Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:56, 21 January 2013

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.

Infobox for a composer

I tried an infobox for a composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pointy Edit

How is it a pointy edit? I'm going by what you said, as explained on my talk page. A border with Orangetown is not sourced. I know, because I'm the one who added that sentence in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.141.21 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a pointy edit because you are removing information not because you believe it not to be factual, but to make a point, that if you're not allowed to add material without a citation from a reliable source when another editor disputes it, then everything must be sourced. If you were removing it because you actually did not believe that the Tappan Zee Bridge connects Greenburgh to Orangetown, then the edit would not be pointy, but you're only doing it to make a point about "consistency" - and that is the very definition of pointy editing. Cut it out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But in good conscious, how can you not practice what you preach? Though I must thank you now, as you've actually sourced the said material. Incidentally, I responded to what you wrote on the discussion page for the article, and you seem to highlight Bergen County. I believe I stated the Hudson is the boundary with Rockland and Bergen counties, in that order. It seems it's Bergen you have something against. Regardless, whereas you feel they don't border one another in any meaningful sense, I take the opposite view. The world doesn't end at the Hudson River, and it's good to provide the facts as to which towns/counties/and even states the said location borders, despite the presence of a river. Understand you opinion is not universal. Also, it seems Misplaced Pages does indeed recognize factual maritime boundaries. I'll look for a source regarding Rockland and Bergen counties and get a third party to confirm whether or not it would be considered reliable. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another policy it would be a good thing for you to read is the one which requires us to assume good faith of other editors. I have nothing against Bergen County (or Rockland County, for that matter), my objection to saying the Greenburgh "borders" those places is exactly what I've told you it is, that it's misleading to say that since a mile-wide river lies between them. It may also be untrue, since I'm not certain that the jurisdictions of towns and counties extend to the middle of the river, the way state boundaries do. That is why you need to stop mucking around with the article and spend some time researching to find a citation. I've told you before that if you produce a citation from a reliable source that says that Greenburgh borders Bergen County and Rockland County, I would withdraw my objection, but instead of doing that you've chosen to make pointy edits in the name of "consistency."

OK, so this discussion is done here, and I won't be adding anything to the discussion on your talk page. Any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, its "conscience" not "conscious". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Partch

I'm now doubly confused with this (with the edit comment "Why "mustt" ot have been a mistake? The writing was not as good as the originbal").

You're saying that the broken grammar in:

He has published the book Genesis of a Music, which has come considered a standard text of microtonal music theory.

is better prose than:

In 1947, he published the book Genesis of a Music, which has come to be considered a standard text of microtonal music theory.

????? It's the only place I changed the prose. Everything else was removing overlinking and fixing a redirect (custom-made instruments redirects to Experimental musical instrument—try it yourself). CüRlyTüRkey_Contribs 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. In looking over the edit again, your version is superior. If you haven't done so already, I have no objection if you restore your version. Sorry for the mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Susan Etok page

Hi Ken,

You removed a Youtube video with Susan Etok interviewing Stephen Marley. IF you watch just even the 1st minute of the video, you'll see that it does what it says on the can.

On another subject, I dont understand what is going on with this Susan Etok page it seems that some of the other editors are on a mission to kill this page. It seems a bit off. I feel quite attacked as the person that wrote it. I spent alot of time researching. Am I missing something?

I decided to write it again (after I started before in Oct) because Susan was in our local newspaper a few weeks because she just got invited to be involved in a major UK TV project in January 2012.

Lola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Although there are exceptions, we generally do not accept You Tube videos as reliable sources, because there are serious problems with establishing their legitimacy and because many of them violate copyright laws, something that Misplaced Pages is very concerned about, and works hard to avoid.

