User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 5 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."

Old theatrical proverb

"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."

James Oberg (paraphrased)
via Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1995)

"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

William James (attributed)

"He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."

"The Piranha Brothers"
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Episode 14, "Face the Press" (15 September 1970)


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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

E-mail

In this thread you asked me to send you an e-mail, and I will gladly send you one. However, could you please give the address to which you want me to send an e-mail, or would you like me to give my address? Thank you in advance. Name: Ryan Ng 67.220.154.178 (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not use the "email this user link" in the left hand column? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one. Special:EmailUser is not enabled for IP addresses. However, I did create a Wikipedia account and can email you using that. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I look forward to hearing from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please expect an e-mail from me shortly. Thanks. Angry rocket bus (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for your response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 90 Church Street 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:
  • {Infobox NRHP
  • | name =90 Church Street<br>{U.S. Post Office-Church Street Station)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Garde Arts Center

I created an article on this building and its architect. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've contributed to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Erving Goffman good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Erving Goffman, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't recall offhand what my contribution was, but thanks, and you're welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

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.

Four's a Crowd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Adventures of Robin Hood
Garde Arts Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cinema
Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to LEED
Paradas contínuas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Susie Q

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bowery

Hi BMK, I have put a sentence on the Bowery article relating to the Second Avenue Subway tunnels under it. If you want it removed, please notify me. Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) 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:
  • {Infobox NYCS
  • | name = 190th Street Subway Station (IND)<br>{190th Street-Overlook Terrace Subway Station)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 125th Street (Manhattan) 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:
  • Jr. State Office Building from east.jpg|[[Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building]]<br>{163 West 125th Street)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Gay Divorcee may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • 1934 May Be Remembered as the Beginning of the Sweetness-and-Light Era"] ''New York Times]]'' (Dec 30, 1934) Retrieved: December, 16, 2013.</ref> and was nominated for the [[Academy Award

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

James Bayard

Your position has several problems:

1. The information as presented is not sourced and incorrect, yet you and the other Wikipolice "editors" have challenging my edits on the basis that they are unsourced. I challenge YOU to produce a sorce that disproves anthing I have edited. You can't. I can also report YOU and have the page locked with my edits in place, which, bt the way, are factually correct.

2. It would be silly to cite my dissertation for every edit, or perhaps my chapter in another book I wrote on the Bayard family. There is a historical standard known as common knowledge. Most of what I changed is considered common knowledge for the edits I made. You can find the same information in three different sources and thus does not require a citation. Perhaps you so not know that, but you should, as a distinguished "editor" of an open source website.

3. If Wikipedia wishes to maintain standards, perhaps it/ you should focus on the thousands of other articles that have ZERO citations or fraudulent citations rather some minor edits to a small entry. This boils down to nothing more than PRRFan being upset that someone edited "his" work, sloppy and unsourced as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.134.185 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of your arguments counter the fact that all edits which are not supported by a citation from a WP:Reliable source can be deleted on sight. So, if you want to stand on how philosophically correct you are, and not get any of your changes into the article, that's your choice. If you'd rather improve the article to the standards you think are appropriate, you will have to follow our policies. There is no in-between, no compromise where we will say "Oh, but of course, you are the world expert on this person, so you' don't need to provide sources.

The ball's in your court, continue arguing, or improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 57th Street (Manhattan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hearst Tower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cases

The edits in question are simply, Photorealism, photorealist. This is what the MOS guideline appears to be. Like, Communism, communist (unless a Communist Party member). As for the 60 percent, if you are using the Wikipedia MOS I have serious doubts about that number. Looking now at your other revisions, those were proper edits according to the MOS. Vice-chair is only to be in upper case when part of a person's name, Vice-Chair Smith, and such. General manager is a job title and should never be capitalized, like lead-hand or foreman. And, by the way, you losing your assumption of good faith is as much my concern as it is my responsibility. Primergrey (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GWBBS Infobox

