User talk:Beyond My Ken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that.
There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:
  • BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
  • When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.
Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.

Regarding 2RR[edit]

Given the concerns that have been raised about my blocks for edit warriing — i.e. 13 blocks in 14 years of editing, an average of a little under one per year, which also happens to be on average one edit-warring block per every 19,300 edits (my current editing total being 250,859) — I have decided to try to limit myself to 2RR as a means of attempting to prevent myself from going to 3RR and over.

I'd appreciate it if any friendly editor who sees me going over 2RR would drop a note on my talk page or ping me. We'll see if this helps rein (Hi, Montanabw!) myself in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


since you are interested in nazism, is "Hitler's preoccupation with the Pan-Germanic plan began to fade, although the idea was never abandoned." correct or is the source correct? can you also please refer the sources that say totalitarianism and anti democracy were part of nazi ideology, for my sources see Authoritarian democracy the article was a #REDIRECT Totalitarian democracy if you dont agree that was part of nazism please be feel free to restore that version of the article. Editdude93 (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've restored "totalitarianism" but not "authoritarian democracy". The Nazis had no interest in democracy per se, except as a vehicle by which to chieve power. Once they had it, they did away with democracy prett uch altogether, leaving afew vestiges for their show value only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic disruptive editing. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at AN3[edit]

Any thoughts concerning this report at AN3? I'd like El C to reconsider his closure, but not until he's heard from you (if you have anything to add). Not sure if my {{ping}} worked. General Ization Talk 20:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd really like to help, but I think you pulled the trigger one revert too soon. I was waiting to see if they did another one before filing a AN3 report, because the three reverts (two of the edits were back-to-back and therefore only count as one edit for EW purposes) just weren't enough. In my experience, the "edit warring" vs. "3RR" argument you used is generally brought up only when the reverts are outside of the 24-hour period for 3RR violations, so I'm not surprised that it was rejected. Very sorry I can't assist you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Jeepers creepers. Is it not possible you might have got the wrong end of the stick? BMK I did not revert your edit. I just restored the page to what I thought was the LGV. You had just reverted several of the same editor's additions. I reverted bold edits that I thought made the article worse and then restored a stable version. I was then warned in spite of not having been warring. I then attempted to discuss and, following the warning (which I deemed unnecessary) did NOT RETURN TO THE PAGE IN QUESTION. Two more threats to stop what I had already stopped came next and then a report, in spite of my not having even attempted to do anything other than discuss the issue. Anyway let's move on. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I deleted something from the article, you reverted it - that's a revert. Please read the definition of what a WP:REVERT is, 'cause it's not what you think it is. You were warned because you were edit warring - another policy you should read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
ok NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Prostitution article[edit]

Hi. Here you reverted with the explanation "LGV". What does that mean? Also, the version you reverted back to was recently added edits by Anthony22 [1], [2], [3]. I'm guessing your revert did not revert to the long standing version. Also, these do not appear to be sourced, although they are commonly known. Still, I question the necessity of adding these names to the infobox. Lastly, right now there is a complaint regarding Anthony22's manner of editing at ANI here.

Their edits seem to have caused a lot of problems, and in this instance they were just adding to the Prostitution article based on what was in their head. There also have been complaints left on their talk page [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and there is more that follows. I think you can check the rest yourself (if you're so inclined). Anyway, just giving you a heads up. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of the article saying exactly this.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
LGV = "Last good version". It's a standard abbreviation. See WP:Wikipedia abbreviations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see "LGV" listed on that page. (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha, you;re right. It looks like that list is all shortcuts. I know it's on a list somewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
It's at WP:Edit summary legend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. ;-) (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons wikilink[edit]

