User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia.

Beyond My Ken

"[Internet trolls] are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

Chris Mooney
"Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People"
Slate (February 14, 2014)
citing research by Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnellb and Delroy L. Paulhusc

We all tend to take Wikipedia much too seriously. It's certainly important to provide a free first-class online encyclopedia for the public, and no one can dispute how central Wikipedia has become to people searching for accurate, unbiased information, but there's little excuse for the bitterness, in-fighting and bitchiness with which many people approach editing here, which makes the experience difficult and unpleasant at times. I am generally in favor of removing the worst of those transgressors permanently, which, of course, leaves me open to the charge of not assuming good faith. Actually, I have little trouble assuming good faith, I simply refuse to keep the assumption alive in the face of evidence of misbehavior.

Beyond My Ken

"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)

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof
is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams
Mostly Harmless
(1992)

Wikipedia is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMORPG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

Beyond My Ken

- Learn the lesson that collectively, Wikipedia doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.

- Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care.

Beyond My Ken
excerpt from "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia"

A bad penny always turns up.

No Asshole Zone

Nude swimming

In checking references for Skinny dipping I came across this sentence- The English practice of men swimming in the nude was banned in the United Kingdom in 1860- have you every seen a reference for it? Basically it is not true - the offence is exposing oneself with the intent to shock. However this wikipedia line has been quoted so many times that it has swamped Google. Have you any clues?

We also seem to have a problem with circular references- the Ontario reference contains material that I am sure were unreferenced text in previous versions of Google articles. But further reference verification and expanding is a task for another night. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I've not come across a reference for that. Have you tried a Google search with "-Wikipedia" in the search terms? BMK (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No luck- I think that a deletion is in order-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just found this site Historical archives for male swimming that seems to have every source text we need.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rockwell illustration- I only included it was talked about in the text above but agree it is low quality. Personally I think both it and the text can go but I will try another approach first.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw your change - meh. I think I agree with you that the entire sentence re:Sat Eve Post should go. It's not really "art" anyway, we've got the skinny-dipping image in the article up further, and it doesn't actually illustrate skinny dipping per se, in that the kids could have been swimming totally clothed, would still have broken the law, and would still have run away. BMK (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well where do we start. I had found John Travis's piece in Recreation and the Sea Stephen Fisher University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 7 August 1997. which explains the negative reaction to naked bathing and mixed bathing engineered by religious concerns, and how bylaws were enacted by individual town councils who had the authority to fine citizens and how they made no effort to enforce them. This was around 1860/1870. Commercial concerns were supporting the profitable practice. A bit like a local parking fine. This does not make it against the illegal or a criminal offence. The deletion stands. But I then went to Sea bathing and Swim suit and found a lot of cut and paste.

Penelope Byrde points out that Smollett’s description may not be accurate, for he describes a two-piece costume, not the one piece shift or smock that most people describe and is depicted in contemporary prints. His description does, however, tally with Elizabeth Grant’s description of the guide’s costume at Ramsgate in 1811

As well as the three Wikipedia sites there was this one from the Australian Jane Austen Society.[ http://www.balnea.net/biblioteca/31.html I bagni di mare di Jane Austin].

• Copyvio
• Inaccurate
• Totally off topic
• The real reference in that section has link rot.

For those four reasons I suggest we delete the entire section - and with it, the offending factoid. Then start again. Do you concur?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Any comments- I am poised to delete, and start over.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I understand exactly what it is you propose to delete. Can you be more specific, please. BMK (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skinny dipping#Pre-19th century- was the section in question - but in the light of that, my confidence on the veracity of anything here with out a reference I can check has been shaken. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stanford White

I disagree greatly with your revision of my edit about Mr. White.

"A dedicated connoisseur of teenage girls." Teenage girls are not fine wine (maybe they are to you).

According to federal law, if you have sex with underage girls, you are committing rape. I question your integrity and consider your writing here biased and morally reprehensible.

My well-founded description of Mr. White's predilection as taking advantage of teenage girls is decidedly too forgiving.

