User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

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

Hey, you removed the "33% increase in rape" stat from the lapdancing article, am I right? What did you find to be wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.0.121 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced, which is what I said in my edit summmary Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit curious as to why you keep reverting my edit to the Tammany Hall article, which purely concerns the use of em-dashes. As the article currently stands (with your most recent revert), you've used en-dashes to set off text mid-sentence, which is, I'm afraid, just wrong. There's no two ways about it. Wikipedia's own Manual of Style indicates that articles should consistently use either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes, and the other uses throughout the Tammany Hall article use unspaced em-dashes. Further, as other manuals of style will attest, em-dashes are used to set off text. See for example, the Chicago Manual of Style. Just curious as to your reasoning, since you've not been kind enough to use an edit summary either of the times you've reverted my edits. Esrever ^(klaT) 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "just wrong" about it. The other manuals of style you cite were created for printed text, not for text viewed on a monitor. On a monitor an m-dash is difficult to read and stops the flow of the text, while the n-dash (with spaces before and after) is cleaner and easier to read. Please remember that our own Manual of Style is not a mandatory policy, but instead a guideline, and previous ArbCom cases have been clear that changing one style of "short horizontal line" for another style for no clear reason except adherence to the MOS is disruptive and should not be continued. It would be best if you left well enough alone, there's plenty of substantive work needed to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was only one mdash in the article, so your argument that converting ndashes to mdashes was simply being consistent is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there were no other em-dashes. I thought I'd changed those when I copy-edited it the last time. We'll have to agree to disagree on the readability, of course. I find the spaced en-dash jarring. I will reiterate that it would've been simple enough for you to say this in an edit summary the first time. It's just good manners if nothing else. Esrever ^(klaT) 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand your frustration but let's not abandon the article as I am sure that there are still those with an agenda (apologists, if you will) determined to rewrite parts of the article. I hate it when people change my edits from, say Los Angeles, California or Minneapolis, Minnesota to Los Angeles, California or Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ridiculous and pointless (and aesthetically unpleasing to my eyes, but...) And this is just minor styling tweaks. As you yourself put at the top of this page, let's not take it way too seriously. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

96th Street (Manhattan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Riverside Drive, Columbus Avenue and City Journal

Arliss Howard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ivanov and Robert Woodruff

Orpheus Descending (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kevin Anderson and Peter Hall

Charlie Sheen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FX

Manufacturers Trust Company Building (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TimeOut

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Office of Strategic Services may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He was sequestered by the OSS early in the war and had a long career behind enemy lines.<ref>[[http://navysealmuseum.com/about-navy-seals/seal-history-the-naval-special-warfare-story/seal-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triborough Bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the [[Harlem River]], the [[Bronx Kill]], and the [[Hell Gate]], a strait of the [[East River]]), the bridges connect the [[borough (New York City)|borough]]s of [[Manhattan]], [[Queens]], and [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned in the discussion. Perhaps we can use ANI to stop him from abusing administrative priviledges. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting -- or, rather, disconcerting -- about the discussion is that my argument is that FPAS abused his power as an admin by threatening to block when involved in a dispute, which is the equivalent in the real world of a cop inappropriately brandishing his weapon during an argument with a civilian, and some of the responses have been critical of the niceties of my actions, the equivalent of being told that I neglected to keep my pinky firmly out while I sipped my tea. I've even been threatened with retaliation (again!) by another admin.

Ultimately, of course, this is indeed my fault, because I ignored my own rules #7 and 8:

7. You cannot win against an admin who really wants to win.

8. Remember: They are armed, you are not. When two admins tell you that black is white, it is fruitless to continue to try to show them that black is black and white is white. You don't need to accept their idiocy, just realize that there's little you can do about it, and continuing will just get you punished in some way.