I don’t revert your edit at Boston City Hall (even if you revert mine), but I think I will submit the question if it is necessary, for the guidelines, to have links to commons at the end of the page, most of the voices have already eliminated it for some time. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Almost every English Wikipedia article has a link to Commons in the "External links" section of the article, if there is a relevant Commons category. What "voices" are you talking about, and where are you going to submit the question? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kasper2006: See WP:MOSSIS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: we already have a link to commons in the left column of the page, you tell me what sense would it have to have two? But from something like noticeboard administrators. :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing here for 14 years, and I've never noticed that link there before, but I've noticed the links in the "EL" section many, many thousands of times. Please do not remove Commons links from EL sections until you have a consensus to do so from a centralized discussion that is properly advertised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I will delete the list[edit]

The list of major perpetrators will be deleted. Ciobanu Oilor (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you will not, unless you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking a bit?[edit]

Would you mind checking a bit on the talk page I initiated about Wilhelm Boger, alias 'the tiger of Auschwitz' on the list of major perpetrators of the Holocaust? I proposed him for addition on the list, and yes, I put citations. Transformers2000 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Not until you start indenting your comments properly. Your wrongly-formatted comments make it virtually impossible to read the page. I've left instructions both on the article talk page and on your user talk age and I have pleaded with you on the article talk page to follow them, and you have totally ignored me - so I will not respond to your comments until you format them correctly.
Don't, however, get the idea that I won't revert any additions you make to the list if they do not have citations from reliable sources attached to them. I will do so, and I won't be adding any citations myself -- as I did for your addition of Hamann (for which you never even thanked me) -- to any new additions you make.
You can assume that my answer to every inquiry you make about adding a name is "I will not agree to the addition of this person without a citation from a reliable source showing that they are a "major perpetrator of the Holocaust." Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvinience BMK, I never tried to seem rude and ignorant, even though I from my actions that is the messege. As you explained in the instructions when I do my own research I am the one that has to work on it, not anyone else. I understand now that I have to fix my issues by following the instructions you kindly gave me, and I thank you for that and for the effort you put on searching on citations for Joachim Hamann, even though I was supposed to be the one who had to do that. And again, I know that excuses after excuses without any effort to fix the problem are meaningless. Tomorrow I will indent my comments correctly and give citations, because without those the details are useless. My brother got in a car accident today and he was severely injured because a motocyclist came in front of his car from the opposite direction. Anyways, I will do what I said here. Have a good night,or day (the time here is different where I currently am). Transformers2000 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your brother, I wish him a full recovery, however, that's completely irrelevant to why you refuse to indent your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

When I joined Wikipedia two months ago I constantly started to add perpetrators on the 'major perpetrators list', without even reading the Wikipedia policies in the first place. You could say I was a bit 'reckless' and 'ignorant' and now when someone tried to give me intructions I became a bit undecided, and since I am not editing on my computer because it litterally shut down forever and had to use my phone instead it's pretty awkward. Now, about citations. I have put for today only one on Adolf Hitler but I intend to add a bit more tomorrow. Would that be ok? Transformers2000 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Let's call a halt here for a while so Transformers2000 can attend to his brother. In the meantime, Transformers2000, you will understand that disputed material will need to be removed from the article. Discussion can resume when you're ready. EEng 21:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC[edit]

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel[edit]

Hello, I'm curious - why did you revert my edit to the above article? The photo is of Elie Wiesel in 1998, not a photo of 1998. Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi. You reverted here [11] without clearly explaining what you concerns are. Do you think the new content was not good or do you think that part of the article should stay tagged? Furthermore, two reverts per editor are not "edit-warring". Referring to other editors' edits as "edit-warring" with no good basis not only is not a sign of good faith but it makes discussing any issue more difficult. Not to mention that the content dispute between me and the other editor had already been settled. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In the hopes of saving some search time[edit]