See Uruburu's American Eve for proof of his, yes, rape of women. This is one of several sources that allege his activities. I demand proof on your part that he did not molest underage girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwentnor (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not judge people from one era by the standards of our own, and we especially do not apply laws which were not in effect at the time. Learn something about the era in which White lived, and the moral standards that were in effect at the time, and then we can talk (as long you don't insult me again). In the meantime, the current description is appropriate, and your amounts to an ex post facto imposition of current mores to a pevious time, hence a POV. BMK (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong: Oberman, Regulating Consensual Sex with Minors: Defining a Role for Statutory Rape. Age of majority raised to 18 in late 19th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwentnor (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you might fancy yourself a literary giant or something, but "dedicated connoisseur of teenage girls" is absolutely ridiculous and conveys little of the sentiment you are trying to forward (which is what, again?). Write plainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwentnor (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Acc. to OED: connoisseur = " A person well acquainted with one of the fine arts, and competent to pass a judgement in relation thereto; a critical judge of art or of matters of taste." Didn't know "teenage girls" fell into this category. Please elaborate. And dedicated? Aren't all connoisseurs dedicated?

If you are going to confound the truth, at least do so with stylistic integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwentnor (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, insulting the person you're talking to is always a good strategy to convince them that you're right - works every time. Besides, I didn't write "connoisseur of teenage girls" (I don't think), so you're not hitting me where it hurts, friend. It's hardly deathless prose, but it adequately describes White's activities and outlook regarding young women.

Now, when you write "Age of majority raised to 18 in late 19th Century", are you talking about Tennessee; Boise, Idaho; Salt Lake City; Joplin, Missouri or New York City? You are aware that the various age laws are state laws, right, and that there is no country-wide "age of consent" or "drinking age" or "smoking age"? And you are aware -- but, no, you're probably not -- that the social attitude towards older men seducing young women was quite different in high society New York City in White's day than it was in Pottsville, Pennsylvania during the same time period? Do you, in fact, know any of these things, or are you simply an absolutist who applies the limited knowledge you have about what's true right here and now in some place you're familiar with to every time and every place throughout all of human history?

There's no need to answer, I really have a good idea of where you're coming from, and it means that I'm not at all interested in what you might have to say. I will say this to you, however, with your clear lack of breadth of knowledge, you really shouldn't be tinkering around with editing an encyclopedia, since I have no doubt that you'd screw up whatever article you decided to touch. But maybe not, I have a tendency to make judgments based on my observations about people, something that's actually somewhat discouraged here.

In any event, I relieve you of the responsibility of trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong - please don't post on my talk page again, anything you put here will be deleted without reading. Enjoy life in your cocoon. BMK (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you doing?

You do realise I could block you know, don't you? 5 reverts? And you warn the other editor? It's not that long since your last block for edit warring. I'm protecting it for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• What I was doing was attempting to keep the article at the status quo ante as prescribed in WP:BRD, against an editor who was reverting to his own preferred version without consensus to do so. Yes, I am aware that keeping an article in the status quo ante is not an exception to the rules on edit warring, but it ought to be. BMK (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Theresa Caputo

I don't think quotation marks around a single word or two words (charlatan, not true) are appropriate or necessary. "editors who believe them to be simply prose" should not change content that is supported by the sources given. As the sources clearly describe Caputo as a charlatan and state her claims are not true this content does not need to be "defended" with quotation marks. Just a matter of MOS one or two words don't really make a quote, paraphrased content of a whole sentence is supported by the sources. When giving a quote direct attribution inline is needed, when giving a paraphrase with key words a reference is adequate. Not a huge issue just discussing. I am not reverting your revert at this point pending your reply. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Should not" but very well might, unless it is clear that they are direct quotes. Thank you for not reverting. BMK (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the quotation marks are to be retained we have to add inline attribution such as, described by D. J. Grothe as a "charlatan" whose claims James Randi has stated are "not true." Are you OK with that? Although I think it waters it down a little it is policy compliant. I try to avoid revert/revert situations with discussion whenever reasonably possible. Best wishes - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I'll just cut and paste it into the article right now. BMK (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My remaining question is how much flexibility is there in the policy not to wl in quotations. I wl'd cold reading and Forer effect in the notes section quote of Randi and would like to wl the word charlatan. Do you think these are OK? You can move this to the talk page of the article if you see fit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually don't hesitate to wikilink inside quotations, but try to do so only if it's something that most readers won't know. I think it's obvious to the reader that the wikilink was not in the original quote. I'm not sure how I feel about linking "charlatan", though - do you really think readers won't understand it? BMK (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS WP:LINKSTYLE, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the 'See also' section of the article." The rationale is that by wling within a quote we are essentially putting the content of the linked article in the speaker's mouth. I support a good deal of flexibility in the implementation of this policy (anywhere not contentious is fine by me).