As for the editing of the article, I don't think anyone is deliberately trying to kill it, they are simply attempting to insure that it adheres to our policies on verifiability and notability. Not everyone -- even people in the news -- are notable enough to have an article here, and not all sources of information are considered reliable enough to be used in articles. People have differing views on where the lines should be drawn, which is why there's a bit of back-and-forth in the article editing. Please remember that Misplaced Pages is a collective and collaborative project, and that most articles are the result of just the kind of editing you're seeing now on Susan Essien Etok. Since the article is at Articles for Discussion, where a consensus will determine whether it will be kept or not, the best thing you can do is some Google searching -- Google News would be best -- to find more and better citations from reliable sources to "beef up" the article. The better it is sourced, the more likely it is to survive the AfD. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ken,

I have just seen that you changed the filomgraphy ref back to imdb. Shritwood removed the imdb ref and thats why I out an amazon one. He said that Imdb wasn't reliable - but it is, it is updated by the film makers themselves.

It appears that Shritwood has something against the subject of the page. Is it fair that all my hardwork to research on this person can go to waste because one of the editors doesn't like them.

This Shritwood has also claimed that I am someone close to her. I have never met her. She comes from my town and is always in the papers here. This seems a bit like bullying on the part of the Editor Shritwood.

Lola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lola: It is often the case that an editor who writes a new article about a person has some connection to that person. In order to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and unbiased, we ask that editors with such a conflict of interest identify themselves, so other editors can make sure that the conflicted editor isn't trying to bias the article. In severe cases, we ask that the COI editor not edit the article directly, just make suggestions on its talk page. If you're not connected to Susan Etok, then you have nothing to worry about, but if you are, it is probably best to say so.

Also, please remember, whatever attracted you to the subject of Susan Etok, you're probably writing out of personal interest in her, and that's fine, but we here do not have any particular personal interest, we have to make sure that the article is properly written, properly sources, fair and unbiased. This is especially true for article about living people - we even have a specific policy for biographies of living persons, which is stricter than our general policies.

Just hang in there, keep working on sourcing, and do your best to make sure the article is what Misplaced Pages needs it to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, as the creator of the article, you are allowed to participate in the AfD discussion, and you should do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Something Golden

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Here is something golden for your talk page or barnstar gallery. Your reputation is golden with me, even as you claim some say otherwise, which I find difficult to believe, but I'll be happy to straighten these confused people out if you send them my way. :) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the people I mentioned see this here! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks for reverting the change to my talk page. I don't consider a request to revisit an AFD !vote to be canvassing, on the contrary. So we good. We good :) §FreeRangeFrog 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem here either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-reference‎‎

BR is fine but you forgot the D. Toddst1 (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that mass deletion of popcult sections goes against general consensus. If you have specific objections, that's one thing, but deleting a section wholesale is just not on, and that goes whether you're an admin or a rank-and-file editor. Please don't do it again. 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Mass deletion of crap is just fine. And you should know better yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about your recent election to be Supreme Arbiter of Crap.

Well, it's your article to watch now, it's off my watchlist - hopefully it's on yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Data and copyright

Data can not be copyrighted. You can research this more and find out that this is true, or you can continue to look ignorant about this issue. I really don't care. Others will keep reverting your incorrect blanking of non-copyrighted material. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And you can learn a little more by reading my comment on the article talk page. This is not data', it is reasearch rolled into a number which is not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied there: Template talk:Corruption Perceptions/Corruption perceptions index. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susan McKeown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keen, The Bottom Line and Gypsy (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) 11:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done All fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention

The editor you reported, Vanished user v8hjw98h4iufv8j23iortualifjho, does not appear to be registered. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he just left out the last two characters: it's supposed to be User:Vanished user v8hjw98h4iufv8j23iortualifjhoi3. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think this is a case of a vanished user returning to edit; it looks like the most recent edits were made before the name change, although it's hard to be sure. If there is overlap, it's only by one or two edits, so I doubt any action is needed here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the case. I tried variations on capitals but got nowhere. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I just did Special:ListUsers/Vanished user v and compared the results; it was the first one that came up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about dropping the two characters. My concern was not that this was an actual vanished user, but that the name creates that impression, which is deceptive. It was on that basis that I thought action might be taken. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that this editor is a legitimate vanished user? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I answered my own question - I should have checked into it further before I brought it up. Sorry for the trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmdoctor1