Serves me right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size before editing further image sizes. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm well aware of that guideline, as I'm also aware of the fact that only people with Wikipedia accounts can specify the size of images in their preferences, which means that if an image size is not set in relationship to its placement in the article's layout, all that the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia will see is an anemic postage stamp. Therefore, I choose to take my lead from WP:IMGSIZE: "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default". Bear in mind that, as always, MoS is a guideline. and not policy. Best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice from the editing history that I have worked very hard on the Flatiron Building article, both in writing and editing the text, and in crafting a balanced layout for it. I would appreciate it if you would bear this in mind, as I do not think the layout you were applying to it is superior to what was there. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice it is not the first time that you have removed worthwhile (IMHO) edits by others. It is not a good idea to treat Wikipedia articles as a personal essay. In particular, your layout for the Flatiron Building article, although I am sure wonderful to your eyes on your browser and with high-speed Internet access, is not good for others with different browsers and low-speed Internet access. It is certainly overloaded with large images for me anyway and many I suspect others too. Anyone wishing to see an illustration magnified simply needs to select the desired image. Are you aware of W3C web accessibility guidelines or do you choose to ignore these too? They are particularly important for a widely used resource like Wikipedia.

I would also ask why you deleted my improved references and the referenced cross-link to the Normandie Apartments (Shanghai)? Do you believe these not worthwhile as well? I would ask you to restore these unless you have a convincing argument otherwise. Previously you just deleted them without explanation. I would be grateful for an explanation or was this an oversight? Happy editing. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...why did you upload that new poster over the original? Is there some demonstration that can be made that this is the current film poster and if so why upload on top of the original? Why not upload as a separate poster? One other thing. You also added the redundant credit back into the plot. There is consensus for that not being needed. How do you feel about my making these two changes; Revert the plot back without credits and return the original lips poster...or return the poster that of it's original release (the yellow poster with the cabaret legs). What are your thoughts on this as I don't wish to do anything you are not in agreement with.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We actually prefer the oldest poster, the most original one, not the most current one. In any case, the poster I uploaded could not have been uploaded as a separate poster, because our Non-Free Content policies (WP:NFCC) will not allow multiple versions of non-free content, since only one can be used in the article, and non-free content which is not used is deleted. The reason I changed the poster is simple: the graphics are not very different, and this version has a "billing box" which provides information about who was listed as a "star" of the movie, while the previous version did not have any billing information. Since the purpose of any image is to provide context and information to the article, I thought this poster was a better choice than the purely graphic one.

As for the plot, it is usual in film articles to wikilink the names of the actors connected with the characters. Since the names of the songs were there as well, I felt they should be wikilinked also. This is helpful to our readers, as it means that they do not have to keep moving back and forth from one section to another to identify who the plot is referring to. Given this, I would respectfully object to both of your suggested changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will respect the changes in the plot but will not guarantee they will stick as consensus had determined that some time ago. But, since consensus can change, even though I prefer without all of the added info, I will accept your edit as an improvement. However...I will begin a discussion on the talk page for the poster. The poster you have uploaded is not the poster used in the official film release and therefore is not representative of the subject accurately. There are only two posters that I am aware of that were ever used for theatre release. This one with Tim Curry seated inside the lips is relatively new and meant for the DVD release I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely possible, I have no specific info on the date or provenance of the newer poster, and my reason for uploading it was simply the billing box. If talk page consensus decides to change to the original poster (I probably won't participate in the discussion if you start one, as I don't think I have anything to add), and the "star" question comes up again in the infobox, I guess it could be solved via a ref to the site of the poster, so that the billing box can be consulted - though I'd prefer that the box was visible in the article, it's much "cleaner" that way. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded the new image you invalidated the rationale. I spent hours researching that poster to be sure and credit the actual company that created it as well as all other info for the poster as was uploaded originally to be sure it had everything the rationale required. I won't make any changes without a consensus though.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that upset you - but, actually, the degree of information you provided is generally not required in a non-free rationale. See, for instance, File:Hostages poster.jpg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you didn't upset me...just really, really confused me. LOL! You are generally pretty good at remembering the Non-free rationale, but here you didn't change it and it isn't for this poster. That's all. Oh and yeah....I know I added far more information that was required but I wanted to be sure and cover all the bases.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got you! I guess I should go in an change it then, you can just revert my edit(s) if consensus returns to the original. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put in my standard rationale, changed the source on your rationale back to what it was (impawards), and then commented out both of your rationales - so, if consensus is that the poster should revert, all you have to do is remove my rationale and un-comment yours and you're back in business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I like your work BMK, and when I see an edit you make that I disagree with....I tend to wquestion myself before you. You have demonstrated that you are willing to work with others and I hope I didn't make you feel that I thought otherwise. Thanks again!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all -- and thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I saw you make a slight change to a citation I posted earlier tonight, altering an "&" to the word "and" at University Club of Chicago. First of all, thanks for the correction! But second of all, can you help me understand where the current rules for citations are? I was relying on Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style, which uses the ampersand -- I'll admit, I thought it looked a bit stilted, and I'd originally used "and", but I changed to what I thought was accepted style here. I was once very active, but haven't edited much in recent years, and I'm brushing up on citation style before assisting some new editors at an edit-a-thon. For that reason, any tips you can provide about where to get the most accurate information about citation standards are appreciated: thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I've never read that particular page, I was relying instead on a general rule (I'm not sure it's codified anywhere in particular) not to use ampersands unless they specifically appear in a title or something like that. The problem being that the "&" is just a little too informal, and we are, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia , even if we're one put together by geeks and outcasts! <grin> I'm actually surprised to hear from you that an example page would suggest that the ampersand should be used instead of the more formal "and".