In regards to charlatan, I think it is a fairly precise and specific term the full meaning of which is not widely known. I also happen to like the word and find the article interesting. A wl can be useful in providing a pointer to an interesting article on a related subject. Policy wise I was more pointing towards WP:UNDERLINK which suggests linking to "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully." I can't imagine a more relevant connection with Caputo than charlatan and that article provides an explanation of the practices (DJ Grothe thinks) Caputo engages in. Sorry for the TLDR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection if you'd like to link "charlatan". BMK (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flight information region 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:

• Services | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/179875769 | accessdate=23 January 2014 }}</ref><ref>[[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/us-drone-over-australia/5215598 "Ex-military spy drone to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bikini Beach 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:

• Funicello]]<br/>[[Martha Hyer]]<br/>[[Harvey Lembeck]]<br>[[Don Rickles]]<br>[[John Ashley actor)|John Ashley]]<br>[[Keenan Wynn]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brattleboro Museum and Art Center

Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit to Brattleboro Museum and Art Center? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? We've had this discussion before, and I made my logic perfectly clear, I believe. BMK (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you removed a {{Vermont-museum-stub}} tag I put on the page; secondly, in the previous discussion, I answered you and you never responded to it.

To argue the other side of the situation here, I quote from a footnote in MOS:

One of the reasons this happens is that every stub template generates a stub category, and those stub categories appear after the "main" categories. Another is that certain bots and scripts are set up to expect the cats, stubs and ILLs to appear in that order, and will reposition them if they don't. Therefore, any manual attempt to change the order is doomed unless the bots and scripts are also altered.

When you put the stub tags before the navboxes, you also put them before the permcats (non-stub categories), which is the forst point. The second point is also valid - especially when you consider the fact that one of these "bots and scripts" is AutoWikiBrowser, commonly used for stub sorting - when you put the stub tags out of place, AWB's diff becomes harder for users to understand.

An other reason to put them after the NavBoxes is that the NavBoxes are intended primarily for readers of Wikipedia, and the stub tags are primarily for editors of Wikipedia. It seems obvious to me that we should put the NavBoxes in a more prominent location than the stubh tags for that reason.

As for the coding issue, discuss it in some appropriate forum for issues related to {{navbox}}. If there is a clear consensus to make some allowance, but no one there knws how to do it, try at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So you do recall the discussion, yet commented here as if it had never occurred - what's up with that? In any case, I acknowledge your arguments, but find them unconvincing. (Any removal of a stub tag on my part was inadvertent.) 07:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when you said that we had such a discussion, it was simple for me to find it - I tend not to have many discussions here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's a reasonable explanation and I accept it. BMK (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And while I do believe in IAR (the only possible excuse for going against MOS), IAR isn't something you should do unilaterally when you know an other established user in good standing disagrees with you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's inevitable that somebody will object to almost anything, so adapting your POV would effectively disable IAR entirely. BMK (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. As long as no one objects, IAR gives you some flexability. Once an objection is raised, ask the community or follow the rule in question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AE

Hi, BMK. Thanks for your comments at AE.

You said "it is not the function of the administrative participants on AE to substitute their own judgment for that of the Arbitration Committee"

You should then be aware that the Committee defined an automation tool as "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" (Principle 3.1)

Clearly this falls out-with such a definition.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

As you are aware, the sanction itself, which is what is binding on you, uses different language:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but really we have either to look at the purpose, or the strict interpretation (if we are going to be automata ourselves).

On the strict interpretation (the wikilawyer version if you will) then this is not what was meant by automation in the remedy under which the AE is brought. It is absolutely crystal clear that multiple edits to multiple articles are what was meant. This is brought out by mentioning "rate, number and consistency of edits" (if my memory serves me).

Conversely if one looks to the purpose, then there is no damage done by an edit to a user-space page, and no preventative purpose to seeking or providing relief under AE.

Either way it is a little strange that someone should be scrutinizing my edits to a page entitled User:Rich Farmbrough/wanted/mathematicians with a view to AE.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

No, what's odd is that you would make what is clearly an automated edit anywhere on Wikipedia when you are explicitly forbidden to do so, and think that it would pass unnoticed. BMK (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logocnrs.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logocnrs.png. 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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.

