User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

Articles that look like shit and need to be fixed

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization

Reminder: To work on

• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist (re: The Front)
• John E. Fryer (re: AGLP newsletter)

WP:ANI

You seem to have been a part of the previous discussion. Join this one.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've had my fill of ANI discussions for the moment. I think I'll lie low and make like a churchmouse as much as possible. BMK (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work well, but I'm going to try again. (Squeak). BMK (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BMK. Your mention of a churchmouse lets me use one of my favorite words. I remember hearing their skritch skritch (no that isn't the word) behind the wainscotting. Cheers and hang in there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Which, of course, brings to mind the Monty Python sketch about sheep in the wainscotting, and each time someone says the word, there's a cutaway to someone from the (I assume mythical) village of "Wainscottting" exclaiming "They just said our name on the telly!". And it also brings to mind that J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote that the most beautiful words in the English language, in his opinion, was "cellar door". And "wainscotting" also reminds me of when my landlady tried to evict me from my apartment (the details are too trite to go into), and I had a damn hard time making the judge understand what I meant by the "mopboard" in the kitchen - an unadorned and unshaped piece of wood running along the bottom of the wall, meant to prevent a mop from getting the walls wet when you clean the floors. It was a perfectly normal word to me, but the judge had never heard of it. I think we finally settled on "molding". Best to you, it's a lovely (if a bit windy) spring day here. BMK (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. "Skritch" is good too. I love onomatopoeia. BMK (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. Thanks for the note, it's nice to see a friendly "face" around here occasionally. (I guess I shouldn't have mentioned my landlady trying to evict me, since that's now bound to show up in some noticeboard thread as an example of what a bad person I am.) BMK (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Oof I was thinking the same thing as I read the words :-) I do appreciate your sharing the memories and thoughts - I somehow missed the JRR T quote in all my years of reading about him so that one is particularly nice. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We actually have an article on it, Cellar door, which says that JRRT mentioned it in "English and Welsh", but since I have never read thatessay, it must have been somewhere else that I saw it - perhaps one of the biographies. In nay case, it appears that Tolkien didn't originate the idea, according to our article and the NY Times. BMK (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems I did read "English and Welsh" when it was reprinted in The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, but I could swear I read it somewhere before that. BMK (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have some stories (all too long to go into here) about the way memory works. It gets tougher as I get older due to the fact that more items keep getting stuffed in there with each passing year. Thanks for letting me know the name of the essay! MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, at 60+, I've experienced some of those memory inconsistencies. I can recall with great precision television theme songs from when I was a kid, but forget (as I did yesterday) that I was supposed to meet my wife and son to look at at a local college. It's all rather disconcerting, since memory is, intrinsically, an important part of what we perceive as part of intelligence.

Ah, well, it's all a part of the slow transition into senility. BMK (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to East River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• wanted to build a ''new'' "East River" through Queens. Others proposed a dam at Roosevelt Isl;and (then Blackwell's Island} to create a wet basin for shipping.<ref>Steinberg, p.127</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to East River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the East River, the American Revolution might have ended much earlier.<ref>Stokesbury, James L. {1991) ''A Short History of the American Revolution'' New York: Morrow. pp.92-95. ISBN 0-688-08333-1</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mickey Rooney may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• According to Mark Ellis, writing in ''Godreports'',<ref name=ellis>Ellis, Mark {April 8, 2014) [http://blog.godreports.com/2014/04/how-mickey-rooneys-encounter-with-an-angel-led-to-his-faith-in-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Love Parade may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• string of scandals, including an affair with the ambassador's wife. In the meantime Queen Louise (]]Jeanette MacDonald]]), ruler of Sylvania in her own right, is royally fed-up with her subjects' preoccupation with whom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sitting Pretty (1948 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | gross = $3,550,000 (US rentals)<ref>Staff (January 5, 1949) [https://archive.org/stream/variety173-1949-01#page/n45/mode/1up "Top Grossers of 1948", ''[[Variety

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Babes in Arms (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George McKay

Commissioners' Plan of 1811 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Santa Fe

List of Manhattan neighborhoods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rector Street

Love in the Afternoon (1957 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fascination (song)

My Pal, the King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Thorpe

Shall We Dance (1937 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Coleman

Why Be Good? (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neil Hamilton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To any talk page stalkers: I usually try to take care of these DAB problems fairly quickly, but, as mentioned below, I'm a bit backed up in RL, so anyone who cares to fix any of them, it's fine with me (or not, it's all good). I'll get to them soonest. BMK (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cloisters