Why are you making changes. In the case of Cinema 16, my doctoral dissertation is the most complete work ever done on that subject. The dissertation is publically available, confirmed by the reference library of New York University. Anyone can find it and use it. This is an important reference work on this topic that would be a boon to scholars interested in this topic. I don't understand why you are preventing this note. I do not understand your motivation. If you want Misplaced Pages to work, please stop this or explain to me what is going on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your doctoral theseis is an unpublished work, which means it has not been vetted by a publisher. It, or indeed any other unpublished thesis, does not qualift as a reliable source. Get it published, then it can be cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if these messages are getting to you. I don't know the system yet. You can also reach me at filmdoctor@excite.com and we can communicate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a big orange bar comes on on the page I'm working on when I get a new message, but you have to wait until I see it for me to respond. There's no need for us to go off-wiki, discussion here is fine. Also, please "sign" your comments by putting 4 tildes at the end, the system will add your username and a time & date stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to wikipedia users if I am doing the wrong thing. I put things in references since there was no category called Publications, Bibliography etc where it would more appropriately go. I just want people to have access to some information that is 1)an important contribution to the topic, and 2)available to scholarship. What do you want me to do to have you let others know how to find helpful, scholarly work. Maybe this was not "vetted" by a publisher (as if they know best). It was written under the guidance of senior graduate faculty at New York University who know far more about this topic than any publisher. The dissertation advisor was Jay Leyda, one of the major film historians of his time. He also worked for a while with the "founder" of Russian cinema, Segei Eisenstein. This work is pretty vetted, and in a scholarly way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are making wikipedia better. I fear you are making it less useful. I cannot spend more time re-entering this information just to have it wiped out by you. I think this information should be in wikipedia because it is helpful to users. But I will give up. I don't have the energy to fight what I believe is unfair to wikipedia users. I have a life that I have to get back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's our system, and that's how it works. I very much doubt you waltzed into NYU and said "I don't care how you've done things in the past, but my dissertation is going to be handled differently," so why do you think you can do the same here? Because we're just some rinky-tink online encyclopedia? No, we're not perfect, and we're not anywhere near of academic quality, but we are the first place most people go these days for information, which means we have an obligation to make sure that information is correct. To that end, we've developed a system. It, too, is not perfect, and it changes when it needs to, but it's not going to go away because you don't like it.

I hope you decide to stay around, because I'm sure you have things you can contribute to the project, but if yopu're going to do so, you're going to have to do it our way, and not yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It most likely will never be published. I have not sought that. It is, however, completely available to the public. It contains truly helpful information and has over one hundred footnotes identifying the source of all the material in it. What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be published, that's what is required. Now, since you seem to be exhibiting behavior here and on your own talk page that we call "I didn't hear that", this discussion is over on this page, Please stop your current behavior, or it is likely that you wil be blocked from editing. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Filmdoctor1: Since you have posted two comments here after I wrote above "this discussion is over on this page", please let me make it clearer to you Do not post any more comments on this subject on this page. Any further attempt to extend this discussion on this page will be deleted unread. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Rubin Museum

You removed a list of conferences, which I compiled and used outside sources to confirm (newspaper articles, listings, etc.) You said that you deleted the entire list because it conformed too closely with the museum website. It seems to me you are saying that because it was an accurate list (with NO biased information), it must be deleted. Unless you are willing to recompile the list yourself in some sort of acceptable format as per your own standards, please do not arbitrarily delete the work of others. Also, by leaving an accurate list of previous events, it gives other users the chance to find more valid sources and help the original writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kf2240 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page at the time that I removed it, much of the material you added to the article was a clear copyright violation. Further, it had little or no encyclopedic value, and served only to puff up the piece, which is why I also toned down the promotional language you added. Please do not reinsert the material into the article. If you are connected to the Museum, please read about our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and not using Misplaced Pages as a promotional medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

Hi -- thanks for your help on the church article, and hope you have been well. I think you made a mistake though. Some corporate entities have "The" in their name. Others don't. In this case, by their home page, we can see that "The" is actually part of the church's name. See http://www.epiphanynyc.org/ It's the same as with boroughs -- we call it The Bronx, not "Bronx". Because "the" there is part of its name.