Bowery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Steve Brodie

Sugar Hill, Manhattan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walter White

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe Yule

I thought it was neat to see Mickey Rooney's dad was an actor in a couple of his movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.94.143 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Strasberg non-free photo

Are you aware that non-free images can only be used where no free one is available? But even if the image you restored to Lee Strasberg was free, it's only a third the size, cropped square, and facing off the page. Can you explain the logic to this?

And while you're at it, can you also explain why you consider a free 1978 prime-career professional portrait of Mary Tyler Moore as "not a particularly interesting or indicative representation" compared to the one you restored for her lead? Not only is the one you replaced an event candid, but it's also about a third the size, and the representation is not close to her prime television appearance. --Light show (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Moore, 1978
• 
  Moore candid in 2011

No, the image of MTM you want to add is not "close to her prime TV appearance", that would be her look as Laura Petrie or Mary Richards, not the slicked down, dark-haired, short-haired image that represents a blip in her career. That you think otherwise speaks volumes about your lack of judgment on all image questions. BMK (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, don't post here again. Comments go on article talk pages, not here. BMK (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello BMK. You may have already seen some of this but just in case I thought I would have you take a look at these as they seem to hit several of the same targets as last time - especially the creation of this GeGe Pearson and its talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW part of your user name was an answer in yesterdays (I think we get them a week late so it may have been last weeks for you) NYTimes crossword. Clue was "Knowledge" (whoops that might be a mistake but I can't check as I recycled the paper this morning) and the answer was 'Ken"!!! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I reported the use to DoRD who's been handling the CU blocks. BMK (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know

We clearly disagree on packing galleries. I've packed several dozen galleries (maybe 100) since the option was introduced last year, and I believe you're the only editor who has reverted one of these. In general, it can take some time to get used to something new, but I'll ask that you try and not just revert on sight. For example, it would be better if you'd try to change the "heights" parameter to see if that would look better to you, or try in some other way to play around with other parameters. If you just revert on sight, it would be like you are just saying "packed galleries are totally unacceptable and must all be removed" which is definitely not a majority opinion and is unacceptable to me.

To sum up the advantages of packed galleries:

• they allow larger pictures and thus make the photos more visible
• they adjust to things like infoboxes, thus work better for folks with different page setup preferences than a fixed format.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there nothing to "get used to". Something that looks awful, looks awful, not matter how often you look at it. All the packed galleries I've come across have been ugly, irregular and unbalanced, and do not in any way improve the look of the article. When I come across them, I will be undoing them for that reason. BMK (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:67.220.154.178, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:TPV and WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you at ANI

Hi, in case you don't get a notification, I'm letting you know I mentioned you here WP:ANI#Dispute between IP editors. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. BMK (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Nicholas Historic District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City College (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) 08:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, you were right and I was wrong

about Taco Viva. Disappointing, and I'm sorry to have troubled you over him. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Best, BMK (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Metadata?

Uh, what? I added some metadata to a source, and you removed it? Could I ask why? DS (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You may have intended to do that, but the actual edit was not helpful. Take a look. BMK (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, my mistake, I see what happened and will fix it. Incidentally, this isn't "metadata" it just adding information to a reference. BMK (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it, sorry for the error. But while I have you here, why did you move University School of Physical Education in Krakow to Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w Krakowie? This is English Wikipedia, and we use English titles here unless the title in another language is well-known in English, which is not the case here. BMK (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

a) "adding information to a reference" is metadata. By definition. b) It's not? Oops. DS (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hiya, Just wanted to say thanks for making me see sense yesterday at ANI! It's just I've never had it blatantly copied but yeah in hindsight it was probably a stupid fuss over nothing, Anyway Thanks :-) Regards, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer! BMK (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cooper Union

Hi. I'm writing to you about the additions I made to the Cooper Union Great Hall remodel section. LHSA+DP understands that they are not to use Wikipedia for promotional services. My re-written text was edited to reflect only facts about the upgrade. All I was trying to do was talk about the upgrade and give LHSA+DP the same credits that were afforded to the architecture and lighting firms associated with this project. Please give me constructive feedback as I do not believe my re-written text is promotional in any way. I included citations from Cooper Union so what else do you want? Should I cut out all mention of the exhibition and just state that they did the work? Kleo101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleo 101 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your information needs to be supported by a citation from a reliable source. BMK (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

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.