Hello BMK. I saw your edit summary on Mel Blanc's article. I bumped into the same thing with Nikkimaria last month. I started this thread Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Need to reach a consensus. Nikkimaria pointed me to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave which I found kinda persuasive but I also notice that discussion at the thread isn't definitive one way or the other. I'm not trying to cause problems (and apologize if that happens) I just wanted you to see what had gone on already. On a happier note the announcement of the Criterion Collection's 1000 set wasn't quite what I expected but looks like a fun time. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation[edit]

Hi there, I want to apologize for any confusion and miscommunication from our little GVSHP naming feud, I'm simply trying to help. After your first response to my edits I contacted the organization and a representative said,

"Thank you so much for your support of Village Preservation! Yes, Village Preservation is technically a nickname, since we are legally keeping our full long name, but we are aiming to go by, be known as, and use Village Preservation exclusively as we move forward. It's taking a long time for us to inform our community and make that transition across all of our platforms, including Wikipedia, so this is so helpful. Our new website will be launching at, hopefully in the late fall, so that's very much in progress and is all part of our rebranding project which we unveiled in March 2019 and have been working to move towards fully in the coming months. It's been quite a process! But we've gotten lots of great feedback, so we're very excited to move forward and in those efforts, I'm so grateful for your support in doing this very helpful work! I'm glad to be in touch or help clarify anything in the future! Warmly, Ariel Kates, Manager of Communications and Programming"

Is there a way I can convince you this overhaul is in the interest of the org? Again they have announced on all of their platforms and there are multiple sources outlining their change. To me this isn't much different than when they changed from Greenwich Village Trust in the 80s. Is there potentially a compromise that could be made? The website currently uses "Village Preservation (The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation)" Their Twitter says "Village Preservation (GVSHP)" and Facebook says "Village Preservation - Greenwich Village Society For Historic Preservation" --Dgar802 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Until they officially change the name of the organization, please continue to use their actual name and not their "nickname". We are, after all, an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

David Hogg[edit]

I am curious as to why you reverted my edit. The reference #75 has a *Red* notation stating that italics and bold are not allowed in the publisher(correction, Website, not publisher) parameter field. I only removed the italics around Not sure why this minor copyedit is a problem. Would you please explain? I enjoy wikignoming, and haven't had this problem before. I just noticed the same *Red* notation on ref #66, but will refrain from correcting it until I hear back from you. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? Let me take a look.
OK, yeah, my mistake. I thought you had added a space between the "dot" and "com". Sorry about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

After consideration, I can see that you just made a simple mistake. I have removed the offending italics from the markup so the red warnings will disappear! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. A space would be bad, indeed! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Sorry I made a non-sequential mess, here.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like everything is straightened out now. 07:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Gary Null[edit]

Hey. Is thee a DS alert notification on that talk page? I just DS alerted a user for making a not so NPOV change in the article.-- Deepfriedokra 02:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: No, just a standard BLP notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your continued hard work against attempts of ruination, wrecking, sabotage herein and Sock puppetry, as well; I confer this barnstar on you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3 modification[edit]

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

I don't expect you to change your mind - this is just a notification. Thanks.


---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now a proposal 3A and a proposal 3B. I still don't expect you to change your mind - this is just a notification. Thanks.---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is now an "original" proposal and an "alternate" proposal. Not 3A and 3B. I know it seems I haven't edited much, based on this, but really, I have been around for awhile :>) :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steve Quinn: Thanks for the notifications, I appreciate it. I'll check out the new proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

File:B H Liddell Hart.jpg[edit]