What is the point of a non descriptive caption? What is your problem with clarity in the address by spelling abreviations in full? Why do you want a blank line for Coordinates? Why did you revert those without an explanation? What is so special about your photograph? I retained your size, but it should not need to be so large that it stretches the infobox! Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "(2013)" is not "non descriptive" (BTW, you mean "non-descriptive"), it describes the year of the image. Your caption described the corner from which the picture was taken, but it is not s picture of that corner, is it? It's a picture of the bus station taken from that corner. If you wanted to change it to something on the order of "view from the southwest (2013)" that would be acceptable.
  • Abbreviations should be spelled in full except where doing so unnecessarily breaks up the information into two lines in a way that makes it more difficult to read. We're supposed to be here to help the reader, not slavishly follow rules like robots.
  • Coordinates don't need to be in the infobox when they're at the top of the page, just an inch or less away. The fact that the infobox shows a blank "coordinates" line means that the infobox is badly written and needs to be fixed. (See, for instance, the NRHP infobox)
  • What's special about my photography? I don't know, what's special about the nail of the big toe on your left foot? The photo in the infobox, which I indeed took, is the best photo of the three available on Commons. If you want to take and upload a better one, be my guest. I have about 4,500 of my own photos on Commons, and when one of them is better than the others available, I put it into the relevant article. If I find that someone else's image is better, I put it into the article. I'm pretty damn good at it, and extremely impartial, and I resent your tone, and your implication that I'm promoting my image in some way.
  • Whatever image is in the infobox needs to be presented at the best size for the image, fuck the width of the infobox, who gives a shit how wide it is, it's just a box with a list of information. The photo is something else, it needs to be shown not too small and not too large. I look at all the possibilities and size it where it needs to be. I'm good at that too, but if I go back and check and I've made it too large (or too small), I change it. The image size is not set in stone, but neither should it be constrained by irrelevancies. 00:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Avenue B (Manhattan)"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Avenue B (Manhattan) without giving a reason or discussing it with me first. I believe my edit was reasonable, as per my edit summary. Would you please be so kind as to explain why you performed that reversion?—DocWatson42 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things should be located in the code where they will be rendered on the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest that I do that for the Avenue B (Manhattan) article?—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @DocWatson42: Ah, keep it that way; it's fine and BMK would not want you to mess around with it if it is not broken. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as it is, the page is broken, as per the templates' instructions. That's what I tried to fix, and Beyond My Ken reverted.—DocWatson42 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks fine, and works fine, and therefore is not "broken". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current placement of the items in the article violates the templates' instructions. Also, again, how do you suggest that they be "located in the code where they will be rendered on the page", and why did you revert the article without contacting me?—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template's instructions are not mandatory, and there is no requirement that I contact another editor before reverting their edit. The article is just peachy as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bibliography" on New Madrid Seismic Zone Page

Perhaps you could use the article's Talk page to discuss why the links in the "Bibliography" section, most of which are already linked to as references, need to be included as such in the Bibliography? In fact, please explain why the article needs a redundant "Bibliography" when it has a reference section. "That is inaccurate" is not the most helpful justification for undoing an edit. Geogene (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove any items from the Bibliography that are listed in the notes and leave the rest. In the early days of Wikipedia a list of references was often acceptable in place of in-line notes, so its best not to remove items from a Bibliography list as it's likely they were used in writing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A vestigial item, eventually to be worked into inline citations. Understood, thank you for the explanation. Geogene (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed items that were in the notes, moved one of them to external links (which it clearly was), removed the external link that had been there, because it, too, was used in the notes, and renamed the former "bibliography" as "sources". In-line citations are definitely preferred, but not everyone gets the hang of how to create them, and some sort of references, even just an item in a list, is preferable to nothing at all. If you're interested, and can nail down any specific information that came from those items on the source list, please go ahead and turn them into in-line citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

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 Harlem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bodega, Puerto Rican and Botanica
Canal Street (Manhattan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Spring Street and East Broadway
Fort Tryon Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Riverside Drive
Murder of Kitty Genovese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to American Heritage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel 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/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should not be shocked that you also have a great Monty Python quote at the top of your page. This was a priceless gem: "Like Kosher hot dogs, admins need to answer to a higher standard...." Thanks *very* much for the laugh. :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your facts are wrong.

