User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

Too much blue, do more red. BMK (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possible way we can use the following reference as narrowly as possible, simply and only to support K-Town's live-in-real-time, done-deal leap eastward over 5th and toward Madison?

http://www.yelp.com/biz/dons-bogam-new-york

My only concern is, as you said in the edit summary, that published sources often lag behind urban reality, and it could be (quite) a long time before the usual pre-eminent sources acknowledge this. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did note in my Times search one restaurant listed to the east of Fifth Avenue, which was probably this one, but I didn't consider that sufficient to show that Koreatown is expanding in that direction. The Yelp cite is even less useful for that.

Let's start with this, just to establish some context: I used to live in the area, so I could just walk up and see what's going on, but I've since moved way uptown and can't as easily do that, so, even though it's entirely OR, and therefore not usable in the article, have you, personally, seen signs of the expansion of Koreatown east towards Madison, other than this one restaurant?

Then at least we'll know where we stand. Even though we can't use it, it may give us some clue as to where to go to get a usable cite. BMK (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent USA branch of the prominent Korean Shinhan Bank, which has now established a presence on the east side of Fifth Avenue, therefore taking it off of West 32nd Street and technically placing it between 5th and Madison:

http://www.mapquest.com/us/new-york/banks-new-york/shinhan-bank-america-274863217

In combination with the restaurant, I believe that the two sources could form a reasonably verifiable support structure, hewing with this article's mention of banks and restaurants. Also, what is salient here is a phrase which would simply state that K-town is expanding in this direction, not stating that Korea Way or the center of the district itself has moved beyond 5th Avenue. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back in commission now, BMK (talk). I sense a 'conditional' green (or yellow) light from you regarding this edit. Let's try this here - I think I have a reasonable way to introduce this edit in a way that correctly captures the WP:WEIGHT of both the issue and the borderline strength of the citations. I believe this approach will neither overemphasize the issue and yet not be remiss by outright neglecting a very real phenomenon. Feel free to edit it as you wish, of course. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well...... I think it's pretty darn WP:SYNTHESISy, but, it's certainly better where it is now, and with a number of supporting refs (however iffy they are), so I don't plan on making a big deal about it. Keep an eye out for a real RS cite that will support the statement, and I'll do the same. If we find one, all of those refs can be replaced. BMK (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Castncoot (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you know how to write correctly, so I am interpreting this as sarcasm: " Ezxcsuie em, these are BUS LINES." Or perhaps WP:Tendentious editing? Either way, it is unappreciated. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither - take a look at WP:AGF and get yourself a heaping helping. I was typing fast, and when I type fast I make mistakes. But the basic point is that those are bus lines, pretty mundane public information. If you think they should be supported by a citation, which is your right, then put a CN tag on them, don't delete them. Deleting them is, well, pretty damn anti-social. BMK (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Eastside Online reliable? I know it was the school newspaper of Cherry Hill High School East. [1] As seen on We Like Digging? reference section. 115.164.91.109 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty darn sure that it is not, but you can ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want more opinions. BMK (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, why ask me? BMK (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I must admit I was a little taken aback - not 2 mention puzzled - by the revert on the Strasberg Institute article. As there was no explanation given, I'm left 2 wonder whether it was my own failure 2 include an explanation that was at fault (I guess I assumed that the point of Div col - i.e. to ensure relatively even columns without having 2 expend any additional effort - was a given), or if in fact the template itself presents other problems I'm unaware of (either in general or in relation 2 this particular case), ones which outweigh the seeming advantage. If it's the latter, please clue me in; I'll be glad 2 go back and manually balance those columns (something which - if u check the history just prior 2 my entry - does not appear 2 have been done any time recently; just sayin'). If not, doesn't it make sense 2 reintroduce it? Anyway, I guess that's it. Look forward 2 hearing from u. DavidESpeed (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite your question in standard English and I'll be glad to answer it. This isn't Twitter and you're not writing a text. If you want an answer from me, write it in a comprehensible manner. BMK (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the implication that either "2" or "u" (to say nothing of my obviously failed attempt at Pig Latin levity) might possibly be 'beyond [your] ken' must be viewed as purely rhetorical. For my part, however (stylistic quirks notwithstanding), no disrespect was intended; my typing 'skills' being what they are, I customarily use such very limited, basic, and - or so I thought - readily comprehensible shorthand in all my messages (whether in emails, or on reference site talk pages such as this). In any case, rather than 'translate' my entire message (rendered in part obsolete by your last two edits to the article in question, providing the requisite column adjustments), I will cut to the chase:

• 1) Was your original revert the result of my previous edit's lack of explanation, or of a judgment as to the preferability of the original column template?
• 2) If the latter, please enlighten me; at the very least, this would help me avoid any such ill-advised edits in the future.

Again, thanks for taking the time. DavidESpeed (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lack of an edit summary didn't bother me - I often forget to do them myself, and it was perfectly clear what you were doing. The real problem for me was that using <div> to do columns just doesn't work very well, the columns end up too far apart and the reader loses the visual connection between them. I strongly feel that the columns need to be far enough apart to be obviously separate, but close enough together to be obviously all one thing, if you take my meaning. "Div" just doesn't seem to give enough control to allow that to happen. I do understand the great advantage of using it is that you don't have to keep re-jiggering the column lengths when names are added or deleted, so I'd be very happy if "div" could be made to do what I described above.

Sorry to be so grouchy in my initial response. I myself use such abbreviations and shortcuts when texting (I don't tweet), but I like to think of Wikipedia as a somewhat more serious project which deserves at least a minimum degree of literacy in its editor-to-editor communications. (Or maybe I'm just a grumpy old man!) Best, BMK (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is (going on 60, with an abundance of grump, all my own): Welcome to the club. As for the column separation, or lack of same, I guess that hadn't even occurred to me, given the forced compression - or semblance of such - due to the adjacent image. But now as I go to edit preview, eliminating said image from the equation, I see what's up. Hmmm... I think I'm actually more disconcerted by the columns being off to one side instead of being centered; not to mention the fact that whenever one compresses the screen greatly, rather than compressing accordingly, the fixed column(s) simply begin to disappear. Maybe it's just me, but to my eye, as long as the distances remain equal (however great) and the order alphabetical, the connection seems pretty hard to miss.

All that being said, it's your call. As far as this article goes, I'm just passing through. You're the one maintaining it, and obviously doing a thorough and conscientious job. Thanks again for the explanation. DavidESpeed (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I tweaked the columns a bit, centering them and making 4 instead of 3. What do you think? BMK (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2015 (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.

New York State Psychiatric Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MDA

Tippi Degré (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Himba

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to like me but assume good faith. And check the evidence... it's article talk pages, not editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "assume" anything, I can see that you filed a report on AN/I without ever bothering to ask Guy Macon a damn thing about what he did. That's just wrong, period. Maybe, if you had an extensive history of disputes with him and you didn't want to start another one, maybe then you'd be justified, but you say yourself that you "have little knowledge of" him. You just didn't have the courtesy and decency to ask directly for an explanation from a colleague before tattling on him to the community (and, yes, "tattling" is indeed the apt word for what you did). BMK (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services after April 14, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-14) days of 150+ article-related edits are destructive. This is the warning before Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you now have an opportunity to retract your contributions. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off. BMK (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]