Generally, we don't have a space problem, so using abbreviations and symbols instead of full text isn't necessary for that reason (as it is in, say, newspaper headlines), and I don't think we really want to come across as breezy and informal, which is how I perceive that the ampersand comes across. Certainly, an ampersand should be used whenever appropriate -- most architectural firms use it, for instance, and I've had a couple of arguments with people who didn't want "McKim, Mead and White" to become "McKim, Mead & White", which is actually how the vast majority of references refer to the firm. And in the arcane world of movie writing credits, the ampersand (I am told) denotes a writing team, while an "and" just brings names together that otherwise are not connected, so that "Screenplay by Bob Bigboy & Jesse Jarmouth, Beatrice Uplooker and Celia Littletooth" means that Bob and Jesse are a writing team, while Beatrice and Celia are individual writers whose names are simply being strung together.

None of which really answers your question, I know, and if you decide to revert that edit back to the ampersand, it's not particularly a big deal to me. I guess I just feel that the symbol should be reserved for when it's actually used in the real world, in titles or company names, and we should generally stick with "and", as a token of formal writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, thanks for your reply! I think your observations seem reasonable to me: heaven knows where that ampersand came from. I suppose one of us should Be bold and change that page, but I don't know if I have the nerve today. :-) In any case, I certainly won't revert your edit...I don't think I'll take the time to find all the ampersands I may have left on pages in my recent edits, but I'll adopt the "and" going forward and I think the encyclopedia will look a bit nicer for it. Thanks again for your thoughts! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyond my Ken,

I have undone the change wrapper that you placed around my defence. Although there is "no policy or precedent on Wikipedia that allows an editor under examination on AN/I to create a new section in order to attempt to control its format and content", there is nothing to say that an editor who is under examination cannot do so. The argument in question had become a wall of text and I was attempting to introduce [[good practices by introducing a clear layout resembling that of a court of law which follows the Adversarial system approach. (The approach used in the UK and the US). Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored it, with a note that any editor in the entire Wikipedia community is free to unarchive it, except you. Your blatant attempt to control the format and content of a discussion about you is antithetical to the process of an open and free community discussion, and if allowed, would set a terrible precedent. Please do not remove it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that have removed it again, no surprise. I've taken steps to let the community know of your actions. The discussion here is closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BMK, just so you know, regarding the KML file for Times Square: it shows the area of the square, which spans about 1,100 feet (340 m) north-south. Coordinates would not be very helpful in this case. There are many streets with Wikipedia articles that are shorter. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 22:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going to drop a note on your talk page, but got distracted by a vandal.

I'm afraid I disagree with you, Times Square is compact enough that a single point coordinate is better than a route map, and if streets that short are getting route maps as well, they probably should be converted back to coords.