I gave citations. Cooper Union is not going to be free going forward. I invite you to undo your own wrong information. When you decide to replace a correct update with a falsehood, you should at least check the citations. I see no more recent citations in your edit of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbreader (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbreader is correct methinks. 2013 NYT cite says: "...annual deficit. The number reflects several factors: expenses that have risen faster than revenues, a growing administrative staff, disappointing fund-raising drives and, most significantly, $10 million a year in payments on a $175 million loan the school took out a few years ago, in part so that it could invest money in the stock market."
  Barbreader summarized this as: "until bad investments and poor alumni support..."
  Suggest instead using the direct quotation, or else a closer paraphrase which includes all four factors: "until rising costs, admin-staff growth, disappointing fund-raising, and borrowings taken out to buy stocks..."
Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am less concerned about the wording than the facts. I read but did not cite earlier articles about how they were having trouble raising alumni funds, and had built a new science building first, thinking they could raise the funds to pay for it after it was built. However, I do not have that citation. It might not have been a NYT article. I will add the citation if I can find the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbreader (talk • contribs) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the midst of real-life mishegas (moving apartments), so I don't when I'll have time to look at this in detail, but I believe I reverted the edit because of the POV nature of the wording. If you're going to restore anything, please make sure that you use either a direct quote, or summarize the situation using neutral language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 67.220.154.178's vandalism

I apologize on behalf of one of my friends (I don't know who it was yet) for vandalizing your user page and putting their name on your user and user talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page msgs

In this edit, you said not to remove things from your talk page. However, the sole author of the section that I removed is me, and I was withdrawing my message. But you can keep it, it's fine. Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, please don't alter other people's talk pages without having a very good reason to do so, preferably based in policy. Specifically, given our past history, you might want to be a bit more circumspect in your behavior on this page: i.e. you're welcome to post here, and edit your comments soon after posting them – for typos and clarity, for example – but once you've posted something your "authority" over it has ended, and it's not your choice whether the comment stays or goes, it's mine. If there's a need to clarify the message, or render it inoperable, a second message can do that quite nicely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for clarifying. Epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Pan Alley page

Hi, About https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Pan_Alley and particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Pan_Alley#Composers_and_lyricists What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rodgers + Lorenz Hart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodgers_and_Hart ) + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Hammerstein_II ? Are they not part of Tin Pan Alley? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choubadia (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they weren't? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They Were Expendable

Thanks for the edits on They Were Expendable. Am new to this, and appreciate any help I can get. Simply trying to fill out entries on Wikipedia, and add citations when I can. Was wondering how to add multiple references to a single source, thanks for showing me.

No problem, glad to have been of assistance. Thanks for adding the information to the article. Feel free to pop back to ask if you have any other questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Talkback at my page. Also, please self-revert at Mike Smith (American football coach). The whole issue got everyone all confused and I'd hate to get blocked for violating 3RR to remove misinformation. Ishdarian 05:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFred reverted already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed. Sorry if I sounded snippy. :/ I was just trying to fix it. Ishdarian 06:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As was I, as was MarnetteD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this BMK. It has been a long time since I can remember someone spinning us around like this. I hope that the move hasn't beeen too stressful and that you have a nice Merry Merry day tomorrow - oops today your time. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the move was pretty stressful, and the unpacking is far from over, but at least I feel like I'm returning to the land of the living somewhat. Hope your holidays have been and will be calm and and enjoyable for you. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I was going to have to wait until tomorrow to watch this but it has been playing while all this fooforah as been going on. Especially poignant this year with Lou Rawls passing. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 06:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays


Epicgenius (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you're settled in your new residence now. Belated happy holidays, Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film infoboxes

"Re: Film infoboxes I don't think you should be changing film infoboxes the way you have been. My understanding is that the "writer" field is for when a film has a single writer. If the film is based on a novel or previously published short story, that should appear in the "based on" field with the title of the work the film is based on and the date it was published. This is because putting the writer of the source material in the "writer" field makes it appear that person wrote the film, but that is not the case. It would be good if you would go back and fix those infoboxes you have altered so that they won't give the reader an incorrect impression. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)"

I will adhere to template policy by using the writer under story, which states:

writer Insert the name(s) of the writer(s). This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by". Separate multiple entries using

. In addition, link each writer to his/her appropriate article if possible. screenplay Insert the name(s) of the screenplay writer(s). Separate multiple entries using
. Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. In addition, link each writer to his/her appropriate article if possible. story Insert the name(s) of the story writer(s). Separate multiple entries using
. Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. In addition, link each writer to his/her appropriate article if possible. Savolya (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't care if you're giving the reader the impression that the "writer" actually wrote the film, as opposed to the people who wrote the screenplay? You're perfectly happy to provide inaccurate information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you understand what this means:

This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by".