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but it's very rare that we use the "The" in article names. And it's really not used in the real world either - look at the entry in Dunlap, or at this search in the Times where "the" is used much more often than "The". If you want to re-bold "The" in the lede, that's fine, but I think the article names should remain, per WP:COMMONNAME Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The NY Times search has very little -- when one deletes from it the paid notices as well as the references to the other church by the same name in Manhattan. I still find this to be the same as The Bronx. And, there we use "The" even though we can find NYT articles such as this one, and this one, and a host of others that don't use "The" as part of the name. It is pretty clear from the church website what it calls itself. Though it is easy for people to assume it should be a small "t" and not part of the name, as that is typical, that would appear to be a mistake when that approach is taken. It's not the first church to use "The" in its name on wikipedia. See, for example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But when I get a chance I'll look at this more closely if I can. I've an open mind, though at this point my thoughts are as above. Or feel free to post it (or I may) on the common names talk page. Obviously, not an urgent or life-and-death issue, but I would like to clear it up before the article goes up as a DYK. Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know about the Mormon title, and disagree with it, but there's no way I was going to get into the middle of the brouhaha that would cause. <g> Also, if you recall, it took a number of RMs and RfCs to get "The Bronx", which has a certifiable and substantial history behind it. In this case, I don't see it as anything special, lots of organizations have "The" in their official title - The Ohio State University being perhaps one of the best known - and we don't use it in our article title (see Ohio State University). As WP:Article naming conventions makes clear, official names aren't necessarily preferred over common usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the Mormon title, I hear you. Sounds prudent. As to The Bronx, I haven't followed the RMs and RfCs -- but would have thought it a slam dunk to end up where it is, if our good editors were involved in the discussion. I agree that official names aren't necessarily preferred -- but that doesn't mean that we disregard and give no weight to the official name. I understand that as referring to cases where there is a very clear common name, at odds with the official name. Not the case here. From what I saw in what you cited to above, and in my own research since, it is at best murky -- many of the examples in the above link were paid announcements (we don't count those) or related to the other church by the same name. I lean towards thinking it best the other way. But it's not a grave issue at all -- as long as we have redirects in place, which you have elegantly improved upon, we get to the same place. I might feel more strongly in another circumstance, but here the evidence on either side of common usage is murky, the evidence of what its real name is is clear, but the importance is limited. And you've been uber helpful on the article, which I very much appreciate. So, let it stay. One quick question -- I never got the hang of properly doing the lat/long bit. Can you point me to a good way to do it? The directions I have aren't working. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean putting in coords? I'm not so good at it myself, so I generally go to the location on Google Maps and right click on the "What's here?" link, which generates decimal coordinates in the search box. If I'm just using the coord template, I then add that to the page using

{{coord|latitutde decimal number|longitude decimal number|format=dms|display=title}}

The "format=dms" converts the decimal into degrees, minutes and seconds, which I think most editors prefer using over decimals.

If I'm going to fill in the lat/long fields in an infobox, I do the same thing, but (I'm ashamed to say) I insert the coord template into a random article, preview it to get the dms equivalent, and then copy and paste those numbers into the infobox (I don't save the random article, of course). See what I mean when I said I'm not too good at it - there surely is a better way to convert the decimal coords into dms coords but I've just never run across it, so I use my own kludgey method.)

Sorry I can't be more helpful. I think there's much more to the coord template as well, but I've never learned it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a little beyond me as to getting it into the best shape, but at least I can now get some coords in. Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical

Do these actually help? a13ean (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, we'll find out, won't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

From John Colby Re: Stars My Destination

Dear Beyond My Ken,

Much of the subject matter, direct quotes, contributors, previous licensed publishers (even a book cover from the UK edition--sure it isn't promotional) and matter protected by US copyright law are appearing on the Misplaced Pages page. If I am unable to add an ISBN (as others have done) or other factual information about the book I will work to enforce our rights under US Copyright law and remove the page. The text in the entry is beyond fair use as the original text is just 225 pages. This is not a public domain work.