I like the KML because I've always thought that the idea of "locating" a street like Fifth Avenue or Michigan Avenue in Chicago, or Broad Street in Philadelphia was silly - those streets are just too long to encapsulate in a single coordinate, so the route map is a really good replacement. That's not the case for very short streets, or squares, or street intersections, for which it is simple to enter a single coordinate which identifies where that place is. KNowing when to use coords and when to use a route map is really just a matter of common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing while I have you here. You might have noticed that I reformatted the EL you added to MacDougal Street to read:

• Mushett, Travis. "Street Writer: MacDougal Street" Blunderbuss Magazine

I did this because the version you posted looked a little spammy, and if you are planning on adding it to other articles, sooner or later someone would probably decide that it is spam and remove it. I don't think it is spam, so a more neutral presentation helps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, why did you remove the night picture on New York's City Hall? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Hall Tomlzz1 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look and see what happened. My bad. So sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlzz1 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is more than appropriate when there is a lack of proper evidence, consistency isn't always enough in this case as there are plenty of people who add correct unsourced material to this site and it would be unfair to label them as vandals. Ill stick with assume good faith thank you.Blethering Scot 10:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (paraphrased)

My mistake, I won't attempt to pass along helpful information to you again, so you can remain in blissful ignorance of reality. I will, of course, continue to remove the vandalism of the long time abuser the Broadway Hoaxer whenever I come across it, just as I (and others) have done for years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not taking advice from you full stop. You approached me after i reverted the user, which was appropriate and i will continue to do so, but without proper evidence i am not labelling everyone who adds cast info unsourced as a vandal, there have been a couple of times recently of which Aladdin is one example where someone was reverted as a vandal and then guess what the info was accurate. Given your attitude and forum shopping recently you are not someone i would ever in a million years take advice of.Blethering Scot 17:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More's the pity, such things you could learn! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battery Park City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NYPL

Napoleon LeBrun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 46th Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I acted like an idiot.

Even though I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia, I have never reverted an edit, except my own. If you can revert your legacy edit and leave in User:Richard Apple's request that the 37 cent stamp be included then that's fine. If not then I will have to go back over my edit and manually fix it and include Apple's request. The inclusion of a stamp as legacy is supported by the Malcolm X article, but the 37cent part of it is not. That is of no concern to me at this time. The legacy section is a complete joke as it stands now. My edit upgraded it to ridiculously pathetic. I will deal with fighting with a stamp should be included as part of his legacy later. I have bigger fish to fry. The legacy now is 10 paragraphs - that's a joke. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyond My Ken: You gave a final warning to Jsilver09 for test edits. Unfortunately what appears to have happened, judging by their contributions, is that the members of this class were told to make and then revert test edits as an initial step. I've e-mailed the prof and am going through welcoming them, but it does look as though they didn't know any better, and there are other issues with some and some possibly unwise user names. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I got snarky with Jsilver09 after I had to wade through a bunch of test edits to see if they were vandalism or not. I'll post a comment toning down my warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Topic ban appeal by Dolovis, you have voted to oppose the lifting of the topic ban pending my answers to ES&L's questions. I have made my reply to the questions, and I have now received the support of my harshest critic. I am hopeful that my response will also satisfy your concerns so that I may have your support also. Thanks you. Dolovis (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find your answers adequate, and am monitoring the discussion. Please don't canvass my !vote again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] So, Astor Place and Cooper Square don't intersect with Third Avenue and St. Mark's Place? How can that be? [2] All four roads intersect, though Cooper Union is at the southwest corner that borders Astor Place and Cooper Square. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the point I made on your talk page. Cooper Union is not just the Foundation Building, which is located where Cooper Square meets Astor Place, there is also the new building at 41 Cooper Square at 6th Street, so "Cooper Union", the institution as a whole, is more accurately described as being on Cooper Square, not as being at the intersection you're putting into the article. You are, in fact, being overprecise, and that is inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you not make yourself clear? The article should read "...bordered on all sides by Cooper Square and Astor Place..." Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article should say exactly what it says now, that Cooper Union is located on Cooper Square, no additional explication is needed. (And please read again what I wrote on your talk page, it was quite clear:

