User talk:Beyond My Ken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.
No paid editing
MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)
(Life is too short!)
     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

Contents

Articles that need serious visual work[edit]

Reminder: to work on[edit]

Sockmaster Turkspasha[edit]

Thank you for taking notice. Its CU blocked sockmaster Turkspasha again. I've already requested another rangeblock. His IPs always geolocate to Taylor, Michigan; obsessed with Azerifying/Turkifying topics related to Iran. He's at it since 2015. Just to let you know. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the IP stuff that I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Night at the Opera balcony.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Night at the Opera end.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera screenshots[edit]

Just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 4#A Night at the Opera screenshots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Emmet Building[edit]

I see you took a great photo of the building back in 2011. The Patch says it's in Murray Hill and your description says Rose Hill. I tried to sort it out but it seems, at least based on our boundary descriptions, that the areas overlap? Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up. If you'd rather write up the article yourself from scratch or using the bit I started please have at it. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @FlordiaArmy: - The AIA Guide to New York City lists the building as being in Rose Hill, but Rose Hill is not a neighborhood name that is used very frequently. However, the description of Murray Hill as going down to 27th Street is almost certainly an overreach by the Murray Hill Neighborhood Association. I would agree with the NYCLPC that Murray Hill starts at about 34th Street, a delineation which the Encyclopedia of New York City agrees with. Given that, I wouldn't use Murray Hill in your draft article - I think your choices are Rose Hall or NOMAD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The NYCLPC Designation Report at http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2603.pdf does not place it in a specific neighborhood, but does say that it is in what was "the warehouse district north of Madison Square Park", which to me makes "NoMAD" the best choice. If I have a few moments tomorrow, I'll try to supplement your draft with some additional references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The return of the surrealist sock[edit]

[1]. Give me a minute to open an ANI thread. EEng 02:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is disappointing. Given the title I was hoping for someone who had replaced the article on general relativity with a picture of iguanas playing the harmonica. But it's just somebody messing about with articles on surrealist techniques. Oh well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Boris. I had visions of a melting sock hanging from a table. Oh wait after 5 years wear that is what mine lookike :-) Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 02:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That would be a surreal sock. Jeesh. You bunch probably get historic and historical mixed up too. EEng 05:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. "Historic" is like when the Titantic sank, and "historical" is how I feel when I get my Visa bill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Sort of Dali crossed with Jefferson Airplane. Thanks for keeping on top of this guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's even better. (Brag: I've taken group lessons with Jack Casady twice; in a previous Wiki-life I started his article. And I've have had conversations with three members of the classic Airplane lineup.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Color me impressed: I was a big Airplane (and Hot Tuna) fan back in the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Back in the day? More like back in the Holocene. EEng 00:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll have you know we're still in the Holocene, young man. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone remember the "concept" artist a few years ago who added hundreds of great photos of beaches and other scenic spots, and every one had his buttocks somewhere in the image? He was pretty tenacious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
He was pretty butt-hurt when he got banned. EEng 05:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
wiki-spank? rags (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"best known for" IP[edit]

I could be wrong, but could Special:Contributions/46.208.236.155 be the "best known for" IP? This is a change also made by the "best known for" IP in May 2017; this of course removes the IP's least favourite phrase. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if you disagree with my edits, you should try talking to me about them instead of taking to someone else about me to make wild accusations. That's an amazingly unpleasant route to take and a huge failure to assume good faith. 46.208.236.155 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Curious that you knew to look and who I was talking about, ain't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: Sorry not to respond earlier -- I'm busy in RL. I just wanted to point out that I'm not an admin ("Never have been, never will be."TM) so there's nothing I can directly do about this IP. I would contact @Kuru:, who seems to have some expertise in this LTA's behavior. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I fear I have a bit set that says you are an admin. I'll try and forget that. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Avenue reverts[edit]

Per WP:CAP, obvious details aren’t needed in captions; it is obvious for example in the image on the seventh avenue article that the image is of seventh avenue. IWI (chat) 08:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see your talk page, and, per WP:BRD, do not restore the disputed edits until you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for StreetSign moved to ANI[edit]

Since you're a participant, this is to notify you I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for StreetSign (moved from AN).—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 04:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of inclusion to cult of personality list.[edit]

Hi. Could I trouble you to take part in the discussion regarding this article at npov notice board. I understand your point and would appreciate more detailed input from you. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see on the talk page that you have requested the subject be moved back to the talk page. Would you recommend an rfc? Edaham (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: Yes, considering the controversial nature of the subject matter, I think an RfC on the talk page would be best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thank you. Would it be proper to mention the existence of the npov noticeboard discussion as my own comment on the rfc (not as part of the brief summary) Edaham (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial[edit]

BRD is an essay, don't edit war, WP:ROWN, yadda yadda. VQuakr (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

BRD is as close to policy as an essay can be, while ROWN, another essay, (which I've actually never heard of, despite 13 years of editing) is pretty darn obscure. Re: edit warring - guilty as charged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

👻💀🤡👺🎃[edit]

Trick or Treat!!!