Seriously, you think the blown out image with far less detail is better? File:B H Liddell Hart.jpg. (Hohum @) 17:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The image you uploaded is too dark and difficult to see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing politics; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Hello, BMK, you're getting close to 3 reverts. Please do not revert again. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: There is an RfC open, and the editors who want the material removed are taking it out before the RfC arrives at a consensus. Besides, I made two reverts, and Acterion made 1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant @Acroterion:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
BMK, you should be sure to mention that the material was recently added then rejected. You restored the material without going to the talk page first. I, as an at the time involved editor, opened the talk discussion where consensus was strongly against inclusion. You opened a RfC and then suggested that meant that the material must remain in the article until the RfC closes. Where did you get that idea? Policy [[12]] on consensus has a simple flow chart. Make a change (done), wait (done), agreement (nope), discuss (we are here). It doesn't say you get to keep the change until the discussion is complete. To be honest I wasn't that worried about it but your aggressive/antagonistic attitude here [[13]], posted prior to any edit of mine to the actual article, changed my mind. Let's strictly follow the process. Springee (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
My behavior is aggressive?? That's a laugh. You and Victor Salvini have been aggresively trying to delete the material from the first, despite ongoing discussions. Please address any further comments to the article talk age or the AN/I report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Another example of your extremely aggressive behavior: you removed the same material from another article, Right-wing populism, after it was supported by two completely relable academic sources (and removed the academic sources as well), despite the fact that Bannon was addressing a group of right-wing populists who belong to one of the largest right-wing populist parties in Europe. How you can conceivably think that his remarks are not appropriate to include in our article on right-wing populism, I don;t know, unless your primary motivation is to WP:CENSOR material you don't want to see in any Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I've filed an AN/I report about you and Victor Salvini, deleting material which is the subject on an ongoing RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liz:, please see BMK’s continued edit warring at Right Wing Populism [[14]] Springee (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm doing what one is supposed to do on Wikipedia, I'm editing the article to improve it -- unlike you, who is apprently attemoting to CENSOR from it material you disagree with. Please don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


Lmatt does not seem interested at all in explaining his changes to various articles, instead choosing to edit-war at various articles. He has made similar edits to those that you have been reverting at List of countries and dependencies by population. I've asked him to discuss his edits and gain consensus for his changes but he's ignoring any requests, even removing everything related from his talk page. I remain hopeful that he will discuss eventually and have started a discussion at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population#Recent changes that you may care to watch. --AussieLegend () 19:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Their behavior may have to be brought to an admin's attention (I'm not an admin), or reported at AN/I. I've filed a few reports there recently, so I'd prefer not to be the reporting editor on this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: They were blocked for 31 hours on a 3RR violation. Of more concern then their MoS-related edits is that they've been removing antisemitism categories and sidebars from articles that obviously should have them. I mean, Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I did notice all of that while I was looking at his edits. It's not a subject that I'm involved with but it didn't look right to me at all. I will be watching when he returns. --AussieLegend () 06:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea - the more eyes the better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Beyond My Ken,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my Fred A. Leuchter edit you denied[edit]


I noticed you denied my edit of Fred A. Leuchter (, and your reasoning was “better before”.

The question I have is, how was it better before? If you would, please detail your reasoning. I did my part and gave my reason for the edit and I don’t believe anything I changed made the article—seemingly by your definition—any worse.