Best, John T. Colby Jr. Publisher J. Boylston & Company, Publishers 1230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10128 212-427-7139 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncolbyjr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note our policy on no legal threats. If you believe you have a case, you certainly have the right to start legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation. However, our policy is that you cannot edit Misplaced Pages while the threat of legal action is made, since such threats have a chilling effect on editing. Please withdraw your threat. If you do not, I will have to report your comment to the Adminstrators' Noticeboard for appropriate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying I (or you) can add the ISBN information if I remove my threat?—although I do not consider what I said to be a threat. If that is the case this note serves as retraction of what you call a "threat." I am not asking to add the current book cover or links to our web pages although I believe it is within our rights as rights holders to do so, I am just adding the current ISBN that appears in addition to other ISBNs that others added. I do not see what is unreasonable about this. I take exception that another cover appears on the page-one that someone else added and that you as gatekeeper possibly permitted, but that is another matter. I look forward to your reply.

Best, John Colby Publisher bricktower@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.143.61 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying that unless you retract your threat, you will likely be blocked from editing until you do. The material you're attempting to add is purely promotional - as shown by your efforts here - and Misplaced Pages is not a promotional medium. I suggest you buy advertising instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Incidentally, you have no more or less rights here than any other Misplaced Pages editor, regardless of what properties your company owns. If you think that some of the content of the article goes beyond the scope of fair use, it's perfectly reasonable for you to discuss that on the article's talk page with other editors as a contributor, but it's quite clear that what you're looking for is a quid pro quo, and that's just not going to happen. I don't see your "retraction" as anything but a tactical maneuver, and that's not going to do it. You need to unequivocally state that you have no plans for legal action, regardless of what happens to the article in order not to be blocked from editing. Of course, there is no requirement that you want to edit Misplaced Pages, perhaps you have no interest in doing so. The choice is yours, but this is not a bargaining session, it's a discussion about the potential application of our policy to your actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a report on the Administrators' Noticeboard about this incident. You'll find it here. Please make any further responses there, the discussion on this page is concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I sent a request to the Foundation's email address.

Best, John Colby, Publisher, bricktower@aol.com 67.84.143.61 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: On file as Ticket:2013010810000717. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alexandra Eames - CI.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexandra Eames - CI.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Robert Goren - CI.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Goren - CI.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both images restored, as they are screenshots, which are preferred over publicity pics. The usurping images also have no rationale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re The Stars My Destination

I noticed the ANI thread about this, and although I am of the opinion there's no reason to mention the particular edition the spammer is trying to plug, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that the novel is included in the recent Library of America American Science Fiction: Nine Classic Novels of the 1950s set. Rightly or wrongly, inclusion in the Library of America is widely considered a significant distinction. What do you think? Deor (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is significant and should be in the article. I was also thinking last night that something like "The first e-book edition was published in 2012" would not be promotional and could be added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for intervening. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Leake and Watts Services (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Head Start

Packer Collegiate Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Renwick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wide-ranging reverts