Happy Halloween!
Why are demons and ghouls always together?
  • Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

  • You get a hand full of sheet.

Atsme✍🏻📧 01:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

On[edit]

it. Simon Adler (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. See Talk:Holocaust denial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler[edit]

Regarding this, may I ask you to expand a bit more on why it's not redundant? The way I see it, Hitler having been a german politician is easily inferred from his having been the leader of the nazi party, german chancellor and the Führer of nazi germany. But then you've been dealing with articles on nazism longer than I have. Best, OneShot010 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I've got why. OneShot010 (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
OK no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Steven Anderson[edit]

Hello, You say "redirects do not get categories". Source? It is a common practice I see a lot. Under your way of doing things, if someone views, for example, Category:Anti–LGBT rights organizations in the United States, they'll see "Steven L. Anderson" listed, rather than "Faithful Word Baptist Church". That is confusing and inappropriate. Citizen Canine (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Categorizing redirects. In this case I think you may be right, so I'm going to self-revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg A note of goodwill. I monitor/watchlist many articles, and sometimes I disagree with your layout methods after article review. Some of your stances regarding article layout come across to me as a bit unconventional, but know that I respect that you are fully entitled to your own viewpoints. It's unlikely I will change your mind regarding MOS layout matters, so enjoy the strawberries. North America1000 12:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Thank you very much, your comment is really appreciated, and I apologize for any animosity I may have shown in our recent interactions. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"We"[edit]

An excellent question. But first person plural, technically. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I'll change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding regarding Downtown article[edit]

I believe you're misunderstanding something integral here: "city centre" DOES NOT redirect to Downtown, it has its own article. I'm not sure whether this was the reason why you reverted but the above is something you must ensure to me you understand. IWI (chat) 00:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File on commons[edit]

Hi BMK! I noticed at Fort De Soto Park a couple of people in the early stages of an edit-war on a file you had uploaded, "File:2018 Fort De Soto - American white ibis.jpg." The issue is that the file is named as if it were an American white ibis, while the picture is of a great egret (probably an Eastern great egret. I removed it from Fort DeSoto for now, and added text to the file. I did not however, request renaming it. I thought you would want to have a look at it. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've renamed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Reducing the portrait sizes of other controversial figures of history[edit]

Do you also plan on reducing the portrait sizes of all others who have committed atrocities in history besides Nazi officials? Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Leopold II, Soviet officials behind the Holodomor and gulags, Ottoman officials behind the Armenian Genocide, members of European governments that waged colonial wars, all slaveowners, Confederates, members of Mao's regime, Nationalist Chinese, Tsarist Russians, Imperialist Japanese, Taliban, Caribbean Pirates, Vikings etc. You know, the usual suspects. Either they're all okay, or none of them are okay. Aren't all these organizations/figures/regimes are just as destructive as the Nazis? Some of them have resulted in an even more massive loss of human lives than Nazism. Some of these ideologies are arguably even more influential than Nazism at present correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeepmep (talkcontribs) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I plan on making every Wikipedia article I edit better, as I always do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard[edit]

I agree with your comments, but unfortunately long edit warring noticeboard discussions tend to get bypassed as "tl;dr". Perhaps another trip to ANI is warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing my user page[edit]

Why did you do that? Why did you think that's acceptable? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not appropriate to have a list of things you want to own on your Wikipedia user page -- which is not yours, by the way, there are rules about what you are allowed to do with it; it's an obvious solicitation for paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It is no such thing. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
As you've already shown, your judgment on this issue is -- how shall I put it? -- piss poor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Insults aside, you're just flat wrong and the fact that you think you know better than I do what the contents are of my own mind is pretty shocking. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is often the case that others are more aware of the meaning of our behavior then we are, as we sometimes hide from ourselves our motivation for what we do -- no person is completely transparent to themselves. In any event, as Jytdog points out, your user page is not your personal weblog and Wikipedia is not a web hosting site, and your wishlist should not be on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm done with explaining to you how you're wrong. Just take my word for it. I would be interested in knowing how you think I have "contempt" for the Wikipedia after committing thousands of hours of free labor to it for 15 years, donating my money, promoting it elsewhere, etc. What you construe as "contempt" is frankly unintelligible to me and I'd like to know what you think I could do to show that I do not in fact feel that Wikipedia and its community are of little or no value. In fact, Wikipedia and the WMF projects are my life's work: it's my legacy to others across the world and for future generations and is my attempt to work with others to make a whole greater than the parts. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite certain that my concerns about you and your editing are "unintelligible" to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, you've made it clear that you refuse to extend good faith or basic civility. My question stands if you care to answer it (preferably with civility). ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Give me a buzz when you know yourself a bit better, until then, this discussion is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Holmes[edit]