Your change of the location of Cooper Union in the article text was not the best idea, since what you were identifying was only one of the school's buildings, the Foundation Building. Since the school's "campus" is entirely on Cooper Square, "Cooper Square" remains the best way to describe where the school is located.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Square consists of two block-long streets with the same name. People will be confused because the square is V-shaped and the Cooper Union faces both sides of the square V-shaped road. (This is confusing even me, so let's leave it alone.) Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one will be confused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer what you meant by writing on Admin Notice Board under "IP Insists on Double Vote": "who cares whether it's written down or not, we're here telling you that it's how things are done around here"? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not playing your little trolling game, the meaning is completely obvious. Don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the purpose of having road shields and road signs at all? You've obviously stated your opinion that street signs on NYC street pages are unnecessary, so why bother including shields and signs in any U.S. road article? I feel that maybe we shouldn't be eliminating these signs from NYC street articles, as they don't do much more than the road shields that you'll find within nearly every U.S. road article. Maybe including shields for major streets is a good idea, but not for the smaller, quieter ones? Just posing an idea...what are your thoughts? c16sh (speak up) 03:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to put up any argument in favor of shields, it wouldn't particularly bother me if they were eliminated completely, but I do think that there's some small value in showing what a route marker looks like, since, while US and Interstate shields are the same, all the states have different shapes, as are shields for county roads.

In the case of street signs, they are, essentially, text on a colored background in a rectangular box, perhaps with a picture, and that adds nothing to the article, We know the street is called "Broadway" it says so at the top of the article, in the bolded text in the lede, and at the top of the infobox, as well as numerous times throughout the article. We don't need the words to appear on a colored background to remind us what the article is about.

Now, if a sign is unique, interesting, historical or in some other way important, then, of course having a picture of it (not a rendered image, which is simply the visual equivalent of WP:OR) enhances the article, as long as the article, or the caption to the picture, discusses what is interesting or unique about the sign. (I'm thinking here specifically about some of the historical signs on the sides of buildings in London, New York, Philadelphia and other cities.)

But other than that, images which add nothing to an article, whether they are of street signs or yet another duplicative shot of the Empire State Building, are just taking up space, cluttering up the article, and perhaps making it more difficult for truly useful images to be included. We can't possibly put every image we have in Commons into every article on every subject, so we have to use editorial judgment to keep our articles clear of unnecessary images, and (except for those instances I mentioned above), street signs are just unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Burlington, Vermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Episcopal, Men's Health and Church Street Historic District

200 West Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Cobb

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plaque commemorating those killed in Operation Tiger crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyond My Ken, Thanks for your comments at the Noticeboard! -- I'm not clear about something however. While you said we need someone to bring balance, etc, you closed your comments by saying "Can we please topic ban this person?". Just a bit confused is all. -- Gwillhickers 22:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you are confused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK, I have merged Amen Corner (niche) into Fifth Avenue Hotel, as the corner's article had many issues and failed notability by itself. If you have any question, see my talk page. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is fine. The two problems I can see is that you didn't put a "copied" template into both articles to show that information from one was copied into the other, and that there was already information on the Amen Corner in the article, which needed to go into the new section you created. I've done the second, and am about to do the first (the "copied" template). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to merge was a good one.

So whenever you merge two articles together, or copy material from one article to another, you should put the "copied" template on both article's talk pages. This keeps the copyright chain intact. Also, obviously, when merging material, make sure to integrate the new material with existing material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll be sure to take care of that next time I merge a page. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made some tweaks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Illini Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Student union

Jack Bender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Bender

McFarland Carillon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eye of Sauron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (except for "John Bender", which is in a hatnote, and intentional) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although what it says doesn't mean that it's correct, this isn't a typical image by any means. But more than that, "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons may be restricted by laws regarding personality rights. The extent of these restrictions depends on jurisdiction. Personality rights restrictions apply independently of copyright. Before using this content, please ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights." As it isn't a typical image and there are possible BLP issues, why should the image be here? Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then take a more typical image from the same grouping on Commons. There are no personality rights issues with a stripper in a strip club where they allow photos to be taken, since she has waived her rights in that circumstances.