A short paragraph on film settings has been proposed at the talk page. Can you take a look and give an openion, suggestion etc. Ceoil (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I'll take a look later today after my get-together with some friends. BMK (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Grand, and enjoy. I look forward to productive collab on the article. I do like the imgs heading your talk page. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your sayingso. Sorry I haven't weighed-in at The Cloisters, I got busier than I expected, and probably won;t be doing much editing at all for a day or so, at least. BMK (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Intersect Contribs

Some time ago you asked if the tool could be extended to intersect more than 2 users. Well, I did it. Try and let me know if you like it! :) --Pietrodn · talk with me 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

One Madison

First thank you about your recent edits to One Madison#Engineering. There is a slight missinformation about the building being partly cantilevered to a three-floor tall adjacent building. This was seized on the first designs and finally not implemented. See initial designs here: [1] and [2]. Currently there is no cantilever at all in the building. The balconies are the only thing “cantilevered ”to the street. Triplecaña (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will fix soonest if you haven't done so alrady. BMK (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Pettiness

I really feel sorry for you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You should spend your energy learning how to write. BMK (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops!

My bad. Thanks for correcting my removal of the images! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC) "No problem. Glad to be of service. BMK (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Jazz Singer" revert

Hi BMK,

Regarding your reversion of my recent IP edit adding a parenthetical to The Jazz Singer:

My WP editing philosophy is that I don't feel much obliged to cite a source when correcting an error in material that cites no sources, and the affected paragraph is entirely and perniciously unsourced. It includes the song fragments in question in a mini-catalog of "numerous synchronized singing sequences", which is misleading at best. My source, in fact, is the film itself -- in articles about films readily available on home video, perfectly acceptable per WP, the last I heard -- and a viewing will make the lack of lip-synchrony in those bits patently obvious to anyone. Folks seeing the film for the first time must have wondered if that was all the much-touted Vitaphone was going to add to the experience, until the first of the live-recorded sequences began and made matters clear. To anyone familiar with the contemporary recording technology and scoring procedure, it will also be clear that the vocal is of a piece with the background score and was therefore recorded at the time the finished footage was scored, i.e., the "wild" vocal was post-dubbed.

The parenthetical disclaimer was an antidote to the misleading inclusion of those bits. An alternative approach, more heavy-handed than my simple addition but probably preferable, would be to delete "Two popular tunes are performed by the young Jakie Rabinowitz, the future Jazz Singer;" and accordingly replace the following "his" with "Jakie's". 66.81.242.131 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You added to the article "(these song fragments are post-dubbed and not lip-synchronous)". That is a positive statement of fact, and as such should be verifiable, if true. If it is not verified by being sourced, it is editorial analysis, and thus runs afoul of WP:OR. The revert was good. BMK (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I'll try following my own suggestion above and simply excise the misleading portion of the preexisting unsourced "positive statement of fact", which, like my condemned parenthetical, is best verified or debunked by referring to the same highly reliable source: the film itself. No technical expertise or "editorial analysis" is required to see that the juvenile vocalizing is not at all lip-synchronous -- it's about as blatantly obvious as a cut or a fade-out. No OR there, just plain old reporting. 66.249.172.18 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, however blatant you think it is, it's analysis or interpretation, and that;s WP:OR. Whether "post-dubbed" or "lip-synched" or sung live to the camera, the song is still "performed" by the character, and therefore your removal - which I have reverted -- is incorrect, and entirely WP:POINTy. BMK (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

(I copied the above discussion to Talk:The Jazz Singer#Question concerning reverted edit, and any further discussion should take place there. BMK (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Thank you, I will not be presenting evidence. BMK (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

United States Post Office (Williamsport, Pennsylvania)

File:Williamsport post office screenshot.png

Two things: When viewed in a browser that isn't very wide, as I do sometimes, the current layout disrupts the See also section. I was just trying to prevent that. Second, per the Infobox NRHP documentation, the name should be "The NRHP listing name... This does not have to match the name of the article", so there's no reason it should use "Williamsport City Hall (formerly U.S. Post Office)" since the nomination makes no mention of the city hall.

It was built as the USPO. See what the change I made did. BMK (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References in plot sections.

BMK,

I notice that in Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Unreferenced sections, you state that plot sections are never referenced.

May I inquire why is that and where in the policies is it mentioned?