Pls join the ongoing chat about the new addition....and yes restore would be best Talk:H. H. Holmes#Moxy's edits.--Moxy (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will certainly participate v. soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about arb stuff[edit]

When the election gets underway, will we be able to easily refer back to the Questions and read their answers so it's fresh on our minds? I lose track of AN/ANI, AE, ARB cases after they're logged, and it may be that I simply haven't found the shortcut to finding them again, if there is one. I have shortcut/perm urls pasted everywhere but sometimes they're harder to find than the logs! Any tips? Atsme✍🏻📧 00:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh, Beyond My Ken - you haven't responded so I'm thinking maybe I asked yet another stupid question. ●°.°● You keep forcing me to use my head for something besides a hat rack...ok...I'll try. I'm guessing the clerk will keep those pages up until after the election ends, and then they'll disappear into the darkest depths of WP's belly where only admins can find them. 😆 I pinged in case my post is getting lost on your page. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: No, sorry, you caught me at a rather bad time - finishing a long vacation overseas, flying back, recovering once I got home, and then doing dealing with some Wiki-idiocy here. That out of the way, to answer your question, I'm sure that the entire ACE2018 structure will undoubtedly be kept up and available after the election. Just look at WP:ACE2017. Does that answer your question? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it does, thank you! I can certainly relate to you needing a vacation after your vacation, and all that followed as well. When I get to that point, I look at the clock, and tell myself Hell, it's 5:00 somewhere, and I'm thirsty! And like magic, things are less stressful. Cheers! 🍺🍻 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Beyond My Ken,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

MTA Bridges and Tunnels[edit]

Your edit summary mentioned a slow edit war. I've now blocked a /64 range for one week and hope it does something. If the block ought to be longer, let me know. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @EdJohnston: Thanks, I'm pleasantly surprised, since I didn't think anything would come of that comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

17-NOV-2018 proposal[edit]

Since you've contributed to the Alt-right article in the past, I was hoping you might be able to take a look at a COI edit request I received from Jack Donovan who is requesting to have the labels white nationalist and gay removed from his description in the article. I made a counterproposal to his request 9 days ago but my pings to editors for their input have gone unanswered and the proposal has stalled. Because of the restrictions on the page I'd like to get an idea of what other editors think about them before making changes (or not making them, based on input). Thanks in advance for any time you can spare on this. Face-smile.svg  Spintendo  17:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to take a look at it later today. I'm recovering from a vacation <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually you can disregard, there are questions about the editor who is making the request and whether or not they are the actual Jack Donovan. Apparently, the real Donovan has communicated with Wikipedia before, but used a different account (I'll call that one the 1st account) than the one they are using now (the 2nd account). Since this 2nd account is requesting that we change how the subject is described (bisexual versus gay) they would need to go through something like OTRS before I would grant that change and I think you would agree. So I'm just going to leave the article the way it is for now. But thank you for your offer of help it's much appreciated - and enjoy the rest of your vacation!  Spintendo  18:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree per your description, we'd need OTRS validation before any action is taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

really?[edit]

I suppose I can't stop you from putting on your spidey-suit if you insist on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No matter what you may think, I'm actually looking for a community-based solution to the problem that PEACOCKery is being confused with legitimate cited information, and a guideline (not even a policy) is being used to suppress it. If you think that's climbing the Recihstag, that's your prerogative; I think of it as protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can't say that you didn't warn me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I learned you post too much at AN so you must get in a lot of trouble ... or some such nonsense. Good grief. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, step back for a second. Reflect. And then stride on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately for our beloved 🕷🧗🏻‍♂️that mess was closed good and tight. Grammar nazi searched in vain for a perfect image to close the close but couldn't find one so I gave him a leg-up using words. It's all good. Night-night! Atsme✍🏻📧 06:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions reminder[edit]

I'm sorry, but this is a totally bullshit notice. Don't post here again unless you're required to by policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Beyond My Ken. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Stanford White and the "Trial of the Century"[edit]