None of the infoboxes you changed credited the writer of the base story as "Written by". So, please stop doing it, read and understanmd the template documentation better than you seem to now, and please fix those infoboxes which you have incorrectly altered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you you, but what is then the difference between: writer; screenplay and story, in the template? Savolya (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the film is based on a previously published novel, short story or play, use the "Based on" field, give the name of the previous material, date of publication, type, and the writer:
"Based on ... My Throat is Sore (novel, 1943) by Declan McManus"
  • When the film has one writer, whether billed as "Written by", "Story and screenplay by", use the "Writer" field:
"Writer ... Hector Alonzo (story & screenplay)"
or just
"Writer ... Fabian DeJesus"
  • When the film is based on a story written specifically for the screeen (not a previously published short story), use "Screenplay" but elaborate what each writer did:
"Screenplay ... Bob Jones (story)<br>Stan Ditto (screenplay)"
or
"Story:<br>Bob Jones<br>Screenplay:<br>Fielding Gray<br>Dan Datsun"
There are several variations on how to do this, the specific formatting is not as important as delineating clearly who did what, according to the screen credits, and not giving the reader an inaccurate impression.

In terms of the "story", if the film is based on a "screen story" the source material is not that important, because the folks who write the screenplay will be changing things left and right. When a film is based on previously published material, sometimes that material can be extremely important, sometimes not. Generally, short stories get altered quite a bit, unless their very well known, but novels are more likely to retain their overall shape, although many particulars wil be changed. (Think of the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings - many minor changes were made, but the filmmakers couldn't change the basic story because the audience wouldn't accept it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have an unclosed div tag?

Hi Beyond My Ken,

The change you reverted here was not merely cosmetic. Using mismatched column templates produces unbalanced "illegal" HTML—and open <div> tag that is never paired with a closing </div> tag—even though it looks the same on most users' computer screens and in most articles.

I don't care which set of column templates gets used in this (or any other) article, but it really needs to be all {{multicol}} templates or all {{col-begin}} templates, not a mismatched set that starts with one and (almost) finishes with another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand that at all. Why is that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you're saying (and I'm not at all certain that I do), then all columnization within an article should use the same formatting? But I only see one columnization in Union Square, Manhattan, the one in "See also" - so what am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each set of columns needs to be the same format. Separate sets of columns can be different.
IMO the basic problem is that wikitext doesn't have built-in columns (we have built-in bold; you just type three apostrophes. But there's nothing similar to make columns). So several different people have created several different templates that make columns. And they have all used different systems in their templates. Unfortunately, if you mix the templates—use one of Alice's and one of Bob's and maybe one of Chris' templates—then you end up with problems. Sometimes these problems are visible, in which case people go look up the correct template names and fix them. Sometimes these problems aren't visible on most people's computers, in which case we end up with problems like this one.
That's what's going on here. HTML tags like these are supposed to be paired. For every <b> (start bold-face—that's what the first ''' gets turned into), you should have a </b> (stop bold-face). If you don't, then bold-face (or whatever) will run down the rest of the page.
Except that in some instances, on most computers, there are some sanity checks that say "Hey, there was a new section heading, so we should probably pretend this sloppily unclosed tag has actually been closed properly". That's apparently what's happening with these mismatched column templates on most editors' computers. But for some people and in some situations, the failure to properly close the HTML tag (a tag that's invisible to editors, because it's hidden in the template) is a problem.
What you've done over there is fine. It's not that you need to use the multicol templates at all in that article; it's only that if you choose to use multicol, then you need to use only multicol for that one set of columns. You can use 100% multicol for one set of columns and then 100% col-begin for the next set of columns. You just can't start a set of columns with multicol and finish it off with non-multicol templates.
(I hope this explanation makes sense, but even if it doesn't, let me reiterate that your solution at that article is perfectly fine.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does indeed make sense, and I appreciate the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Miller

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica55 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Top Hat"

I looked at this again, and do disagree with your reversion. A 'fake' marriage implies some intention; an 'invalid' marriage just one of circumstance. In the plot 'invalid' is more surprising and closer to the truth--it was surprising. 'Invalid' is the better word here than 'fake'. David Spector (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with you, since I don't think either word is actually the best possible to describe the circustances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I couldn't come up with another word, so I altered the sentence to put "scare quotes" around "marriage", to indicate that it wasn't a real marriage, and changed the language to say that it was performed by a "fake clergyman", which I think is accurate and sidesteps the problem of whether "invalid" or "fake" is the best way to describe the marriage. I hope we can both live with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I should have noticed that The Encyclopedia of New York City was already there in the citations; thank you for merging the footnotes, and for all your other efforts. It's good to be working with someone else who cares about the details and hunts down cites. Let me please wish you a happy holiday season! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you, please have a good New Year! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up real estate