Thanks. (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Lets turn it around: in what way do you think you improved the article? By uncapitalizing "Leuchter Report"? By linking Zyklon-B twice when it was already linked in the article? By changing the link to "The Atantic Monthly" - full name of a periodical, so that "Monthly" was outside the link? What were the changes you made that improved the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I’ll gladly answer your questions.
First of all, the first letter (‘r’) in report (in “Leuchter report”) is not capitalised because ‘report’ is not a proper noun in this context, plus I wanted to make sure it was consistent with its associated Wikipedia article, which DOES NOT capitalise the first ‘r’ in report; see the link for it if you’re not convinced.
Secondly, I did not link Zyklon-B [sic] twice; I de-linked an instance of the phrase Zyklon B (and removed its superfluous hyphen) which appeared later in the article and linked to an earlier mention. I mean, what is the point of having Zyklon B linked after it has already been mentioned (in its unlinked state)? The first one should be linked instead of the second, right? If you agree, what is the problem?
Thirdly, I changed “the Atlantic Monthly” to “The Atlantic Monthly” to reflect that the word “The” should be italicised as that word is part of the publication’s name. In fact, though the word Monthly is not technically part of the publication’s name, I decided to leave it italicised (it was already like that) because the phrase “The Atlantic Monthly” seems to be a common colloquialism as it’s well known as a monthly-issued publication, even though technically it’s just called The Atlantic (both words italicised) is correct. The Atlantic (one word italicised) is not. Yet, apparently—for some reason—you don’t seem to think it is. Please check the link if you’re unsure.
And the fact that Monthly is outside of the link is not a technical issue at all: that’s just part of a Wikipedia link. As long as the link to The Atlantic is present (which it is) it shouldn’t matter. That’s the correct name of the linked article, anyway. Please note, the links are for readers’ convenience; they don’t drive the article. Not everything has to be blue-coloured, if that’s what your issue with its being “outside the link” is.
I’ll also go over some other things I did to improve the article:
-removed the superfluous spaces from either sides of the mdashes; from what I understand, there are to be no spaces required in those types of dashes when employed in sentences. You can look that up if you are unsure. Also changed ampersandmdashsemicolon (sorry for spelling it out like that but if I do the actual characters it translates it into the character) to the actual mdash character (—). How is that not an improvement?
-incorporated the phrase “Auschwitz and Birkenau” into the one link (Auschwitz concentration camp), instead of having “Auschwitz” linked to on its own. Birkenau automatically links to Auschwitz concentration camp, anyway, so I don’t see what the problem is there.
-changed the link to Klarsfelds (which is presently Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, and which is not an article, it’s a redirect) to its proper link, Serge Klarsfeld. Is there a problem with this?
-added the apostrophe to indicate possession of the noun in the phrase “two years' probation”. It’s no different to the correct placement of the apostrophe in the phrase “one year's probation” (which is grammatically correct). You really think the apostrophe’s omission makes the article “better”, in your opinion?
-added spaces between the numerals and the quantities (e.g. 1mg => 1 mg). Why’d you think that is not better? In fact, there is already a space present in the phrase “6.7 mg“, which I did not place there. So if that’s incorrect, I’m letting you know it’s still there. I don’t see how in its current state it is “better”, because it’s both wrong *and* inconsistent with the style of the other numeral-quantity combinations.
-changed TV program name Prime Time Live (incorrect title; no space present in the word Primetime) to Primetime Live (correct). How is Prime Time, which, as I said, is wrong, “better” than Primetime?
-de-linked latter instances of the words Florida and Virginia and ‘moved’ the links the earlier-mentioned instances. Is this a problem?
-removed double spaces and replaced with single spaces. There is need nor function for double spaces; in fact, they are not even seen by readers as double spaces. You can only spot them at the editing stage, where they provide no function. So, double spaces improve the article how?
Thanks for reconsidering. Any more problems with my edits you can spot, please let me know specifically what they are and I’ll address them.

Thanks (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there again. Just regarding your second reverting of my Fred A. Leuchter edit, the explanation of which I kindly and courteously provided for you the other day on your request and received no response from you about it. Again, I ask: what specifically is the problem with the edit? I’m trying to build a dialogue with you about this and you’re not co-operating. Your conduct—that is, reverting without adequate reasoning—is not conducive to the collaborative nature of the site. At your convenience, please explain your actions. (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Beyond My Ken. Noticing you revert, I would like to make the following comments:

  1. Please take a look at this Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width.
  2. Section Notable performers <!--PLEASE KEEP THIS ALPHABETICAL-->. After your revert the list is not alphabetical anymore.