I'm not sure if this message is going to get through to Beyond My Ken; but here goes. I just changed the Stanford White page and you reverted it. I am a new user; so bear with me; but I am perplexed that you reverted my deletion of 'Trial of the Century'. There is no evidence for this assertion that it was the "Trial of the Century" -- none -- so how could you say that I am wrong about this? I'm asking only because I would like to make additional edits to the article -- I just published a 400-page book on the murder -- but there's no point in continuing if everything I do is going to be instantly reverted. Tanigaki85 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I posted two references from The New York Times that say it was called "The Trial of the Century", so you are apparently incorrect.
Please note that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and supported by citations from reliable sources. Your book may or may not be a reliable source, depending on whether it is published by a reputable publishing firm known for error-checking and correction. Self-published books are not generally considered to be reliable - see WP:SPS. Unfortunately, we cannot take your word for things, we need to have citations from sources we recognize as being reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your comments...[edit]

here, I don't want to say this on the thread itself because JogiAsad should speak for himself; but if I had to guess, I'd note that most of the AFDs he has participated in are on Pakistani topics, and he is from Pakistan. I think there is a little bit of systemic bias going on with articles about that region of the world. Good quality English language RS are hard to find about those topics. Couple that with an inclusionist bend and mediocre English language skills and you get someone whose AFD participation consists of following the article alerts for Wikiproject Pakistan and commenting something to the effect of, "strong keep, has 6 sources," on virtually all of them. Reading through the ANI thread where he was topic banned, it looks like there were 4 editors who were doing something similar, each of their own volition, and they were cropping up on a lot of the same AFDs. They all got topic banned from AFDs and two of them lost new page reviewer rights. It's not entirely clear to me what he did wrong aside from taking a slight inclusionist side, and not being able to discern the difference between a RS and a not-RS. If I'm not entirely clear on what exactly he did wrong, I'm pretty sure he's totally lost. He created at least one of the deleted articles, but he also has created a number of other articles that haven't been deleted and seem decent in quality, indicating that he does have some understanding of sourcing requirements. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that's what I see. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that all seems possible and reasonable, and I have no reason to doubt it. Unfortunately, it doesn't really change my opinion concerning lifting the topic ban. If JogiAsad has a legitimate case to make for the TB having been a bad one, their first step is to ask the admin who imposed it to consider vacating it, but a community appeal on that basis isn't likely to succeed, since the assumption is that the TB was a legit response to the situation.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation as you see it, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
One other thing, and this is very much my own bias, I understand - I am not terribly sympathetic to editors at English Wikipedia who edit articles here without sufficient command of English to do so. I would never think of going to the Sindhi Wikipedia and attempting to edit there with a mechanical translator, or even to go to French Wikipedia (the other language besides English I have the most command of - which is not much) and attempt to edit there (my "edits" there are actually just image replacement down by bot). If JogiAsad is "lost" it must partly be because of their command of the language, which they call "intermediate", but which I would judge to be something less than that, and they should strongly consider their choice to edit here, at least in places that require an encyclopedia-writing level of English. Looking at their global contributions I see that even though they are a sysop on the Sindh Wikipedia, and have twice as many edits there as here, en.wiki is marked as their home wiki. This seems to me to be a mismatch, and if was to give them advice, I'd suggest that either they edit where they are most suited to, or that they restrict their editing here to areas which don't require a strong command of English -- which is where many such editors find their opportunity to contribute to en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) User:ONUnicorn regarding the language BIAS, English is an official language of Pakistan along with Urdu. The trusted and reliable sources that correspond to international standards are generally found in English. So a knowledge of other languages will certainly help but it should not be taken as a handicap, at least in this region. To answer the Q in your last part, on "what exactly he did wrong", I have reviewed some of the past AfD votes by these 4 users and the CIR issues related to understanding of notability and English is quite obvious. There were also some concerns of canvassed clique based voting on certain topics related to Pakistan. --DBigXray 20:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

City centre-downtown merge[edit]

Shall we do the merge now; I can do it if you’d like. I’m sure the discussion will come with little resistance (I hope) IWI (chat) 20:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pure torture...[edit]

...It's it and now it's on my mind...eternally. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had one since the last time I was in San Francisco. I can't find them here on the East Coast. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
OMG - they’ll ship via Fed Ex. There goes the rest of my already departing girlish figure.🍦👩‍💻 Atsme✍🏻📧 18:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Signature serves no encyclopedic purpose[edit]

... so why there are signatures in another articles, like L._L._Zamenhof ? --Wierzbowski (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Klara Hitler[edit]

Can you tel me why? Newone (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hatnotes are intended to help the reader with any confusion that might arise. There is no possibility of confusing Klara (a disambiguation page) with the article Klara Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Theodore Morell[edit]

Re: [[2]]

Aren't cites to be made in full the first instance they're put in article rather than elsewhere? Though WP software parses them correctly anyway, it's standard procedure in scientific and historical literature.