Please take this not as a criticism, but in the spirit of play intended: The current hatnote at Making out is 144 bytes larger and contains 17 more words than the version "[taking] up so much real estate" earlier. It also fills one more line on my (somewhat narrow) browser screen. I'm just sayin'. Cnilep (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory possibly-helpful comment: What would you think of just directing to Snog (band) and Make out (disambiguation)? All the "making out" titles are there. Cnilep (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "real estate" remark was about the hatnote using multiple lines, pushing the start of the article down; but, in any case, I like your idea, seems the most succinct to me. Go for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further apologies

I've only just discovered why 'said' article was up for speedy deletion (i.e. spotted on the AN/I board while following up another AN/I). Apologies for being disruptive... although, under the circumstances, I do kinda wish it could be substantiated. Cheers for your patience! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were particularly disruptive, but thanks for the note anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was feeling embarrassed after your having to deal with the nominator at the AN/I. It must have been a 'big sigh (not another one)' moment. Kudos to you for being able to maintain a courteous disposition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another country heard from

Hey asshole, why don't you fuck yourself and shut the hell up?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.135.251 (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a very Happy New Year yourself!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey asshole, why don't you fuck yourself and shut the hell up?!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.135.251 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, after I so sweetly gave you Season's Greetings, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You motherfucker!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.135.251 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good! For a moment there I was afraid you were stuck in a rut!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI/Kafkasmurat

I'm gonna go out a leg on something that might tread on a few toes here, what you said about Vandals giving up their privacy rights on ANI at the 'Kafkasmurat' section I agree with on the level of linking an account to an IP. It isn't really that worrying as the Geolocaters aren't right about the town/city half of the time anyway. Given it thought my former college was somewhere 20 Miles away it's a safe bet no?

Aaaanyway, just giving you a small award to say that it seems like a pretty good idea (well, to me anyway) that you've put out there. Good work. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 23:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the brownie, and the thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice last reply to the 193 IP above by the way. Made me smile. Any chance that guy will be back? I can put something up at ANI or AIV if need be. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 00:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

If you believe there is something specifically wrong I am doing, please let me know, but I wanted to briefly address your more general concerns. Yes, it is true that change in communities happen over time - but I've been advocating very similar positions for quite a while, and been a minority opinion then as well as know. That includes the time I spent as one of ArbCom's traffic cops, as an AUSC member, and helping run a few of the elections. Being a returned administrator - and I hope you'll take note I have spent most of my time talking instead of deciding - yes, can mean I'm unaware of how things are, but I think it is also valuable to add some institutional

Implicit in your statement is the idea that by engaging in contentious areas and or administrative areas, I am not improving Wikipedia. I'm disappointed that you would think this. We all have different talents, and mine I think are best used in policy jujitsu and clearing the decks for people writing raw content. For that matter, contentious articles is one of the most important places that editors should get involved. The first article I edited seriously, what, close to a decade ago now was Abortion, where I tried to help forge a sensible ground where "balanced" writing as discarded in favor of good, neutral writing. (This is what I am attempting now, with Water memory). Then, as you are now, people raised concerns about someone editing controversial areas, as if that was inherently problematic. (Around then someone even suspected I was a sock of Jimbo Wales). I believe I eventually proved my involvement in that controversial article to be a good thing. Once when I returned from a break, someone accused me of being Poetlister, I tried to singlehandedly solve the editing disputes surrounding The Troubles and I blocked Giano for incivility, because I had no idea that it would be a problem. There was ruckus, and it settled itself out soon enough as not a big deal, and I was appointed to AUSC and running arbcom elections not all that long after. And so on and so forth. This is not just the pattern of an editor returning from a break, this is the usual ebb and flow of edits. It is easy to find one out of step with a vocal section of the community - or even a majority. We should embrace that we have a community with a diversity of ideas.