Working on an article right now, tough sledding. Back to this later? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no rush. Found (from the same club) File:Strippers strip club Mexico City.jpg. And why do we have Strippers and Male stripper (and not Male strippers? These should be merged as the first article discusses male strippers anyway. We don't have 'Actress'. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you.

I think File:Channel Solid Gold.jpg, also from the same cat, might be more typical. As for the gender-divided categories - I've seen that there's been a lot of changing of categories so that they're not divided by gender, and I can't say that I'm familiar with the arguments pro and con, nor do I really want to get involved. I work in the theatre, and am quite happy to use "Actor" and "Actress" for individuals, or "Actors" as a group noun (or "the cast", for that matter). If someone objects to some usage in regard to themselves, I'm happy to change, but I don't really have a dog in that fight. I would guess, though, that "Strippers" could include everyone and be divided into males and females in sub-cats. I really don't care much, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the image after a post to my talk page before I saw this, sorry. I still think though that the strip club image is better. If you still object, let's discuss it at the article talk page, ok? Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cleavage (breasts) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | caption2 = [[Marilyn Monroe]] displaying cleavage in ''[[Some Like it Hot]]'' (1959)]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done

Jeepers you lucky devil. Bracket bot only contacts me when I make a mistake in a filmography :-( Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for your note in the edit summary at Betty Boop. I'm sure you're right and there are RS citations out there for those items, I'll see what I can do when I can. Good to hear from you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As C says in the next thread I hope that the move goes as smoothly as possible and it is great to know that there are other editors who still have LPs and 45s. I even still have a 78 with Ralph Bellamy reading the The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam that my grandparents gave me when I was young. Thanks also for the reply about Betty's article. I really hope that someone finds a pic of when she was a poodle. I had enjoyed her cartoons for years but did not know about her transformation until I saw a documentary back in the 90s at some point. Holy Guacamole the early 90s are twenty years ago now. Whoosh things go by fast. MarnetteD | Talk 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a pic of the cover. It also contains pages with some of the poems in a fancy script print. MarnetteD | Talk 05:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orpheum Theatre (Champaign, Illinois) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | architecture = ]]Classical Revival architecture|Classical Revival]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done

It would be nice to have a photo of this church (interior too if you're up to it) if you are still taking architectural photos in NYC. Also, Samuel A. Warner is an article I started. Take care and have fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my list, but I can't promise anything. My wife and I are on the verge of moving, so I'm not sure how much free time I'll have for the next month or so. What I will do, however, is put a comment on the talk page of my Wikifriend, Jim Henderson, who takes even more pictures than I do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best of luck with the move. Life with your legs, not with your back... Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm too damn old for lifting. I'm hiring a moving company and plan to do as little lifting and carrying as humanly possible. (Of course, I wouldn't trust anyone else to pack up my 3000+ LPs and 500 45s).

I've left messages for Jim on his talk page here and on Commons. If one of the two of us doesn't get you a picture soon, you might want to post the request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to get up there today and took some shots. I added one to the article, and put in some additional information as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks very much. Did you find it interesting or distinctive or was it kind of run of the mill? It seems there ahve been some additions along the way. The congregation's 100th anniversary is coming up (although the church dates to 1880s). It does seem to be tucked into an intersting location in the Manhattan core. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you the truth, I was kind wet and kinda sweaty, so I didn't dwell on it a lot. Looking at it now, it's definitely a very cute church - I can see why David Dunlap called it a "gem". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good in the pic. Thanks again. Take care. I think I will take a stab at starting on article on the related historic district.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, I hardly ever do interiors - there's just too much I don't know about shooting indoors, so I usually avoid it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, it strikes me that so much of the architecture coverage here is of the facades. But c'est la vie. :) Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the historical designations are about the facades. Interiors are designated separately, and there are far fewer of them. Partly I think that's because the facade is public, while the interior is, in most cases, private. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best I could find: http://www.judson.org/PeaceandJustice. I guess it's not really citable. I'm a member of Picture the Homeless, and any time they show us photos of the group's history, they tell us that the room where PTH met at Judson is now the elevator shaft.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be true, but it could also be one of those apocryphal stories that get told because they're so good. (In fact, my suspicions get tickled any time a story is really good - it's those that need a reliable source most.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is not accurate and must be removed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greaser%27s_Palace#cite_note-tcmnotes-1 Rubin would later run into legal problems, unrelated to this film, for which she would serve jail time.[1]