Bikini Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Ashley

Ski Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Steven Rogers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village

Regarding this, I'm not sure if you know this, but the article on smaller screens like my own makes the text in the lead squished very tightly. Right now, the first line only contains the words "Stuyvesant Town–Peter". The second line contains "Cooper Village is a large private". So the images are pushing the text together very tightly so that it becomes a very thin column, making it somewhat difficult to read.

I figured I would move some of the images next to the table of contents instead, where there is empty space and is something that is occasionally done to make space in the lead. Your thoughts on this? Gary (talk · scripts) 14:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You must have an extremely and unsually small screen. What is your screen resolution & size? BMK (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of the images significantly, does that help? BMK (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks it's a bit better. The first line contains "Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper" and the second one contains "Village is a large private residential". Gary (talk · scripts) 01:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

French Airbases

Now I thought of this after I'd moved about three, and stopped and worked on Strategic Air Forces Command, and then decided not to move any more. On balance I think probably COMMONNAME trumps any literal translation of the French. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, great. BMK (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeking Your Opinion

Back in October and November of last year you very kindly assisted me in making edits I proposed for the One Madison page. On the page's talk page where I noted my conflict of interest, you commented my straight-forward, above board approach to making edits on behalf of a client was an easier and more pleasant way of dealing with the edits rather than attempting to make edits by stealth. Recently a seemingly new Wikipedian created a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard questioning my approach.

It's my feeling that unless the public relations community can operate transparently, ethically, and within Wikipedia's Terms of Use in order to work together with volunteer editors, that many will resort to anonymous and potentially contentious Wikipedia editing. I am concerned that if transparency is penalized, others will be less inclined to follow the same path of taking an above board approach. And now that the Wikipedia Board is reviewing a potential Terms of use/Paid contribution amendment [1], it's evident how important the handling of paid contributions is to the community.

If you wouldn't mind, I would really appreciate you weighing in on this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nina: I did indeed appreciate the aboveboard and honest way you went about getting changes made to the One Madison article, but I'm afraid that with this comment to me you have violated our policy on canvassing. In order to avoid one side or the other in a dispute gaining an unfair advantage over the other, the kind of notification you just made to me is allowed only in specific ways. You are not allowed to notify only editors you feel will be receptive to your point of view, you must make notifications of editors on all sides of the issue, and the notifications themselves must be neutrally worded, and not be an invitation for vote stacking.

I know you aren't all that experienced at editing Wikipedia, so I don't plan to report you, but I will warn you that after this message, if you make any further canvassing comments, I will bring it to the attention of an admin.

I will try to stop in and take a look at COIN when I have a chance. BMK (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gunnison

Hello Beyond My Ken,

I wanted to ask why you removed the link to GunnisonBeachNJ.Us from the article?

This is the only site where people that are interested about going to the beach can find an online community that is willing to answer their questions, and we do get a lot of questions and have helped a lot of people experiance Gunnison Beach.

Thanks,

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njfinn (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO, which says that the "External links" section should avoid

Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

BMK (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DS notice request

Hi, I'm disappointed that you closed the ANI thread between me and Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) as you did, but whatever. If you're not aware of it, there's a prior ANI with a long list of eds raising questions of WP:COMPETENCE with respect to that ed, and he managed to incur a topic ban on vaccinations because of it. His behavior toward article content we both watch and towards me in content disputes is very similar to those prior issues.

The purpose of sanctions is reform and prevention, not punishment, right? I would prefer to pursue that avenue, which is why I was doing what I did at ANI. I was hoping to NOT invoke DS as a blunt instrument when I encounter WP:ARBCC noncompliant behaviors with him in the future. I suppose maybe someone might also need to point out egg on my own face (if any), because I do not see it... it's always a problem with the other guy. I mean of course.... isn't it?

Joking aside, since you want us to use DS...... OK but please follow thru to help us do that. Request that you use the climate change version of Template:Ds/alert (or other if I specified the wrong one), and then log the giving of the notice here, as the process you invoked in your closing statement (I think) requires. Couple of relevant historical facts

• User informally notified of ARBCC here

• According to the relevant log (linked earlier in this request), the user has not been formally notified of DS in the climate pages under ARBCC

• FYI, I am already on the list as an FYI-in-case-its-needed-later sort of process discussed here. That's the same spirit in which I'm asking that Prokaryotes be formally alerted and logged, so that both sides can actually follow your closing instructions by invoking DS later, if necessary.