You just reverted my edits on four separate pages. I initially thought you were mistakenly assuming my response to ErrantX had restored a post from Echigo Mole, but you also reverted the edits I made to the Kukri article, which were supported by consensus of four other editors on the talk page. In addition, your revert removed the source I added for the Dracula example. I'd like an explanation for your actions. --Mors Martell (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ken, do you mind explaining why you used rollback to revert these edits by Martell: ? These do not seem to fall under any of the allowed instances for use of rollback. Was this a mistake on your part? I have restored one of the article edits since it was just a copy-edit that removed some unnecessary spacing between sentences and citations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've reviewed them and you are correct, they were all errors on my part - I was operating at the time under a misapprehension. I've self-reverted the one edit which hasn't already been corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm going to move this into the early section on the same subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding promptly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Hey Beyond My Ken. You reverted a series of edits I made last night, without any explanation. All my edits had informative edit summaries, plus I made a post to talk explaining on larger removal. I'm quite confused. edits. The Interior (Talk) 15:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits themselves were unexplained, and did not improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to strongly disagree there, BmK. You mind taking another look? Each edit had an explanatory edit summary, and I made a talk page post to boot. Keeping dubious and unsourced information out of an article isn't improvement? The Interior (Talk) 19:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you've already reverted me, and I don't plan to revert back, what's the issue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We're the only two experienced editors maintaining that page. It'd be great if we could deal with each other with courtesy. If that's not your style, I guess that's that. The page gets a steady stream of cruft and dodgy additions, and I was happy to have another experienced editor helping out. No issue, I guess, just wanted to see where we'd crossed wires. Have a good one. The Interior (Talk) 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right, I was rude and I apologize. I'll take a closer look at the edits before the end of the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regards, The Interior (Talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry to take so long to get to this. I did some research on the Krampus/coming of age meme, and although it appears in a good number of blogs and other user sites, I got no hits from Google Books or anyplace likely to be more authoritative, so your removal of that was good. As for the popcult items, generally if a description is straight-forward and contains no interpretation of analysis, they should not require any further citations, as the item itself serves as the necessary verification. I generally wouldn't CN-tag something like that, I'd simply remove it if I didn't think it existed, or was not terribly relevant to the article (mere mentions, for instance). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't worked much with "In Popular Culture" sections in the past, it seems like they occupy a sort of grey area policy wise. My feeling is that without secondary cites, the section and entries are an "indiscriminate list" of Krampus appearances in pop culture. Another user had set a somewhat arbitrary standard on the talk page - that the entry should link to a WP article to demonstrate notability. In the interests of keeping the list somewhat discriminate, I supported that requirement. But I realize it isn't policy-backed, so I won't press the point. The Interior (Talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Old IP talkpages

I haven't finished all of this week's database report but I have done roughly half so it will be plenty to give you an idea of the ones I blank. The full list is here but it would be easier to look at the diffs in my contributions if you are interested. I'm watching your talkpage in case of a reply. Cheers, James086 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that as long as you're blanking and not deleting there are really no issues that I can think of. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I noticed your edits and appreciated them greatly. Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not aure what brought that on, but thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect user talk page

01:29, January 10, 2013‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,327 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (Undid revision 532280104 by Tom Reedy (talk) In what respect is this inapprorpiate?) Please make request to this editor's talk page instead of mine. Thank you. (While I'm on the topic, I did not mean to rvt your earlier edit, I just failed to see this "01:17, January 4, 2013‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,294 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 531183738 by Empirecontact (talk) Friedman wasn't a theorist, we was a debunker of theorists) (undo)" not having the page on watch. I actually needed the help of someone who knew him better to make the proper categorization. Sorry for that.) --Artaxerxes (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

White Christmas (film)

The writer of the TCM article originally had Fosse in it, he has since discovered that it was not so and changed the web page to be correct - message at OTRS 2013011010001319.  Ronhjones  00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, there's a discussion about it User talk:Punctual8#White Christmas - although in that conversation he doesn't say that "he discovered it was not so", he said there that another writer could not confirm it, which is not quite the same thing. I've commented out that material so I can look into it. At this point I've checked two biographies of Fosse, and I, also, cannot confirm it. There's one other biography I would like to check, but I don't have immediate access to it. If I can't confirm the information there, I'll delete the information entirely instead of just commenting it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Lap dance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Viridae 05:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Viridae, while you are technically correct that there's "edit-warring" here, and there is no strict exemption...Beyond My Ken was reverting an IP removing a nude picture because it is "inappropriate". Which is fairly ridiculous, given the subject of the article, not to mention irrelevant given WP:NOTCENSORED; I can't actually imagine a way of illustrating that article without nudity. I've semi-protected the page for 4 days, and if the IP wants to pursue the matter, they can do so on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the IP never stated why they felt the picture should be removed. I feel semi protection is inappropriate in this case, because neither editor was in the right, and SP removes the ability of only one of the parties to edit the article. If the IP user were to revert again they would immediately be blocked, problem solved without restricting editing access for all other anonymous users. SP shouldn't be used to restrict edits by a single editor, and as such I request that you reverse your decision. Viridae 05:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR (ec x2) applies in spades here. There's clear consensus (and I actually disagree with the consensus) and the Ken was merely stopping the change against consensus. Let the matter go. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The matter was in hand before the edit protection was applied. Semiprotection is inappropriate, the article history clearly indicates useful edits by anons. Had the IP user reverted further, they would have been blocked for a 3RR violation. That will still occur if semi protection is removed. Viridae 05:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor used more than one IP address (note that the original removal was from a very different range). As such, only semi-protection would fix the problem. Had s/he used only one, then warning followed by blocking could have worked. Note that it's a very short protection (4 days), and as such only slightly inconveniences IP editors. Note that there have been no constructive IP edits since October, so there's not a large chance of anyone being bothered. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous removal was 5 days ago by a completely diffferent IP address. The first one, who left an edit summary, geolocates to Maryland, and the other apparently belongs to Texas A&M... in all probability this was two different people who are completely unaware of each other's existence. Once again I request you remove the SP, it is not appropriate in this case. Viridae 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If constructive IP edits are being lost, why not go to PC1 instead of vanilla semi-protection? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