80.182.219.166 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no such requirement on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
'k. 80.182.219.166 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for you concern about my user page. While I appreciate your input, I never said I "own" a wikipage. I said I am here to update and work on it. You may want to review the policy on creating talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, particularly where it states to stick to facts. Thanks! TheFixerUpper12 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Another clueless newbie who refuses to take advice, and thinks they know more about editing Wikipedia than a veteran editor. Enjoy the block that's heading your way if you don't change your M.O. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Why are you pinging the editor whose talk page you're posting on? Oh, right ... that's just another thing you don't know about using Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, the block (by Bbb23) can even sooner than I expected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Cup of tea[edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Why thank you. Two sugars, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What?[edit]

have you lost your mind ? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have I lost my mind for reacting with anger to an editor who disrespected me by templating a 13-year 200,000+ editor with a template appropriate for a newbie? No, I'm simply human, and I reacted in a human manner to being given the (metaphorical) finger by an editor who refused to discuss their WP:BOLD edit (on Jingle Bells) and instead kept restoring it. So, no, my mind is just fine, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of your rational that is inaceptal coming from a seasoned editor. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. It was an appropriate response to an inappropriate action. I stand by it, and will not apologize for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Typical BMK response. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
So, we've established you don't like me; I didn't know that, and the feeling is most certainly not mutual. Nothing I can do about it, I suppose; as Popeye has been known to say "I yam what I yam". I do assume that your opinion about me means that when you reclaim the bit, you will be recusing yourself from any admin action in the future which involves me. Please be sure to make a mental note about that, because I certainly will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No need for either of us to note. I am not and never have been an Admin. For the record It's not you that I don't like it's your attitude of I'm never wrong. Happy editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me! Probably the edit summary I've used most often is "Self-revert, my error". I'm often wrong, and when I find out that I am wrong, by myself or from others, I try to correct the error immediately. If my behavior is pointed out to me as a problem, and I am swayed by the arguments, I quickly apologize and take whatever actions are necessary. Clearly, you have a limited view of my activities -- no problem with that, no one could expect you to be following everything I do. The problem is your drawing erroneous conclusions from your limited dataset.
As for thinking you were an admin, my mistake, sorry about that. I believe I saw a comment from you on one of the noticeboards asking for a flag to be removed and I interpreted that as your taking a breather from adminning. Obviously an incorrect impression on my part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on, BMK[edit]

Come on Beyond My Ken; the vast majority of my changes today have been minor corrections. There is no good reason to revert them. If there are specific changes I have made with which you disagree, let me know and I can revert them. That is fine. But please, undo your revert so that all the minor corrections can be reinstated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Group the minor changes into one edit, and discuss the major changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing. But none were really "major"; more like "moderate" at most. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Nevertheless, even "moderate" edits on an article as controversial as that should be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. But please do take part in the Talk Page discussions. Many sections of the article really are in a pretty bad state, considering its importance. It needs a lot of work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
How can "many" sections be "in a pretty bad state" when you are primarily responsible for writing them? Please remember, reliance on one or two academic sources is not a good idea, it has the potential to unbalance the article in favor of the viewpoints of those academics. When a subject is of recent vintage, we rely primarily on periodicals and websites, which, as long as they are considered to be reliable, have the best, most up-to-date information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I think you're the one showing article ownership here. This edit is particularly disruptive. Midnightblueowl clearly put a lot of work into those edits. You don't get to mass-revert without articulating any substantive basis. It's not like Midnightblueowl is under some sort of "discuss first" probation. If you disagree with their edits then they're entitled to at least a brief explanation that amounts to more than "I'm sick of dealing with you." R2 (bleep) 00:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The amount of work put into edits it entirely irrelevant, it's the content of the edits that counts, and much of what MBO proposes is not good -- and other editors are agreeing with me about that on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, for all I know you may be 100% right content-wise. But that doesn't mean you don't have to play nice. R2 (bleep) 09:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Spshu[edit]

Yeah... I know he templated you here and it's quite irritating, belittling, and frustrating to receive one on your user talk page. I'm not here to scold, point fingers at you, or lecture you about civility... I know that you know about the policy, so I'll spare you ;-). Spshu just left me a message on my user talk page because he's upset about your edit summary here. I also know that this extends from a case of disruption and a dispute on Jingle Bells over... the lyrics (lol); I completely understand the frustration and I'm obviously not going to like block you or anything... all I'll say is that adding an uncivil edit summary like that toward someone will just draw more frustration toward you from the other user... incivility never usually results in other users leaving you alone (obviously, since Spshu has escalated the situation by coming to me)... they usually just upset them more and drive them to escalate the matter and try and point the "admin spotlight" toward you. Just consider this in the future... and if you find yourself in a situation where you're pretty much about to tell someone to stick it somewhere (lol), just know that I'm here for you and that you're welcome to come to me any time for input or help with a frustrating situation. My talk page is always open to you and you are always welcome to message me whenever you need or want to. I've already mentioned the templating to Spshu, but I'll also be talking to Spshu about the dispute on Jingle Bells. I hope that it helps. Anyways, I'll get out of your hair now. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. I obviously have to address any situation where users are uncivil and heated towards others, because... admin and mop and such (lol), but I'll do my best to make sure everyone's taken care of and things on both sides simmer down. I'll be talking to him next. Thanks for listening, Beyond My Ken. Until next time - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem. You are an excellent admin, so I always have time to listen to what you have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that... very much. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More ironic would have been no edit summary on the revert, but your festive response was pretty funny. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're right, but that hadn't occurred to me: too subtle for my hormone-enraged brain, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick note on the merge[edit]