I think I would have made some of those "mistakes" even if I hadn't been gone, I am a firm believer that we learn by doing, and that Wikipedia exists in rejection of permission culture. We don't wait for you to ask, we ask you to do - just to do it cooperatively. Mistakes are trivially easy to undo in the vast, vast majority of cases. Even stupendous drama of the moment turns out to be meaningless after a night's rest. So, insofar as what you are arguing is that I should avoid doing anything, I firmly disagree, as firmly as I would in favor of a new user and as in favor of an experienced one. Insofar as you are urging caution, I will avoid making actions that cannot be undone. Insofar as you believe my edits to be dubious, please show me, or even simply correct them. While you may still disagree, I hope I have at least addressed your concerns.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is not in any respect about anything you might have done in the past, which is not relevant to me. My concern is entirely that you were away for a year, with the exception of edits which seemed designed to hang on to your admin status, and then came back guns a-blazing to opine in arbitration and AE cases, without giving yourself any time to get acclimated to any changes that may have occurred in the community in your absence. I've seen this happen before, and I've seen those admins make fools of themselves under exactly those circumstances. While you may have an exemplary record for working in contentious areas in the past, I feel you need to do some ordinary non-controversial editing for a while, and monitor AN and AN/I and other noticeboards to get the lay of the land before you start doing the kind of admin work you're now doing. You seem out of step to me, and I think that's an accurate assessment. I believe you can save yourself some embarrassment by lying low for a while. That's simply my opinion, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish were we all willing to be foolish and embarrassed in pursuit of a better world, for that harms nothing but our own egos. I've often been "out of step" without regard to how long I was away, whether for a night's sleep or several years. and frankly, it seems to me to be an asset from time to time. We need more people willing to brave controversy and difficulty, not less, for the same reason we need more editors period. However worried you are about me in particular, I hope you come to embrace the wide diversity, minority, unpopular, and even naive and foolish out of step opinions from editors new and old (especially new) on this, a project so unbelievably out of step with the rest of the world.--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the homily. An acknowledgement of the dangers of your particular position would have been more encouraging.

In any event, this discussion has run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and discuss

I am getting flooded here with your reverts. Can you please discuss this already? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Discussion can take place when the articles have been returned to the staus quo ante. You should help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Hard to when you are not letting me do so. I am going through them now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. In the future don't make mass edits like that without discussing them first. Making controversial edits with AWB can be grounds for having it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was told they should be tagged. I'll handle the mess. With 300k WP:USA tags it seems that no one decided to have this matter until just today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I am getting more "no differences" than anything else. I can do this easily - it's my responsibility at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Who told you they should be tagged? And why did you think it was a good idea to make 300,000 edits without asking anyone if it made any sense? This is an incredible case of bad judgment on your part and that of the person who told you to do it. Just extraordinarily bad!!Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll stop, since my finger is getting sore anyway. (I do not use, and have never use, automated editing.) I trust you will do them all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't automated... and I'm fixing them by hand with the rollback button... same as you would. Its gonna be a pain in the butt to do them, but two "yeses" and no "that's not how its supposed to be" doesn't change that for many years WP:USA took them all. I don't know about Kumiko or whatever, but it seems like he's trying to fix it as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits are marked as having used AWB to make them, I assumed that meant that they were automated. Excuse me if I have little sympathy for the necessity of your undoing your egregiously bad actions by hand. If Kumioko is helping top undue the mess, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he was an advocate for WP:USA sucking up everything in its path. If it wasn't so much hassle to do so, I'd open a discussion about closing WP:USA down entirely, since it doesn't seem to understand its proper place in the scheme of things.

    I think it would be best for you to continue your task and stop posting here until it's done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been cleaned up. I'll notify the group about the matter. Let's see if we can get some overarching hierarchy built in without making it worse. Dead wikiprojects or not - it's really hard to watch and maintain so many pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GWBBS Thank You

Thanks for recognizing the significant difference between "substantially completed" and "completed" construction by a certain time frame, as any frustrated owner, who has work done, can attest to.Wondering55 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Heads Up

Will be making the change, as per the rules. ;-) Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the come back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey/Reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_band&oldid=588561323&diff=prev Am i blacklisted? I wrote essential information at the article. It has hundreds of references. It's being prejudice i think.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot write English sufficiently well to contribute to this encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry for that. what about some corrections, instead of removal?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find an editor who understands the subject to make the fixes for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Photo of Mustache Guy Lap Dance Page