THat would be more appropriate, but I still argue protection in general is inappropriate here, since the problem is with one user who has been warned (and another 5 days ago who hasn't returned). Viridae 06:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've converted to pending changes protection for 3 days. I actually forget that the option exists, given how long it was disabled. I'm not convinced they're different users, as my understanding is that geolocations don't work for editing from mobile devices, and that US geolocations are unreliable anyway due to the way large Telecoms allocate addresses (though my tech skills are quite low, and I could be wrong). If there had been any productive editing by IPs in the last 3 months, I'd be inclined to re-open...but there hasn't. This isn't a case of two editors having a disagreement, this is a case of one removing content from an article in direct violation to our policies, and, I might add, common sense, while the other editor was reverting to the status quo. Yeah, that doesn't justify crossing 3RR...but it would come very close to an WP:IAR exception. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The Editor has made no attempt to engage on either talk pages, or via edit summaries, so officially it's hard to see what their reasoning is, but it seems fairly obvious that they're attempting censorship. Despite the fact that this has now been essentially resolved, I would have seen no problem with leaving the 4 day protection, as an attention-grabber if anything else. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Another comment: The IP editor who geolocates to Texas A&M returned today with a slightly different IP that also geolocates to Texas A&M - so an IP block would be a very short-term fix as the IP appears to be dynamic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the mediation

Thanks for the attempt at mediation. Of course I think I am right and Andy is wrong! I probably should not have reverted one of his edits in retrospect. Red rag to a bull and all that. I see that a third editor has now reverted Andys edit. Anyway, I am getting sick and tired of all the politics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ill Met by Moonlight

I deliberated added the links as online citations to demonstrate the fact it is republished and by whom. I can't understand why you should have an issue with that?Huguº 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Because "Published" in the context of the lede and the infobox means "initially published", so adding "initially" there is superfluous. If you want to add a publishing history elsewhere, I have no problem with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see the ref you had added at the time of my revert, so I've restored that part of your edit, but left out the "first publiched" in the lede and the infobox. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks Huguº 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Jefferson Market Library (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pinnacles and Gables

Harvey Quaytman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mondrian

Kitten with a Whip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Forsyth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

R. H. Quaytman

Hi BMK - Thanks for your excellent editing on this article, I enjoyed researching and writing the new content. Her father turns out to be a significant artist who didn't even have an article. I just wrote the bio part, and plan to write a work section today or tomorrow. He is Harvey Quaytman. Regards!--Nixie9 (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Oops! I just noticed your fingerprints are already at the crime scene.--Nixie9 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to contribute! Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just finished the initial Works section for Harvey Quaytman--Nixie9 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had to remove your pointer to the talk page from the article, since that's not what talk pages are for. Talk pages are for discusssions between editors on how to improve the article, not for lists of additional information that doesn't fit into the article. I'm not going to remove the material from the talk page immediately, but I suggest you need to do it yourself, and soon, before someone else does it for you. We are, after all, editors, and that means you're going to have to edit that material and put it into the article. Keep the most important stuff, and delete the rest, and get it into the article where it belongs. There's no way that everything on that laundry list is encycylpedic, so use some discretion and week out the dross. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was trying out a new technique. That list will be very hard to reproduce some day soon, so I wanted to memorialize it. There should be some way to accomplish this, but I have no idea how!--Nixie9 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I found one option - a scroll box. At least visually it is a major improvement. Let's see if this passes general scrutiny.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And I really shouldn't let you bait me