I think, due to the self-descriptive nature of the term "city centre", that downtown should be merged into city centre. IWI (chat) 20:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was thinkiong the other way, since Downtown is, I believe]], the more developed article. I'll take a look again with your comment in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
May be so, but the merged article should be called "city centre". IWI (chat) 21:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, I disagree, especially considering the disparity in the number of people who use "Downtown" (US & Canada) and those who use "City centre" (UK-centric English-speaking countries) -- but I'm trying to keep an open mind and will look at the articles with your preference in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The point I am making is that "city centre" is descriptive in nature as far as I’m concerned. The argument you make is not an encyclopedia wide idea (mobile phone) although that can be a poor measure. I think a discussion about this specifically may be needed. Some people may be confused about exactly what "downtown" means but "city centre" (or indeed "city center") is an easily understandable title for anyone reading. This is the exact reason why mobile phone is titled so and not "cell phone"; it is a descriptive title: a phone that is mobile. IWI (chat) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point, so there is no real need to repeat it. In point of fact, though, "city centre" is not as descriptive as you're portraying it, because the "city centre" is most often not at the geographical center of a city at all -- it totally depends on the growth of the city and how it expanded. The city centre is usually going to be at or very near the oldest part of the city, but not necessarily so.
And now that I come to think of it, perhaps "downtown" and "city center" shouldn't be merged at all. Perhaps they are actually describing different things. "Downtown" is primarily a business/economic description -- it's the place where a alrge proportion of the population of the city and its environs work, while - at least in American usage -- the "city center" is either the historical core of the city, or the place where the city's governmental organs are located, and this is very frequently not downtown, although it may be nearby. Just off the top of my head, Manhattan, Brooklyn, San Francisco, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Philadelphia, Boston, in all these cities, the business district and the governmental/historic core area are different places.
So, I'm rethinking the idea that a merge is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, although maybe you’re correct about it not being descriptive. The City of London is both the primary CBD and historic core of London. Over here, they are usually the same thing such as in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool. Maybe a new article may be needed but in a European context, they are the same thing. IWI (chat) 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? Paris? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Possibly not, although La Defense isn’t even in Paris. The whole of Central London is the "City Centre". A new article called "historic core" or something may be needed. IWI (chat) 21:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Even not considering La Defense, there is a business district within the city of Paris itself, I believe, not too far down river from the Eiffel Tower. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you think is appropriate will be so for me anyway. I am clocking off for the night now and will have a look in the morning. IWI (chat) 22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. Unfortunately, I got a later start today that I expected, and am going out to dinner and to see a friend perform with her band. That means that by the time I get home, I probably won't be in particularly good shape to do any complex editing, so you may see the status quo ante in (your) morning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to do this[edit]

But I could use some help. I don't know if this counts as canvasing. If it does, one of my many contribution followers can remove it and you can ignore it. I feel like I'm being dogpiled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Tarage --Tarage (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly WP:canvassing, and by doing it you've made it virtually impossible for me to even comment in the discussion, let alone !vote in it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It doesn't look like it matters anyway. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Skjoldbro (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Ain't happening. There's already a consensus on the talk page, and you have not been able to cite any policy to support your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • When did this consensus happen? Because before you removed it, it had been there for 6 years. Now all of the sudden when you remove it there is somehow a new consensus? Skjoldbro (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you I am well aware, however, when you wrote that there was a consensus, there were 2 for and 2 against, hardly a consensus. No matter, there is a consensus now. However I still feel like I never got a proper reason for the removal, apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not an argument in it of itself (Maybe read WP:NOTPOLICY, which states that users shouldn't use essays or proposals as if they were guidelines or policy).
P.S. I have a few pointers for your debating, as to avoid entering arguments with other users. When removing things, you might want to tell the proper reason the first time, instead of some partial reasoning such as "dont need flag" only for you to give the proper explanation in Talk when pressed (Be lazy, do it right the first time). When arguing about issues, don't just link the policy or guideline, and expect people to find the sentence that you mean. Use it as way to strengthening your argument, not as a shortcut. Lastly, at least for me, the "lame" reasoning and apparent hostility when responding to people questioning your edits, is not helpful for the debate. I'm by no means innocent in this, but try to remember to assume good faith. Many just want to hear a good argument, be able to present their counter argument and feel like they are heard. Maybe think of these points... or don't. Best, Skjoldbro (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit) Just saw your proposal on Village pump, why didn't you just link to that? That is the whole discussion we were just having, it also makes your point much more clear - I understand it now. Regards Skjoldbro (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reporting of REVERT Behavior by 'Beyond My Ken' to ANI[edit]