Do we really need that awful photo with the ugly naked guy with the strange mustache? I am pro lap dance, but I do not think that the quality of that photo helps the cause -- the one at the top of the article is a better pick, IMO. A lap dance is not a sex act, but that photo will help the people who have an agenda against lap dancing. What are your thoughts?James Carroll (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro lap-dance"? Please remember that Wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view, and we are not "advancing a cause" here, we are writing an unbiased informative and accurate encyclopedia article. If you have an image that you think is better, make your arguments on the article's talk page, but considering your statement here, I think your edits need to be examined for possible bias. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I exaggerate, but in the interest of neutrality we should not have a photo that is so repulsive that it might go in the other direction and create an unfair NEGATIVE influence. To be honest, the photo was so bad that I thought that an anti-lapdancing advocated might have placed it there.James Carroll (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your evaluation of the image, which I believe is skewed by your personal views. Some men have mustaches, some men aren't models, that's life. You want the photo removed, make your case on the talk page, where I will comment against the proposal, unless you have a better image to replace it with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Missing Reference, A Misplacement

The reverence you want to restore ( see below ) [1] is a terrific article which ironically I had placed in the article years ago. However, it must have gotten moved around and in its current placement it has NOTHING to do with the paragraph it is attached to. It properly belongs by the text "A San Francisco DA's decision to drop prostitution charges against lap dancers in the city changed the sexual culture of San Francisco and the entire country." I will soon replace it to the proper area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Carroll (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I trust you'll restore it to its proper placement.

BTW, please stop adding extra lines before the new sections you create on my talk page. They're not necessary as the system inserts a blank link before new sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Divorcee

Re "Bumbling lawyers in The Gay Divorcee": I looked it up in the (simplified?) OED I have in my computer and you are technically correct. I sit corrected (and cross-legged) (though I still think the word is commonly used nonphysically for a kind of confused incompetence).

However, I don't like the phrase "bumbling and less-than-competent" stylistically. I find it awkward in three ways. First, the hyphens dpn't belong. Second, "less than competent" is awkward in itself; I suggest that "semi-competent" or "hardly competent" or even "incompetent" (justified by his father's instructions, btw) would be better style. Third, I think the important part is not his physical motions but his legal ability; I would recommend sticking to the main point, replacing the phrase by "incompetent" or a similar phrase. As my main objection was to repetitiousness and I have no desire to fight over this, I will leave it to you. Zaslav (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bumbling and incompetent" sounds good to me, or even "incompetent and bumbling" if you want to get to his unlawyerlyishness (there's a word for you) first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last is the better; it has less flavor of repetition (to me). Please do the editing as you choose. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

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.

Jean Dixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Gang's All Here
The Cloisters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Catalan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing

See the article Pan-Turkism and the recent edits on both article and its talk page. An admin should warn that user. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you're an admin, because I saw you wrote some comments about this user on WP:ANI. I didn't read them exactly. Sorry. --Zyma (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ANI comments

Hello Beyond My Ken. I'm reading your comments on ANI and I'd like to offer some feedback. Take it or ignore as you wish, but the remarks you make in this section of the ANI do nothing other than express your sentiments and beliefs. The discussions at ANI need evidence and discussion of the editor's action as identified by diffs, the contexts of such actions, and specific WP policy as it applies. It doesn't fulfill the purpose of the discussion merely to state your views. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the thoughts, feelings and intuitions of veteran editors can be as valuable to consider as evidence as can diffs, especially in a case where the editor is taking pains to keep within policy and guideline boundaries, while still continuing their abusive behavior. Besides, the graph of MilesMoney's edits is very clear and specific evidence that he's not here to edit articles, but to talk. Editors such as that are unhelpful and should be indef'd when found, as they do not contribute to the project, merely add unnecessarily to the overhead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to see any link you might provide to a policy which states that your hunches may substitute for diffs and WP principles. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be interested to see what policy allows me to express my opinions on AN/I? Go find one that says I cant -- and by the way, edit some articles and do something productive, you appear to me to be another editor more interested in talking than in editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and go away, I don't care to hear your opinions here anymore, and I have a policy that says I can ask you not to post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I just posted this at ANI which illustrates that our comments were not totally off-topic. Perhaps putting them in a separate section was off-putting to some. Or maybe others were surprised that anyone at ANI didn't know who MM was!?! (I've also had to ask certain editors to stop bothering me on my talk page.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. The problem with SPI is that to be effective, one needs to provide pretty persuasive evidence just to get anyone to act on a report, but many times all one has is an intuition that something is wrong. Actually, I've been told that the WMF's privacy policy would support giving more latitude to ChechUsers to act on well-placed suspicions, but that it's the en.wiki community that has rejected such a reasonable expansion of their purview. The result is that when one says "There's something wrong here", other editors jump down your throat and insist that SPI is the only acceptable place to raise such suspicions. That's just silly, since it totally rejects a very reasonable source for basing an inquiry on, the intuitions of veteran editors who know what is and isn't irregular. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt sock accusations and even SPIs can be used for harassment, but if CheckUser remains private, I don't see the harm in checking (whatever it is they check :-)
It's funny that just in last few days, and with MilesMoney, is the first time I've seen people seeking admin action for striking an accidentally used IP address or for yelling about someone repeating it publicly. Editing in the israel-palestine area in the past people were always yapping about Anon IPs, and even accidentally shared IPs, as socks, which many were and I had to do at least one SPI myself. (And the admin dismissed it nastily despite quite strong evidence!?!) But maybe things have been changing last year or so. I did start a discussion and got some clarification here Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#IP_addresses_and_outing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I see that despite my asking you on your talk page to "do the right thing", you decided instead to continue being a WP:DICK. How unfortunate that one of our admins makes that kind of choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Hill (Metro-North station): also known as Marble Hill – West 225th Street

