Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 5 April 2015

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia.

" are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

We all tend to take Misplaced Pages much too seriously. It's certainly important to provide a free first-class online encyclopedia for the public, and no one can dispute how central Misplaced Pages has become to people searching for accurate, unbiased information, but there's little excuse for the bitterness, in-fighting and bitchiness with which many people approach editing here, which makes the experience difficult and unpleasant at times. I am generally in favor of removing the worst of those transgressors permanently, which, of course, leaves me open to the charge of not assuming good faith. Actually, I have little trouble assuming good faith, I simply refuse to keep the assumption alive in the face of evidence of misbehavior.

"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."

"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."

"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

"He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof
is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

Misplaced Pages is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMORPG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

- Learn the lesson that collectively, Misplaced Pages doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.

- Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care.

If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I will be watching it.

If you leave me a message, I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

My notifications are turned off, so "pinging" me will not get my attention.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Empire State Building

Hello Ken, I see that you have changed the number of floors to 102, this is inaccurate as there is another floor above 102 and is featured (with references) later in the article. I thought it wise to inform you, rather than just reverting. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two references provided that the building has only 102 floors. That there is a floor numbered 103 doesn't change this, it simply means that the numbering isn't correct. BMK (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June Foray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comic Con (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) 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

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.

Dangerous Number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Young

Führermuseum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reichstag

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Amy Elizabeth Thorpe page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Already  Done, I believe. BMK (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Marble Hill clarification

Beyond My Ken: The revision on Marble Hill remains confusing; specifically, how can Marble Hill - which is a "northernmost neighborhood in the New York City borough of Manhattan" - also be "the only Manhattan neighborhood on the mainland of North America"? In effect, why is a Manhattan neighborhood being conflated here, with the North American mainland? Can you further clarify this?Ronsword (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article? It's pretty clear about the situation, and there's no "conflation" going on.

Marble Hill was originally part of the island of Manhattan, as well as the borough of Manhattan. The Harlem River separated it from The Bronx, which is the only borough of New York City which is on the American mainland. Then, in order to assist shipping traffic, the Harlem River Ship Canal was built, just below Marble Hill, disconnecting it from Manhattan island, and turning Marble Hill into an island of its own, within a semicircle the ship canal to the south, and the Harlem River surrounding it in a semicircle from the east to the west. Next, the original path of the Harlem River was filled in, making Marble Hill part of the North American mainland, but it was still politically part of the borough of Manhattan, although still no longer part of Manhattan island. And that's the condition that maintains still. Marble Hill is part of the borough of Manhattan (contiguous with New York County, and for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from it), but physically connected to the North American mainland, surrounded by The Bronx. Therefore it's the northernmost neighborhood in Manhattan, and the only one which is on the North American mainland. (Other neighborhoods of the borough of Manhattan are not on Manhattan island -- Roosevelt Island -- but they are not on the mainland.)

Clear? BMK (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see after re-reading it, i.e., Marble Hill is the only Manhattan neighborhood on the North American mainland. (The initial sentence previous my revision, confused me because it read: "....the only one (italics mine) on the North American mainland" implying the only neighborhood on the entire North American mainland. The addition of 'Manhattan neighborhood' clears it up.Ronsword (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Little Boxes Reference

Hello,

I added a reference to the Little Boxes article and you have removed it. I'm not sure why as my understanding is that everything should be cited from somewhere else and there is now no reference again. I also don't understand your summary? - (Undid revision 650499831 by Staceydolxx (talk) If it's a "variatoopnm)

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, I hit the "return" button in the middle of typing and the sense of my response was truncated. What I was trying to say is that if it is a "variation" on "Little Boxes" then it is not "Litt;e Boxes" per se, and you need to provide a reference that says, essentially, "this is a variation on 'Little Boxes'", not simply one which says "this film exists", which is what I believe you provided. BMK (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. My opinion is that if we can't reference something it should be removed from the encyclopaedia - so I am a little unsure of your reasons for keeping the content and then deleting the best indicator of its accuracy. I have found another source but I am not sure how reliable it is as its an Italian article. I would like to put it in alongside the previous reference (to further prove the band who performed it); unless you have any objections? http://movieplayer.it/articoli/boxtrolls-le-scatole-magiche-la-colonna-sonora_13422/ Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. BMK (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Little Syria