Thanks! 79.13.122.200 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT answers both these questions. Admittedly it took me several attempts to find it. MPS1992 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 79.13.122.200 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Singing Fool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joseph Meyer, Joe Young and Sam Lewis

Meserich Synagogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Avenue A

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology case

Since you do not intend to submit evidence, your section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence has been moved to the evidence talk page. Miniapolis 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. BMK (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Walter Tevis

Re: "please look it up", I did. See WP:BADHEAD. It would seem that Wikipedia is supporting a format (;) they don't like, and they even frown upon bold headings, like it is in the current state. At any rate, I think it would be more wiki-friendly to say what the guideline is that you think backs you up, rather than saying "please look it up". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

With screen readers, a semi-colon starts a definition, which is inapporpiate for a sub-head, while a bolded word is just read as a bolded word. Neither is read as a sub-head, but bolding doesn't fuck up the reader. BMK (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hideous Sun Demon

Hello BMK. I have been working hard on several articles and I was wondering if you could go over them and correct any errors in them for me. Here are the links to the two articles (note one of these articles in in my sandbox at the moment, so that I can finish it before publishing it):

• User:Paleface Jack/sandbox

• User:Paleface Jack/I Drink Your Blood (revision)

Please let me know if you are able or unable to do this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe not...--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm in the middle of rehearsals for a new production, and it's hard to find time to edit. I'm barely keeping up with my watchlist and doing some edits on selected articles. Chances are I wouldn't be able to take a serious look until abotu the second week in May. BMK (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi BMK, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but see my response to Paleface Jack above. BMK (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Caine Mutiny (film)

Would appreciate your thoughts. I've added a gallery which ought to resolve matters, but given what we have on the talk page I am not sure. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked a bit, but looks fine to me. BMK (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Furry fandom

Could you explain why you feel the "sexual aspects" section isn't directly related to the sociological studies section in the furry fandom article? Both sections deal with sociological studies and are entirely based on research, and it should be clear that sexuality studies are part of more general sociology and psychology studies. There is no reason to separate the sections. Furry-friend (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the "sexual aspects" section isn't sourced to only sociological or social psychology studies -- it cites popular media sources as well -- and the scientific studies cover more ground then simply the sexual aspects, so while they overlap, neither one is intrinsically a sub-part of the other. BMK (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Two references out of 12 aren't directly related to a research paper, a study, or an overview of several studies. The section is inherently about studies and research on furry sexuality. As sexuality is part of sociology and psychology, and as the section almost entirely quotes papers, studies, and overviews of studies--the two media references are directly adjacent to non-media references--putting the section under the "studies" section is a natural fit. Furry-friend (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

House of Dracula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Doctor X and House of Frankenstein

Kaiser's Finish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Sunderland

The Princess Comes Across (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank Butler

Vitaphone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jack Warner

When a Man Loves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tom Wilson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Florynce Kennedy publicity pic.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Image removed by vandal, now restored. BMK (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth Church (Brooklyn)

I appreciate your contributions for maintaining this wikipage. However, I believe there are a few things that can be done to further improve it. One such thing is the reference section, which was and still is rather poorly organize. I think there should be no references in the overview box. That is why I removed the references in that section, but kept them in the main text. Therefore, these references were not removed, but just placed in a different section. This makes the box look cleaner and not clutter with unnecessary detail (that can be easily found in the main text). I hope you understand and respect this choice. By the way – I am an experienced writer and editor – so no need to be condescending. A kinder and more respectful tone would be appreciated – as I strive to maintain the same. Cheers, Kateypup (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be experienced at writing and editing elsewhere, but on Wikipedia you're a new editor, and you clearly don't understand how things are done. The references are in the infobox because the information there replaced other, unsourced, information, therefore the references are necessary - please do not remove them again. "Looking cleaner" is all well and good, but not at the expense of WP:Verifiability, one of our most basic policies. What you did by reverting my change is known as edit warring and is not allowed. Please do not remove references or referenced information again, and attempt, at least, to learn from what experienced Wikipedia editors tell you is the way of the world here, if you wish to be treated respectfully. I will continue to revert changes you make which do not improve the article. BMK (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please pay particular attention to this, from the lede section of WP:Verifiability:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately. (emphasis added)