To Beyond My Ken--You've repeatedly disrupted my edits to 'American Nationalism' through constant REVERTs. If you disagree with content, then discuss it instead of making auto reversions every time the slightest change is made. This behavior is being reported to ANI. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Michael in oc (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Where's the retaliatory report, I can't seem to find it -- or are you simply WP:Harassing another editor by reporting a non-existent noticeboard report? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I also can't find the policy you refer to in all caps. WP:REVERT is not a policy page, it's an instructional page. On the other hand WP:NPOV is core policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Go back--just added to ANI. Please follow practices consistent with the ANI page rather than making personal attacks. Thank you. Michael in oc (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Success" in an ANi report starts with having a WP:CLUE about how this works. This is off to a very poor start. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:IAFIS[edit]

While this is clearly NOT a new editor, I also doubt it's User:Carpatho, since it's simply got the standard alt-right sockpuppet obsession with rewriting/spinning alt-right figures and organizations as Not Actually Racist. Honestly, they're all starting to blur together. --Calton | Talk 13:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean. If you come up with an idea of who it might be, let me know, I'll help dig up evidence to get them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

These are smears and intimidation made by Beyond My Ken and Calton without any evidence. How do I go about reporting them in the proper way? I just checked and Carpatho had a long history of editing on topics related to white supremacists. I just joined Wikipedia last month and all of my edits so far have nothing to do with white supremacist/alt-right figures except the Gavin McInnes page (who isn't even a white nationalist, he seems to identify as more of a libertarian or "new right"). All of a sudden two editors Calton and Beyond My Ken jump all over me accusing me of being a sock based on zero evidence. I believe what is going on is these two users have political agendas and are trying to smear me as a "sock" to prevent me from contributing and editing on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So it's entirely a coincidence that you created your account on November 6, then waited 10 days before editing, and then made 10 edits -- exactly the number needed to be WP:autoconfirmed -- before you edited Gavin McInnes? And it;s a coincidence that your edit to that article came precisely 30 days after you created the account, which is also the exact number of days needed to be autoconfirmed?
Are you also selling a bridge in Brooklyn because I've always wanted to buy it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
You seem little bit paranoid, there is no bridge to sell...sorry if you think I'm some alt-right nazi sock (I'm actually center-left politically). I waited the 10 days because I am busy and have a life. I liked that username (it doesn't stand for anything just like the way it looks) so I wanted to create it before someone else did knowing I would probably want to edit wikipedia in the next week or two which is exactly what I did. I did not make ten edits I made 12 (you are just making things up now) and I had no idea what autoconfirm was until you mentioned it to me now. Please stop bothering me. IAFIS (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Shame about the bridge, it would look great in my garden. As for the rest.... baloney. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Gee, did I ask you about your username? Hmm... no, I didn't. Why, then, did you feel it necessary to give a reason for your username? Feeling guilty? It couldn't possibly stand for anything ultra-stupid like "I Am Fxxxxx Ixxxx's Sock, could it? That would be, like, mega-dumb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting a new user is so articulate about socks and editing procedure. It took me years to understand some of these things. Welcome and don't cause trouble please. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

If they're a sock, as seems likely, then they've already caused trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Please don't insult me again as you did above or I will report you (this is the third or fourth time you have tried to smear or insult me). It's only "likely I'm a sock" to you and other political activist editors like Calton, etc. As other people on the ANI page have noted, you lied about how autoconfirm works, and are trying to use that to intimidate and silence me. Please stop. IAFIS (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reason in the world why I have to answer your absurd misrepresentations (i,.e, nobody on AN/I said that I "lied" except you) both here and on AN/I, so please don't post here again under any circumstances except when you ae required to do so by policy. Any additional comments will be deleted without reading. I hope that's abundantly clear -- and, yes, I am allowed to throw you off my comments page, and I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

RE: Gavin McInnes[edit]