Beyond My Ken, you mention, pov, what pov? I made one simple little edit, which if you read the whole paragraph carefully, you'll see that it is more encyclopedic. The wiki article mentions, before the sentence in question, that around 5% of the Arabs that lived there were Muslim. The NYT mentions that the 5% were chiefly from Palestine, however the article then states that "The Syrians and Lebanese in the neighborhood were mostly Christian". By saying that "The Christians lived on Washington Street", then you are implicitly implying that all the Muslims lived on another street. Keep in mind that Little Syria was not 100% Syrian/Lebanese, the wiki article then goes on to mention that "other ethnic groups lived in this diverse neighborhood, and it mentions Turks, who are mostly Muslim. Therefore my intention by substituting "Christian" with "Syrian", was to back up the previous sentence that mentions the 5% Muslims, and to make the article as npov as possible. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to have this discussion here. Please go to Talk:Little Syria, Manhattan#Description of neighborhood and make your argument there -- oh, and take a moment to read WP:BRD. Your Bold edit was Reverted and this is followed by Discussion, while the article stays in the status quo ante. Anything else is edit warring. Please stop. BMK (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, I just noticed that you reverted for the third time without taking taking into consideration the logic and the intention behind my edit. Then you employ the F-word, you are a very nasty and abusive person and it appears you always assume that other editors have bad faith when making edits. I will take this to the board.George Al-Shami (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I just said, we're not discussing this here. Did you notice? BMK (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Asshole. BMK (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm... 07:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry BMK, you have no excuse though. You broke 3rr, you were reported, you were let off the hook without any hesitation by an admin, and you immediately reverted again. 5 reverts in about 26 1/2 hours. The first four and the last four were within 24 hours of each other. You had plenty of time to recognize this and self-revert. I can let one 3rr vio slide (something we don't normally do by the way), but I'd have a hard time justifying ignoring such a blatant disregard for the rule. Feel free to look at my comments at AN3 as well. Swarm... 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah.... can someone please explain to me how making a completely different edit to Little Syria than those which were reported earlier equals a violation of 3RR? The material was entirely different, totally unrelated to the previous edits. BMK (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Here is the first edit of the series for which I was not blocked. , and here is the last edit, for which I was blocked. . These are not related in any way, how can they collectively be a 3RR violation? BMK (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Swarm: Please explain. BMK (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• From WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (emphasis mine) Swarm... 07:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• You're kidding me!! Whodathunk it?

  Well, even though that's certainly not the way that in my almost 10 years here I've seen 3RR enforced in practice (and, interestingly, it's not even the way the AN3 reporting template is set up), then you've certainly got me fair and square by the precise and exact letter of the law. I guess I'll have to edit for the next day using one of my many sockpuppets.

  WHAT!?!?.. BMK (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Swarm Re: your description of my edit as "brazen". If I was actually attempting to get away with something, I would have waited a little over an hour to do my final edit. If I had held off until 1:05 (which is is say one hour and eight minutes from when I actually made the last edit at 23:57), then my reverts witinh a 24 hour period would have been at 20:31, 21:13 and 1:05. So, if I had understood the rule as you've recited it here, and was in fact attempting to subvert it, that would have been a entirely "brazen" move. What you've got here isn't "brazen".

  Oh well, I need a short respite. BMK (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• @BMK, I have two curiosity questions. I don't see Swarm describing an edit of your as "brazen" on this page. Somewhere else? I do see "blatant". What do you mean by "the way the AN3 reporting template is set up"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Brazen" was in his comment on the AN3 page. More on the second as soon as I take another look at the template. BMK (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I just wanted to see if I was remembering something incorrectly, but I wasn't. The instructions say, at one point:

• In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to.

So, if the report is intended to deal with reverts which are "the same or similar", my last revert does not count, since it was about a different part of the article, and didn't involve the same material at all. It would seem to me that either the defintiion quoted to me by Swarm should be changed, or the template should be changed, as they are -- I think -- saying different things. I have an opinion on that, but it would just seem self-serving at this point, so I'll withhold it for another occasion. BMK (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. At some point when I have the energy I may see about getting that instruction changed. I've never liked having to provide that link as it's often problematic, and the instruction is arguably contrary to policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember a while back a big discussion about what constituted a "revert". Like most big discussions here I don't think it went anywhere particular, but I think I can say with some confidence that the popular understanding among working editors about what is and isn't a "revert" in the context of 3RR is different from what Swarm quoted to me, in that it is limited to "same or similar" material and doesn't include extraneous edits of other material, such as the edit that got me sent up the river to the Big House. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how a lot (maybe most) rank-and-file editors understand it. BMK (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As long as you're here, could you please inform George Al-Shami than he shouldn't restore his comment to this talk page after I've removed it? Thanks. (Also that it's not exactly cricket to post negative comments about me elswhere – in response to a question directed to me – when he knows I cannot respond.) BMK (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, looking at the page's history, it seems that I never deleted it when I thought I had the first time, so when it "reappeared" it was through my error, and not because George Al-Shami restored it. My mistake, my apologies to GAS for the error. BMK (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Pile on QG

Hi, it isn't just e-cig people isupporting banning, it is the fringe advocate WP:SPAs generally adding their bits too. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. BMK (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

91 or 9 at ANI

Kingofaces data showed i have 91 edits to e-coigs; you data shows 9... not sure which is right... Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

AH! That's where the errant "1" went to, I couldn't figure it out. I'll fix it. BMK (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What if ???