Note the "all". Generally, much of the material in infoboxes is not referenced because it is pro forma, but if someone challenges it, then it must be referenced. This is why removing references for purely stylistic reasons is a bad idea - you've removed the information on how to verify the fact that someone has already provided, meaning that the fact could be removed or, at the very least, challenged and require being re-referenced for verification. So ... do not remove references, they are part of the most basic requirement of an encyclopedia which is created by non-experts. BMK (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, you should probably expect a comment on your talk page, or an e-mail, from an editor named Alansohn, who will be happy to tell you that I am the Devil incarnate and should be tarred-and-feathered and driven off of Wikipedia. It's up to you how seriously to take his ranting - he's a good editor who has created many articles and added much good new material to old articles, but he's rather fixated on me because I took another editor's part against him some years back, and he rarely misses on opportunity to get on his soapbox and speak "The Truth" as he sees it.} BMK (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh no - have I walked right into one of these famous wikipedia fights, which are mostly about nothing??? Unfortunately your tone has not changed - which is sad ... but I try to stay friendly anyway. I just want to make sure you understand what I did. I did not remove the references. They are still in the text - just not inside the box. The architecture section mentions Woodruff Leeming as being the architect and includes the references [1][2], that also appeared in the box. Therefore the "Verifiability" is there - I just don't think that you need to verify this "9 times" in all and every instance Woodruff Leeming is mentioned as architect. Furthermore in the next to last paragraph it states "The church was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1961,[3] and was named a National Historic Landmark in 1966.[4][15]". Again, the verification of these claims are provided in references, which are the same as the ones you put into the box. And again, I think one does not need to add references in all places that this is mentioned. Doing so leads to a clutter look. I believe my approach is a good compromise, improving the overall look and keeping the verifiability at the same time.

So why do you have to state "you clearly don't understand how things are done"? Do you enjoy talking down to people, rather than providing a reasoned viewpoint without all the emotions? And by undoing my edit, did you not just perform edit warring yourself - violating your own policies that you so proudly emphasise on your user page. But I am well aware that this will not lead anywhere. You obviously have done a lot of work on this forum; and without people like you, who feel passionate about what they are doing, wikipedia would not be what it is today. Its just a pitty that you have to be so "nasty" about it. The world is not such a bad place and many contributors like me do what they do with a good heart and not to upset other users, or to pick a fight. Really no need to be so discouraging about it. I am not sure why you are so aggressive, but I am sure you have your reasons. I wish you well - and as they say at Plymouth Church every Sunday - "Peace be With You." ( John 20:21) - Maybe you want to stop by, introduce yourself, and be inspired by God's word in the process. Again - Peace ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateypup (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you are so wonderfully understanding and forgiving - I have no doubt that you'll be fast tracked through the Pearly Gates when you get there.

No, what is sad is that you still don't understand, but you still think that you do, and you're still not willing to listen to the voice of experience. You complain about my tone, but you yourself nevertheless feel quite free to vent your own uninformed prejudices about Wikipedia and Wikipedians.

OK, so here it is again, please pay attention: Having a reference somewhere in the text is not sufficient to make a fact verifiable. The reference must be attached to the specific fact. The same reference can be used in mutiple places in the article by naming it and then referring to the name, but it still must appear in every place it is being utilized to support a fact.

This conversation is going nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere as long as you insist on being right about a complex system you clearly know little about. Come back when you're willing to listen and learn and not assume that what you think ought to be true is true, 'cause it ain't. Don't bother to reply, unless you wish to verify that you now understand. If you want tea and sympathy, go to the WP:TEAHOUSE, they treat newbies there much better than I do, but they're still not going to tell you anything different about policy than I have already told you.

I'm done here. BMK (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	...just a little sign of my appreciation and thanks for help towards the common goal of improving Wikipedia; ...much appreciated. And of course congratulations on your very interesting work here. Un gros merci! kind regards, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, and thanks for taking my note to you in the spirit in which it was intended. Best, BMK (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Past Tense to be use

You had "His sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe, who would wrtite the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) ..." However it should be "His sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) ..."

She wrote it in the past and that Henry Beecher was the first minister does not change this. Using your logic, one would have to change the entire paragraph to

"His sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe, who would write the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) that would "help lay the groundwork for the Civil War."[6] The church itself would become an important station on the Underground Railroad through which slaves from the South would secretly transported to Canada.[1][2][5][7] Locally known as "the Grand Central Depot," slaves would be hidden in the tunnel-like basement beneath the church sanctuary.[8] The Rev. Charles B. Ray, an African-American living in Manhattan, and the founding editor of The Colored American newspaper, would be quoted as saying, "I regularly drop off fugitives at Henry Ward Beecher's Plymouth Church in Brooklyn."