I have explained my reasoning for these edits in the summary. READ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspectRatiocination (talkcontribs) 07:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your reasons are not adequate. Sourced information should not be removed from articles with a consensus to do so.. Your editing is disruptive and is being reported as I write. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gavin McInnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Already fixed by another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Patton#Requested move 9 December 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Patton#Requested move 9 December 2018. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War[edit]

YO -- BMK, just finished trying to add a little to your newly created article. Sorry about the micro "edit war" on the format of the Source references. My original change was for the sake of continuity with other pages, but since you were averse to it, it's all good. Feel free to tighten up any text I added, as I work quickly as you already know. Nice work brother. --Obenritter (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. As I said, the change to Harvard was a good one - I had it to do in the back of my mind as I was writing, but stuck with the format I was most familiar with, and could work quickly with. I probably would have changed it myself eventually.
It's turning out to be a nice little article, thanks to you and Kierzek! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Different points of view[edit]

Hey BMK, seems like we are at it again, so I thought that we might try to express our general opinions clearly, in a neutral environment. Hopefully, that way we can avoid some of these debates in the future.

I have the view that every page should follow the same standard, (unless explicitly decided against in the talk) and we shouldn’t make changes based on what kind of person or place it was. So when pictures are made smaller or signatures are removed on some pages and not others, I get my panties in a twist and wonder if there is a good reason for this. This is most clear on the Talk:Alfred Jodl, where the picture is smaller due to it running the “risk of glorifying Nazi war criminals”. I mean, really? When the picture is 200px it is glorifying them, but at 180px it isn’t? That just seems to be a bullshit reason to me. Also, are Neo-Nazis going to go to the page and see the picture being the same size as all others and say “I knew it, being the same size as all others, must mean Wikipedia supports my retarded views”? A bit overdramatic, I know, but it kind of seems like this is the argument being made. Further, if there really was a risk of glorifying “war criminals” and other “bad” people, shouldn’t all people convicted at the Nuremberg Trials have smaller pictures? And what about other people responsible for the deaths of thousands or millions. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin Bin Laden, should their pictures then not also be smaller? However, by labelling some good and others bad, we go against the idea that articles should have a neutral point of view.

The same goes with signatures; on some pages they are deemed unencyclopedic, others they are not. To me it seems like your biggest problem with signatures, on (some) Nazi pages, is they are “fanboy stuff”. As far as I can see however, this is only on Nazi officers, not other military personnel like Patton or Omar Bradley. This, coupled with your work on alt-right subjects (which seems to be good work BTW), leads me to think that you, somewhat misguide, think that removing the signature is somehow a fight against NeoNazism or something. I’m sure that is not the case, but it seem like it to me. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything, but only express my current opinion, which of course I’m willing to change.

Lastly your proposal on Village pump was not agreed on, as it was “all-encompassing”, however it was agrees that signatures should have “encyclopedic value”, meaning there should be a compromise somewhere between everyone or no one having. As far as I can see however, there are no policy on what “encyclopedic value” for signatures are and you haven’t been all too helpful in clarify what it entails. As a way to mitigate these discussions, I suggest that we could attempt to create some guideline, policy or frame of reference, which then could work for all historical figures.

Sorry for the long text, hope you will take the time to reply.

PS. I get that "[Beyond My Ken is] the worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia." is a kind of badge of honor or some tongue in cheek, but posting it everywhere also kinda comes off as “I know I’m a bad person, but I’m not going to change that”, just my opinion. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA[edit]

Please don't make personal remarks in edit summaries[3] or elsewhere. I've told D.Creish the same. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC).

OK, thanks for the reminder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox pictures of Nazis[edit]

It seems that you're the only one on Wikipedia that feels that the photo of Nazis on an article that details their horrific atrocities, is somehow "glorifying" them and is something that is a cause for concern. Judging by your recent contributions, your decision stems heavily from your personal political stance in modern American politics. Wikipedia is an apolitical site and you have not reached a consensus on Wikipedia, you've only privately reached a compromise with User:Emiya1980, a compromise which you casually disregard. You also seem to arbitrarily apply this change on articles. What you do does nothing to improve the quality of articles. Please stop. Meeepmep (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got me, I confess, I've been a wolf in sheep's clothing: I am personally opposed to Fascism, Nazism, Communism and authoritarianism of all kinds, and in favor of Democracy, popular sovereignity, and equal rights for all people under the rule of law.
Oh the shame, the utter shame of being exposed to the world like this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and, no, I'm not stopping. Images in infoboxes need to be large enough to easily identify the subject, and no larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello Beyond My Ken,

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a decision[edit]

Instead of giving presents 🎁 this year, I'm giving my opinion. Get excited!! 🎅🏻🎄🤶🎁 Atsme✍🏻📧 03:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)