User talk:Beyond My Ken

"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)

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

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. 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

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]