Hence, I will revert your revert. thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • You want to hear my good reason, or are you simply going to edit war in a subject area (MoS) that is under Discretionary Sanctions? [15]If you're inteerested in hearing, just ask. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Beyond My Ken don't know what you are talking about, and no, I am not interested in editwarring. Lotje (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Just so you know, it's not Republic of Macedonia anymore. It changed its name to North Macedonia 7 months ago. Barracuda41 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I somehow missed that. (Let's see, what was I doing 7 months ago?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(I;m glad they settled that. I never want to see "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" again.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice on topic ban[edit]

Hello, as someone who took part in the original discussion, could you advise? Nemo 09:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Firstly, the Karsh entry has been in the article for months so it's not bold to put it in, that's the consensus. More importantly, you violated 1RR on the article when you reverted WarKosign. You should self revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: 1RR - I went int o self-revert, but found that someone else had already reverted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey There[edit]

I know you're an ancient editor here and all. I read some of your stuff and backstory and what not. I just wanted to say you seem like a pretty swell person. We all have our shortcomings and face reckonings for them. I know I definitely have. Thank you for continuing to strive to improve the project! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwen, thank you very much, I really appreciate hearing that! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


The Teahouse IP was almost certainly trolling me in particular by parodying my family in an ugly way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Geez, the people that are out there! It's depressing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I simply do not understand why so many people feel compelled to try to disrupt a free encylopedia. I do not really need perceptive insight. I just block them unemotionally, and then move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Saeeda Imtiaz[edit]

Hello. The age/DOB was specifically reviewed by *me*, BMK, and I'm a tiny bit offended that you'd think I wouldn't have ensured it was properly sourced when editing the article to bring it closer to standards. In fact, you re-inserted a DOB that did not match the reference sources. I get the whole paid editing thing, but just because someone fixes the DOB doesn't mean they're being evil. If you're going to change something, check the sources first, please. Risker (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: Hi, sorry, didn't mean to piss you off. Here's how it went for me:
  • In the Teahouse, I saw this question "One of our client who's page is on Wikipedia is upset over her fake age which is damaging her credibility in showbiz. We edit the age someone again revert it. How we can sort this thing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzbg123 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" [16];
  • This tells me not that the date of birth in the article (1985) is wrong, but that the client, through a PR agency, is attempting to control the date of birth in order to appear younger, an important factor in modeling and for an actress of that age range (there is a tremendous difference between being 29 and being 34);
  • I go to the article and see that the age now says 1990, so I revert back to 1985, assuming that thye PR editor had made the change, and not being aware until later that you had made the change;
  • In the course of researching the subject, I do see multiple sources that give a date of birth as 1990, however, these all came from either a purported "interview", most likely via e-mail or based on a fact sheet sent out by the PR firm, and show no signs of having independentlyy researched and established the DOB;
  • Thus, I do not consider these sources, based as they are either on the statement of the subject or on PR material, to be reliable for the date of birth, considering that the PR rep has already admitted that the client is annoyed about the date of birth and they have attempted to take control of it;
  • Later, I see that you had made the change to 1990, but I did not revert for the reasons given above, which I am not sure that you were aware of;
Showbiz dates of birth are a perennial problem. As I think of it now, I don't believe we have any reliably sourced information for the date of birth. I'm not sure where 1985 came from, and I don't think the subject's citing of 1990, or a PR hand out, are reliable either. I think removing the DOB entirely from the article is the proper solution, until someone comes up with something we can be reasonable sure is accurate.
Again, sorry to have annoyed you. My motives were pure, anyway. (Did you notice the attempt to make her school look slightly more impressive by calling it "WWH School", whoch sounds like it might be a private school, instead of "Walt Whiteman High School", a normal American public high school?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm good with removing the DOB entirely, although the only sources we could possibly have considered reliable gave it as 1990. Yes, I am very well aware of how publicity people decide people are younger (or sometimes older) than their birth certificate says. I know a musician whose label insisted he was several years younger than he really was, and he thought it was all pretty stupid since anyone who could count would have figured out that age meant he graduated from university at age 17; his revenge was to answer all questions about how old he was as "I'm sixteen!...oh hold on, I need to be 21 to drink, so...umm...I'm 21!" (He was 32 at the time, as I recall, though the label insisted he was 27...because nobody over age 30 got radio play...)
As to the high school graduation year - the page claiming her to be an alumuna doesn't belong to the school itself, and gives her name differently; it's clearly not a reliable source at all. It's not unusual for two children in the same family to have the same given name as a first name and middle name respectively, so for all we know this is her sister or possibly her cousin. (Having written this, I can't help but think of George Foreman, who named all of his sons minor variations of "George Foreman" and named a daughter Georgette just for good measure.) All the best, Risker (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm always amused by the TV commercial in which one of Foreman's male children appears and is credited as "George IV". Still, the man made a decision and stuck to it, just like the father of Major Major Major in Catch 22. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