Thanks for your attention, and if you have feedback for myself, I'd welcome hearing it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I have no interest in getting involved in this. BMK (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• But you DID get involved by closing the ANI. It's a simple request. Should I appeal, or make the request at some other venue? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do whatever you want, closing an AN/I means that the AN/I was no longer useful, it does not mean that I'm interested in mediating or getting involved. BMK (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I'll ask someone else to do that, and will include a courtesy FYI ping in case you want to just be aware of what I say with respect to your involvement, though I won't be asking further comment/action from you, unless you feel inspired to offer it. Thanks for reading, thread is closed, I think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not ping me. BMK (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Too late, sorry, but I'll edit the post to remove it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• No harm, but I see from looking at your post there that you are laboring under the misapprehension that I am an admin -- I am not. I am an experienced editor (9 years, 142k+ edits), but I'm purely rank-and-file. The "NAC" on my closing statement sands for "Non-Admin Closure". I have no desire to be an admin, but Wikipedia culture says that regular editors can do pretty much anything an admin can do except for those things that require the extra buttons. BMK (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow! (no sarcasm - I meant "wow") I had no idea there was such a thing as NAC. A bit surprised too. But thanks for taking time to explain. It's a wrap here, I think.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As you might expect, there's even a page on it. See WP:NAC. Best, BMK (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please quote the text that makes that essay apply to ANI proceedings? All I see is text related to deletion discussions, but since the concept of NAC is new to me, I'm probably just not seeing it. In particular, on the talk page there is some text that would have supported NAC at ANI if the proposal in which the text is found had passed.... but the proposal actually failed. In my semi professional world (real law) explicit failure of this sort has significant value when it comes to construing othe rules. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC) It is Step 3 at [[2]]. I think you swept your wand without giving the slightest attention to the failure to assume good faith, or the personal attacks, or the failure by the other ed to directly answer simple questions (evidence of disruption). So I rather think you ignored the part about Step 3, and its instructions to take it seriously and be prepared to discuss. Naughty naughty. But I'm not going to do more than express my opinion that your action was blatantly unfounded. On the other hand, I appreciate that we've been able to talk politely. I'll keep watching here, but I consider the matter closed (again) unless you wish to add/continue in some respect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that I wouldn't have closed it if I had seen in any of the admin participants there an inclination to take action. Also, any closure is subject to re-opening, and a NAC closure especially so. In my experience, neither admins nor well-experienced editors are hesitant to re-open if they think the closing was precipitous or incorrect; of course, participants should generally not re-open. BMK (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln Square Synagogue

Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Lincoln Square Synagogue without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove from notable persons lists -- on your assertion that the person is not notable -- people who have wikipedia articles. For wp purposes, they are notable. Whatever your personal views may be. Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• I did explain the removal in the edit summary: "Assistant deans are not notable". BMK (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• BMK -- you are aware, of course, that you failed to indicate in your edit summary an acceptable reason for your deletion of content. And -- in fact -- you did as you say give a reason. But one that was not acceptable. Your purported reason for deletion was "Assistant deans are not notable". However, the person you said was "not notable" has a wp article. Thus, for wp purposes -- they are notable. Thus, the reason for your deletion -- as explained by you -- was not an acceptable reason for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• A person not being notable is a perfectly acceptable reason for not having their name appear in a list of notable people. To suggest otherwise is plainly nonsensical. Further, it wasn't, at the time, sourced, which is always a legitimate reason for removal, as an editor of your experience should know - as you should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• First of all -- your reason in your deletion, as you yourself presented it in your edit summary (I assume good faith, so I assume your edit summary reflected your reason), was not at all that it was lacking a ref. Your purported deletion rationale -- which was flawed, as discussed -- was exclusively based on your personal view that a person with a wp article was not notable.