Point taken; I've been here long enough that I should understand how things are played. I'm still not sure where the OR comes in, though, since I provided a source. Are you claiming that the Gabrieleño Band web site doesn't represent anyone associated with the tribe? Honestly, I cannot understand why the views of one part of the tribe are being discounted, other than WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, and I'm hoping you can clarify.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not "bait" you, I offered a compromise, which you summarily rejected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You threw "OR" in the water; it's totally my fault that I rose to it, and I take full responsibility. But your "compromise" was not a compromise, since one part of the tribe strongly objects to its second word, and you still haven't answered my question: Why do you discount their views? I never wanted this to be a head-butting, and I'm no proponent of Gabrieleño for any reason other than NPOV, and I'm open to any suggestion that meets NPOV ("The tribe formerly known as Gabrieleño"?). --Curtis Clark (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You say I'm discounting some portion of the tribe, I think you've been seriously misled about how large that portion is, since the evidence I find is that the vast majority of the tribe prefers "Tongva" (even if they use Gabrielino because that's what the outside world recognizes). I've seen absolutely no evidence that a significant portion of the tribe wants "Kizh", and I think you're basing your position on OR - i.e. something someone told you.

And that's pretty much the end of the discussion here. This is a content issue and should be dealt with on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

15th Street clubhouse

Splitting of significant material that is sufficient for a standalone article does not require previous agreements. I'll leave this alone for now, but that does not mean that I will not address this again in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

avioding disruptive edits

Hello Beyond My Ken, I need to ask you about how can I aviod doing disruptive edits? --Starship9000 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not to speak for BMK, but I think you're fine so far. The problems before were that you were consistently nominating for deletion articles that shouldn't be deleted, and creating articles that shouldn't be created. That's why we told you to take a break from doing both of those things until you have more experience with how Misplaced Pages works. But you've cooperated with us, and after a quick survey of your edits, they all look fine, so I wouldn't worry about it; I think the guy who said you were being disruptive was just mistaken. You're not being disruptive any more, so keep it up! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I actually am listening to what Kudpung told me. Am I allowed to warn anyone who also do disruptive editing like removing articles for deletion tags?--Starship9000 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

S9000: First off, I agree with what Writ Keeper wrote above. Second, if you're asking for advice, mine would be to stick to basic editing of articles for a while, and don't get involved with warnings and so on without asking a more experience editor for help. Let yourself learn about Misplaced Pages and the way the community works first. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent comments at ANI

I was going to post this at ANI, but NE has been commendably quick in shutting down the drama. You said "for reasons I don't understand" - You should, you were involved (with a small i) in some of the discussions. Essentially it goes back nearly 2 years to Kumi's first revokation of AWB. Followed up shortly by similar issues once it was returned. Then in Feb 2012 Kumi-Taskbot as a result of community consensus was found to be disruptive and was stopped. This resulted in a block for Kumi (which he used his bot account to evade) and this discussion at BAG. Since then there has been fairly low level involvement at BRFA that at least some people found disruptive. The final nail was the failed RFA - Dangerous Panda's 'oppose' is one of a few that cite his problems with automation.

All the above is merely background - the reason why it attaches to RF is that Kumioko sees in him a fellow automated editor fighting the good fight against rules and oppression. It clearly rankles that Kumioko cant (in his words 'be trusted' to) do what he wants and so he lashes out at every opportunity. The parallels with RF's case are obvious. At this point given the above, a realistic option might be to suggest a topic ban for Kumioko from discussing automated or bot editing on wikipedia. RF was merely an outlet for Kumioko, not the source of the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)