I have never been arrested, or charged or tried or convicted of any crimes.

The source link does not support this information either.

cyma rubin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyma rubin (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it per our policy on biographies of living persons. My apologies on behalf of us all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think, "Jimbo Wales will burn in hell forever" is a bit much? I realize it was sarcasm, but still... Joefromrandb (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When waxing sarcastic, bigger is almost always better. <g>

In point of fact, I have respect for Jimbo Wales for starting (or co-starting) a revolutionary project such as Wikipedia, while at the same time cursing him for setting it up along the lines of his libertarian philosophy, which has engendered many of our most intractable problems.

Anyway, you knew I wasn't serious, so what's the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was in extremely poor taste. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to your opinion. Since I don't believe that Heaven or Hell actually exist (nor do any other truly rational people), it was a purely metaphorical statement. Please feel free to take your opinions elsewhere from now on, I have no interest in further intercourse with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly take my opinions elsewhere, but not before pointing out your strawman: I never said either existed. I gave my opinion on something you said and I did it politely. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem of some kind, so I'll have to restate my intention in simple words: DON'T POST HERE AGAIN. Any additional posts you make will be deleted without being read. This comes about not because you disagree with me -- I have a number of Wikifriends who I disagree with but continue to respect -- but because it appears to me that you are basically unworthy of my consideration. Still, I hope you have a wonderful life, and are able to fulfill your Wikipedia goals in spite of your intellectual deficiencies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll leave that comment in as an indication of the intellectual capacity of the writer. It will also give me reason to comment the next time the user's name comes up on the Administrator's boards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: Could you kindly reconsider your remark about rationally thinking people? If someone made an equally dismissive remark about atheists or someone with a similar viewpoint, it would probably draw a block, perhaps for 'bigotry' or 'intolerance'. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about "making it easy," but with your restoring that link there are three on the page, not two. And two of them are in the same section, nearby. I was under the impression that Wikipedia style guidelines preferred a link at the first mention and left it at that. If I am wrong, then I apologize.Frank Lynch (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the second of the two in the same section is redundant. I'll take care of it - my mistake, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently ran across your comments at L2S1's Commons talk (they've since been archived), and I wanted to note that your perspective is shared by basically everyone except Penyulap, who's been indef-blocked here for trolling and general disruption since summer 2012, and who's been "convicted" (at COM:AN) of trolling over there, too. Basically the only thing that's allowed L2S1 to continue going is that people unaware of Penyulap's trolling see L2S1's massive numbers of edits and decide that he has to be doing something good with all of those edits, regardless of the fact that he's damaging thousands of images and categories and constantly violating policies such as COM:OVERCAT; he's basically a textbook Wikipedia:Randy in Boise, and his enablers haven't yet gotten to the point that they get burned out, especially since Randy is rare at a project like Commons that's so heavy on simple uploading and categorising and so light on things that normally produce interpersonal problems. Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment, it's actually nice to know that my perceptions are not out of the mainstream. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about L2S1 (or Penyulap, for that matter, who's a sad excuse for an admin and ought to be drummed out of Commons as well -- I'd make a better admin that he is), but if something comes up, please let me know, I'll try to pitch in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Beyond My Ken, why this edit? I was just digging into the file sizes tutorial, also the change of the ILL into an interwikilink, I was wondering. In my opinion, red links in an article, will attract attention and might get translated faster. Lotje (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you.[3] Please act accordingly.—John Cline (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]