  The fact that a person has a wikipedia article is -- for purposes of wp notability, in a wp list -- sufficient indicia of notablity. A person may be included in a list of people if "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.... If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." And in this case you just !voted at the person's AfD, and if you haven't noticed -- your !vote is in the minority. The person not only has an article, but the current consensus at the AfD is that the person is notable. Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• {1) Learn how to indent properly, please. (I have corrected your formatting error.)
• (2) Thanks for expressing your opinions, please do not make a habit of it. I believe I banned you from this page some years ago.
• (3) This discussion is concluded.
• BMK (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

U.S. vs. US

Hi. Noticed your change in the infobox... is there some MOS rule I've been breaking by putting it the other way?Onel5969 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. First, remember that MOS is not a set of rules, it is a set of guidelines. It is not a policy, and is not mandatory. We are allowed to use our editorial judgment.

Now, I think the "U.S." versus "US" battle was lost some time ago. I myself prefer using "U.S.", but I got batted over the head with "US" so much that I gave in. I have no idea where, if anywhere, you'll find that discussion, but rest assured that "US" and "UK" are preferred over "U.S." and "U.K.".

Now the italics I freely admit is my own preference. I believe it makes it much easier if everything parenthetical in the infobox is italicized - it simply make the visual separation from the main material easier for the eye to take in - otherwise the infobox starts looking cluttered.

I hope that answers your question. BMK (talk)

It does. Thanks. I don't really have a preference, so if a consensus was reached, I'll abide by that. Definitely will use the italics, though.Onel5969 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of local preference, but there are publishers who distinguish them. For example, Bloomberg, L.P. uses U.S., but UK. My preference is also to use U.S., in part to avoid any confusion with the common personal pronoun, "us" (not a problem for UK). bd2412 T 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As with so many things, I think my preference is based on what I grew up with and am therefore comfortable with. "U.S." and "U.K." just feels right to me (and "USA" in any form makes me cringe). I wonder if the U.S./US divide is an American/British thing? BMK (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Steven Fulop

Hi Beyond My Ken,

Sure thing, I was having trouble figuring out which references were in the correct form because I noticed some on this page were formatted differently. I will make sure to use the format you showed me. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia so still learning the ropes. Thanks for you help! Jerseyboy25 (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Valda Setterfield

Hello, nice to see someone who cares about Valda Setterfield. Are you a dancer? Yes I am an American and "an" sounds better than "a" in most cases to me. Concerning the lede, it depends on if I feel that information is important enough to be the first thing someone reads and if that information is important. I also don't like repeating information too much, if the whole article can be viewed without scrolling, there is no need to have a long lede. Thank you for taking the time to look at my work.Cheers HesioneHushabye (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I admire Valda Setterfield very much, and, no, I am not a dancer, far from it - more like a clumsy oaf, in fact. Regarding "a" and "an", the rule is that "an" is only used in front of a word beginning with a vowel. As far as the lede section goes, you might want to take another look at WP:LEDE. It's true that the lede shouldn't have everything in it, but someone who just needs a quick hit of information should be able to get a fairly complete view of a subject by reading it. Best, BMK (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm ZackDickens12. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Lorraine (TV programme) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 06:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not go this route, ZackDickens12. Retaliatory editing will eventually get you blocked. BMK (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the message I left you on your talk page, so I'll just repeat it here in case you might want to refer to it in the future:

== Incorrect templating of non-vandalism edits ==

You are tagging editors who have made non-vandalistic edits with {{uw-vandalism1}} which is intended only for vandalism and test edits, not for edits you simply disagree with. Continuing to label non-vandalistic edits as vandalism in this way can be considered to be a personal attack and can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read WP:VANDALISM for the very strict Wikipedia definition of what is and isn't vandalism. Please do not label any more non-vandalistic edits as vandalism.

Oh, and while you're at it, please read WP:DTTR and do not template the regulars. You're putting yourself on very thin ice, my friend. BMK (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There you go! BMK (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot

{{subst:User:BracketBot/inform|diff=607209903|page=A Kiss Before Dying (1956 film)|by= by modifying 1 "()"s|debug=(1, 0, 0, 0)|list=yes|remaining=*Dying'' was '''Joanne Woodward'''<nowiki>'s second film, after [[Count Three and Pray </nowiki>(film|Count Three and Pray]]'', the year before. She said at one time that it was her "worst |lines=1}}

 Done BMK (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tin Pan Alley 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 [[Bob Geddins|Robert Geddins]] blues song "Tin Pan Alley (aka The Roughest Place In Town]", which tells about crimes happening in speakeasies and with police raids, appeared on [[Stevie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lorraine (TV programme)

Hi. I see this edit had the summary "There is absolutely no reason to have 2 logos next to each other". I agree with you about the two logos, but I see you also reverted a number of other changes at the same time. Are you sure those other changes were incorrect? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, it was the double logo thing I was aiming at, and I basically didn't see the other changes -- but now that I look at them... well, they might be OK, but all the changes were unsourced, and the editor's rep isn't all that great, so I'll leave it to someone else to straighten that out. Indeed, I see another editor took them out again, with the edit summary "Dubious". I assume that refers to the changes, and not to the double logo.