Obviously that would be incorrect (no pun intended) Kateypup (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We're relating to the reader a narrative tracing the history of the church, and the narrative progresses forward in time as we tell it. We are at the moment when Beecher becomes the first pastor, and say that he "will become" (or words to that effect) a major figure in the abolution movement. At that same moment, Stowe's writing of the book is in the future, so it's proper to say that she "would write" it not that she "wrote" it, because we are not strictly in the past tense. BMK (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let me see if I can make that clearer:

• Plymouth Church was founded in 1847...Its first pastor [in 1847] was Henry Ward Beecher, who [in the future] became a leading figure in the abolitionist movement. His sister [at that moment which we are talking about, in 1847] was Harriet Beecher Stowe, who would [in the future] write the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, [published in 1852], that "helped lay the groundwork for the Civil War."

BMK (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I found a way out of the impass. Let's just remove the verb and write "... Stowe, author of the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin" - instead of "... Stowe, who ('would write' - as argued by you) (or 'wrote' - as argued by me) ... In this way we avoid the issue of tenses all together. Hope you find that compromise agreeable. (And I see you found some more info about the site of the building - great!) Respectfully, Kateypup (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That actually has the same problem. In 1847 she was not the author of the book, the book had yet to be written. No, "future in the past" is the proper tense. BMK (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made another change that may solve the problem. BMK (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Williamsburg Bridge page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

East River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort Washington

Tenderloin (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TCM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dot dot comma dot

Hi, I was surprised at your edit-summary reasoning here. Here, for example, is at least one goverment source that couldn't cope with the gobbledy. When faced with good evidence of the less in-your-face punctuation, WP tends to go with it. Tony (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The GSA owns the building, and that's what they call it. We do not override real life with WikiStyle. Dot. (I mean, period). BMK (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Owning a building doesn't suddenly give you the right to control the language. Tony (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. Ownership gives the right of naming, and naming does not require following grammar. If I want to call my house "Upside the in head wall quintessence", and we do an article about it. the name of the article will be "Upside the in head wall quintessence" because that will be its name. We do not suppress real life to make it conform to Wikipedia, we report and reflect real life. BMK (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BMK, the bill that named the building called it the "Robert N.C. Nix, Senior, Federal Building and United States Post Office". We have taken some liberty in putting a space between initials, abbreviating Senior, and shortening the title. But we can't use modern comma styling, and have to go with the GSA functionaries who didn't understand the role of commas setting off Sr. and dropped one of them? Why do you draw the line at that odd place? Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bill, schmill, the building is what it is called by the people who own it and run it. If they ignored what Congress said, that's their problem and not ours. (If you're really all that concerned about it, write your Representative and tell him or her that the GSA isn;t following the will of Congress.) We do not read the minds of people, we follow what the people in control do, and what they do in this case is call the building what our article is called.

Now, this discussion is over on this page. If you enjoy arguing about angels and pinheads, go to it somewhere else, as I do not -- they bore me to tears. I will, however, revert any move of the page to a title that is not used by the GSA. BMK (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You already reverted a move to a title that the GSA does use, as I showed you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Hiccups! Also the GSA uses it at this page and this page. And here they just drop the Sr.; maybe we should do that, and thereby make the comma issue moot. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, so if the building had been called "robERt c.c. NiX, Sr. FeDeral BuiLdiNg" by a new owner, you'd change the article title would you? And do we slavishly use the same font as on the front of the building? What about The universities that insist on a capital T in the middle of a sentence, for vanity (used only by some of the staff, who sense that it makes them look silly)? Tony (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A name is a name, it is not a sentence, and is not subject to rules of grammar, or orthography for that matter. If I call my child "Eyeleeeeeeen", that that is her name, and her Wikipedia article should not be called "Ilene" because some Wikieditor (or even a group of Wikieditors) thinks that is the only allowable way to spell that combination of sounds used as a name. Names are what they are, except when there is a WP:COMMONNAME. If everyone and their pet monkey calls my house, which I named "Upside the in head wall quintessence" "Quintessence House", that would be the name of our article, and if Eyeleeeeeeen is known far and wide as "Eye" then that is the name of our article - but, again, we are only reporting and reflecting reality, we do not bend reality. BMK (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, BMK, my move that you overrode was actually from a style that the GSA does not use (with 2 commas) to a style they do use (with no commas), though that had nothing to do with why I moved it. I wonder what provoked you to move it again? Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I moved the article once, to a name used by the GSA, from a name they do not use, so I have no idea what you're talking about; I gave you the cite. Please do not post here again on this subject, as I have already requested - it will be deleted unread. BMK (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)