs for my point. If you even go to the Arabic Wikipedia article it is only called "حلايب" (Halayeb), never Hala'ib. Hala'ib would be the Standard Arabic version of the word but seriously the name of the region (even when mentioned in Standard Arabic contexts as in the Arabic Wikipedia article for example) is its Egyptian/Sudanese version, not the Standard Arabic word. So it is worth highlighting the name as it is actually spoken I believe. MatthewS. (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Using it once, in the lede sentence, as "also known as....", is reasonable but from there on in the consensus version should be used. It's usually not a terribly good idea to make WP:BOLD edits when an RfC or a RM is underway, unless you announce it well in advance and wait to see what reaction you get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

AH

Technically you're at 3 reverts. Be careful not to accidentally cross the line. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Howard Dean

Thank you for your restoring the terminology use by the Democratic Party to this article. Perhaps it would have been better to leave "This editor is pedantic in the extreme." out of your edit summary in the spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Correct advice to that editor might have been: "Please check sources before assuming that the notation is incorrect." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions / Norman Finkelstein

Hi, could you explain this edit and your edit summary "Please take a look at the name of our article"? If the "name of our article" is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, it would make sense to write "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement" or "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS movement)", but not "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS)" especially with a uppercase "M". Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct - I have reverted my edit. Sorry about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha - you gave me pause...

At Alex's departure discussion, I said "mirror", but I read your comment just now, and I actually meant to say "echo", not mirror, and then it made me think...lorty - I hope my use of "mirror" isn't interpreted as being backwards or opposite others. 😳 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that never occurred to me. I read it the way I think you meant it, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop your nonsense

I am not amused by your ridiculous edit on the alt-right page. I am really not amused by your characterization of my edits as POV. You have done this to me before. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now. Stop your nonsense. I am not going to put up with it. SunCrow (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am here to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and could give a shit if you are "amused" or not. Your edit on Spencer was definitely POV, and it's been reverted by another editor. Don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

I noticed your recent reversion of my deletion of the phrase on this page containing the word 'unfortunately'.

While I agree with the reasoning in your edit summary about why the word was used, I nevertheless still think it's editorializing, which is almost always true when 'unfortunately' is used. I think it's better to delete the phrase because as the Manual of Style says, "Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not." The wording is also problematic because of its impartiality or point of view, which is only that of the American side. To be scrupulously even-handed, it should be followed by 'and unfortunately for the Japanese'. I'm being only halfway serious about that; it simply doubles the editorializing, and it's best to just state only the events.

My point of view is strictly that of a copy editor – which is always supposed to be neutral. I urge you to reconsider the reversion.

Thanks and regards,

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in the vast majority of cases, "unfortunately" will turn out to be a editorialization on the part of the editor, which causes an opinion to be expressed in Wikipedia's voice, however, in this case, there is near unanimity among historians that the Japanese failure to completely achieve their goals in the attack on Pearl Harbor allowed the United States to recover relatively quickly from the attack, and eventually to defeat Japan. Thus "unfortunately" in this particular case is not an editorializing opinion in Wikipedia's voice, it expresses the consensus view of historians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing

You're very welcome. I'm glad we're on the same side. It's a treacherous subject area with unfathomable amounts of Wehraboo bullshit and general bad history, and it needs all the diligence and intellectual rigor Wikipedia can muster. Damvile (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Bavaria

The red star is completely unsourced. What I added was the actually coat of arms of Bavaria at that time period. I know we need to find out if it was used by the government at the time, but legally that was the coat of arms of the predecessor and successor state.Themane2 (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's going into the infobox without a citation from a reliable source for that specific polity. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You'll be waiting a while. Themane2 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Better to present no information than wrong information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Kurtagić

If you aren't busy (I'm trying to replace my dead car!), this article needs the SPLC source added and this clearly reliable source which says "24 One interesting example is Alex Kurtagk. a neo-fascist writer from Slovenia, described by Metapedia as "a radical traditionalist. racial-realist, ditist. pro-White activist*. With cxpliot reference to 'Austrian* economists, he predicts a hyperinllationary collapse of Western soexty and the inevitable end of "egalitarian politics* Speaking at the conference Identitar Id* in Stockholm. Kurtagic advised sdcntitartan fascists to “exploit the shock* of financial collapse in order to instigate ethnic cleansing with the ultimate aim of creating 'a vast mosaic of organic societies" Doug Weller talk 11:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Those goddam sdcntitartan fascists are the worst kind, I've always thought. The cxpliot reference and hyperinllationary collapse confirms it. EEng 18:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lee Strasberg LAT 1978.jpg

Hi Beyond My Ken. Just wanted to let you know that I tagged this file for deletion as replaceable fair use since a free equivalent (which seems to have been uploaded a few years after this file was uploaded) is now being used in the main infobox for primary indentification purposes. If you feel that this file still should be kept, then could you please update the non-free use rationale explaining why. In particular, it's not clear how the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is better with the image in it then it is without it, just because one headshot in the infobox is pretty paltry visual coverage, but I can't think of an NFCC-compliant reason to justify that, so I have no real policy basis for an objection. When I get the chance, maybe I'll do another search for free images that can beef up the article.

Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,