Thanks for bringing my oversight to my attention, though, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, sounds good - I can appreciate your frustration with him! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not moving Weetabix to the "former sponsors", and adding "local" to the new lead sponsor struck me as unencyclopedic: and not properly referenced. Doc talk 08:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 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.

Operation Kingpin (World War II) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Robert Murphy and Berber

Free and Easy (1930 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Montgomery

John R. G. Hassard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saranac Lake

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Astor Opera House

I have finally gotten around to perusing WP:CON, and was interested in this part:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote [emphasis added].

You wrote

Except, of course, that this is Wikipedia, which works by WP:CONSENSUS, and, so far, the consensus in this discussion is against you 3 to 1.

And your friend wrote

So since I agree with BMK and the others, there is now a 4:1 consensus against you.…So unless you can prove that your view is supported by one of the very few exceptions to the rule about decisionmaking by consensus, the view supported by the others here is the "winner".

which is exactly the opposite of what the guideline says. I mention this to you because if you are going to invite friends over to support you, you'd be better served if they knew the guidance. Vzeebjtf (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I invited no "friends", I posted neutral notices on the Wikiproject New York City talk page, and on the talk page of User:Drmies, a high-traffic page on which a lot of knowledgable and experienced Wikipedians hang out. Your interpretation of what is, and isn't consensus is confused, it is indeed not a vote, but when three people citing valid precedents oppose your position, for which you could not provide any supporting policy, guideline or essay, then the consensus is quite clear. The matter is now closed and you should consider dropping the stick. BMK (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I wasn't addressing the content (I mentioned the page only for reference); I was perfectly happy with the outcome. I was talking about process, which is a valid topic. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And you are wrong about consensus, which is my point. 19:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Met Opera Conductor list

Hi! Would you mind reviewing your edit to the list of significant conductors in the Met Opera article? I'm guessing you didn't intend one half of the list to be in a smaller type face than the other. Thanks so much, Markhh (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't intend that, and that's not how it appears on my screen, either. I've tightened the space between the columns, does that help your rendering? BMK (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, weird. Looking on my phone, column one is half the size of column two. But on another screen it looks fine. I've not run into that before! Take care, Markhh (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. BMK (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Beyond My Ken, I hereby award you The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar for your outstanding efforts in re-writing Tucker County Seat War so that it now follows Wikipedia Copyright guidelines. You most certainly went above and beyond to rescue this article! -- Caponer (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: User talk:ZackDickens12

Please don't restore copyright violations, as you did at User talk:ZackDickens12. User:Anna Frodesiak was correct that the text was infringing; it was copyrighted material copied and pasted from another source without attribution and in violation of the licence terms. The fact that you and other editors suggested that Zack copy the text doesn't make it "no copyvio". Fortunately, because the text copied in this case was CC-BY-SA-licensed, fixing the problem was a simple matter of providing the attribution on the page itself or via an edit summary. (The page linked to by User:Anna Frodesiak explained this very conspicuously, both in a summary box at the top and in more detail elsewhere in the page.) I have now done this. In the future, please be more careful in reading copyvio notices. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my fault. I could have just attributed. Sorry for the trouble. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychonaut, you're a jerk. Go away. Excuse me, according to Subparagraph 2 of Article 55, go away. BMK (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand: Anna, thanks for your note, it's appreciated. 09:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree I didn't come across very well above. I hope you will accept my apology for the unfriendly tone of my message. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I un-dub thee "jerk". BMK (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 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.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to West End, Richard Williams, The Man Who Fell To Earth, Help!, The Bed Sitting Room and The Four Musketeers

Lucky Me (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Frank Davis and Robert O'Brien

Sparrows (1926 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to My Best Girl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Does someone need a Wikihug?

Is everything ok? Do you want to talk about it?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about it: Fuck off. BMK (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)