I just found a source where Marble Hill (Metro-North station) includes the alternate name "Marble Hill – West 225th Street" station; It's a 1966 timetable shown on Emily Moser's site (http://www.iridetheharlemline.com/resizer.php/marblehillhista.jpg?width=553&height=343&image=http://www.iridetheharlemline.com/wp-includes/images/upload_images2/marblehillhista.jpg). I don't know if the link helps you. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's hard to read!! I do see the 255th Street there, but I'm not sure that it's part of the station's name, as opposed to a description of where the station is located, since there are similar street numbers for all the other stations except Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil. It's an interesting question, but probably not germane to the current article, if 1966 was the last the name was used (if that's what the schedule indeed shows). Very good sleuthing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe I should've just sent you the link to the site itself, and recommended that you click on the image of the '66 schedule, but at least you were able to see the 255th Street name extension. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date mistake at beginning of film

I have the film running in front of me. How else can it be "sourced" unless I put the film on? How do you "source" a sequence of a film? If you would care to watch the opening sequence, you will see it. Please do not just revert without checking first. Manxwoman (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need a citation from a WP:reliable source which says what you claim to be seeing. See your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to question that I put onto my talk page, as you requested. Manxwoman (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Adamo 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:
  • frank-adamo-ar-46713/ "Remembering Frank Adamo: Doctor and war hero"] ''[[Tampa Tribune]]'' (July 18, 2010}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Recipients of the Legion of Merit 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Palisades (Hudson River) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Read the Talk Page for Lap Dance concerning Controversy and Scientific Studies

The issue of subheading for the Scientific Study section was tentatively resolved between Guy and myself. You should revert your new change to that section, and go back to the issue on the Talk Page for Lap Dance if you want to make input to this issue.James Carroll (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert, because labeling scientific studies "pro" and "anti" is classic original research, which is not allowed. We don't interpret or analyze, we report. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you should at least join in the discussion with Guy and myself on the MAIN Talk page and explain yourself to the group.James Carroll (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Remove the Hatnote

Now that we have the N*E*R*D song listed in the article's In Popular Culture section, and the FILM Lap Dance is is handled by Disambiguation from the Search Box, it's time to get rid of the distracting Hatnote at the top of the page.James Carroll (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the hatnote, many articles have them. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's sloppy, visual distracting from the first sentence, and now is redundant. Just because some pages are sloppy and incomplete does not mean that this one should be, especially in this case.James Carroll (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "redundant", it's functional for those people who arrive at an article because they've put in the wrong search term, and need to go somewhere else. We're here to serve the reader and making them look all the way at the bottom of the page is unreasonable. As for "sloppy" etc., well, maybe, but too bad. Articles have hatnotes. Learn to live with it, I did. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Lap Victory. How a DA's decision to drop prostitution charges against lap dancers will change the sexual culture of S.F. – and, perhaps, the country" SF Weekly (8 September 2004)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&oldid=589258273"