what does that even mean?[edit]

if the "idea was never abandoned" how is Hitler's "preoccupation began to fade" relevant here? Editdude93 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • What, exactly, is your excuse for deleting sourced, relevant information? There is no contradiction in those two statements. The ide was never abandoned, but nothing got done in Nazi Germany unless Hitler was behind it. "His preoccupation began to fade" is totally relevant. Please don't remove it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh[edit]

User GergisBaki has added the latest allegations to this article's lede without consensus and clearly missing key details. Talk page consensus is currently not to add information. I tried to undo the largest edit (+770), but the editing section showed that it 'could not be undone' due to edit conflicts. I saw that you had guided this user on David Duke over similar problems, and I also remember you as an experienced editor. Can you help me? Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just decided to delete the whole edit manually as it seemed a serious BLP violation that required that kind of bold action. RandomGnome (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello BMK,

Please honor this editor's request to stay off their talk page except for placing required notices. You can always let me or any other administrator know about any misconduct, or file a report at the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge my error in posting there. Sorry about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

4 reverts in a row?[edit]

Hi there, I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and am always looking for ways to improve. I noticed you edited some of my contributions for formatting, neat. I also noticed that you reverted four of my contributions in a row and was wondering if it was just happenstance.

For transparency, I edited the pseudonym of one of the new congressional candidates in Florida to include her full real name: you reverted this edit. It is my understanding that Wikipedia includes true, full names along with pseudonyms. Her position at TPUSA was also listed, although she left this position months ago. I thus updated both articles and you reverted both updates: see TPUSA revision and 2020 US House of Representatives elections in FL revisions. Do I need to justify why I included a true, full name? Shall I refer to White Pages, a vorter's records or an Instagram picture? People are typically not referred to by first and middle names only, especially not on Wikipedia. Do you have any input?

Regarding the National Rally (France) edits, I wonder why you removed the "extreme" denomination. It is how they are perceived in France and abroad. I included links to articles in all of my edits on this page. I understand the stance you took about the anti-gay hate speech bit I included and I believe you are going back and forth with User:Cheep about it, but they *are* an extreme-right group. The Alternative für Deutschland in Germany is far right, Le Front National is extreme right. I will refer you to additional documents in *French* and English if needed. If you have an argument against, please let me know.

As far as the revisions on In God We Trust, I am truly clueless as far as why you reverted my edits. If I made a mistake, please let me know. I'm curious to hear.

Thank you. A2pa (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source that shows Anna Paulina's full legal name, that she is running under, is "Anna Paulina Gamberzky". The source int he TPUSA article indentifies her only as "Anna Paulina", so your edit looked like vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The "In God We Trust" revert was a mistake. I have restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications! Much appreciated. Here is her stepping down: (Note the name "Luna" is nowhere to be found). Regarding using her true name, I did raise the question before of how it must be justified, because some of it seems quite invasive for privacy. I posted some sources from and on Eyer's talk (as they had similar concerns) but removed them for privacy. Here's a source for her maiden name: There are also pictures of her floating around in uniform with her husband's name. It honestly is taking a lot of time for something not that significant, but I think truth, veracity and transparency seemed important enough for Wikipedia. A2pa (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)