I saw your note on L. Black's talk. Seems very hypothetical now, but no - I'm not a supporter of removing TPA outside of abuse. (over use of unblock, personal attacks, etc.) I know many others DO support that removal, just not me. I've never been one who wanted to silence anyone. As far as "watching" the page - yes, I do keep things like that on my watchlist, and check back from time to time even if they don't show up there (on the watchlist). Thanks for the note. — Ched :  ?  17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DanaSnyder.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanaSnyder.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Not my image, I just cleaned it up. BMK (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting vandalism, and keeping Misplaced Pages a reliable source. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• My pleasure, thanks. BMK (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

User:Beyond My Ken, there won't be an indef topic ban for AF no matter what the community consensus is. The norm is at least a year. That won't happen. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe I ever called for an indef topic ban. BMK (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Miller

I removed that link because it is for a travel blog. Please refer to WP:EL#ADV. The user that originally added it to the article was adding links to the same website in numerous articles in a clear effort to promote that website. The information in the blog is unencyclopedic and contains factual errors in many cases. The user has been warned on their talk page about promoting that site. See User talk:Marcja1970. Some of other links like findagrave and IMDB should also be probably be removed also but I am not that interested in the article so I'll leave it up to someone else to argue about. From Misplaced Pages:External links:

• External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.
• Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links.

Nyth63 01:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. BMK (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That particular instance was added under Special:Contributions/98.150.96.146. The rest were under Special:Contributions/Marcja1970. Every edit by those two users were adding external links to that web site. He/she/they got away with it for quite a while. The first edit was 17 October last year and the most recent was two days ago. I use the tool at Special:LinkSearch to ferret out this type of spammy vandalism. Nyth63 01:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Altgeld Hall

Were my edits on the Altgeld Hall article not constructive? I'm new to editing Misplaced Pages, so I apologize if they weren't. I felt like I cleared up some of the language a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edlisfraedi (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They weren't at all unconstructive in any way, I just thought the most of the previous wording was better (and we generally repeat information from the infobox in the lede section). You did nothing wrong, you simply have to expect that other editors will re-edit your work, it's par for the course. If you feel strongly about your changes when that happens, talking it out can (usually) be helpful. BMK (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all upset that you undid my edits. As I said, I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so I just thought I'd ask why you undid them. I realize many of my edits in the future will be undone, but luckily I have a pretty thick skin so I won't take offense. By the way, when you're thinking of editing an article, do you edit its talk page and ask if your edits are appropriate before committing them? If you only do it part of the time, how do you decide? Edlisfraedi (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it differs from editor to editor. I may be wrong person to ask in this instance, because I have a tendency to be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do the edit if I think it's the right thing to do, and deal with the consequences later, if there are any (which is not generally the case). Sometimes that gets me into hot water and a dispute with another editor, but not usually. Certainly, if you're just copyediting, go ahead and make the change, the worst that will happen is that you'll be reverted with a snippy edit summary. If you're planning on making an extensive change to the article's formatting or structure, many editors will run that by the talk page -- but be prepared for what might be a long discussion, and an indeterminate result (which is why I find it easier just to do it). It all depends, I guess, on how confident you are about the edit, how many others editors are invested in the page and to what extent, and, frankly, how good you are at editing.

You might want to ask your question at the WP:TEAHOUSE, where they specialize in guiding novice editors through the Misplaced Pages morass. It's quite possible that I'm a bit jaded, and my answer to you is more cynical than it should be. Good luck. BMK (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot! Edlisfraedi (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Arabist"

I have responded on the talk page of the article.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Goody. BMK (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Swing Time

Hello -

I see you removed the additional information I submitted on the 1936 RKO film "Spring Time" regarding the initial working titles for the film. I found the information in a book about Jerome Kern and his works and included it as the source citation.

I am sorry you feel my added information is not worthy of the Misplaced Pages article on "Spring Time." Since the information is valid and may prove of interest to others, I don't know why you chose to remove it.

Thank you for your time. Juanaquena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanaquena (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, again -

I see where you moved the information I provided about the initial titles of the 1936 RKO film "Swing Time" to a new Production section in the Misplaced Pages article.

Thank you -

Juanaquena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanaquena (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, the movie is "Swing Time" not "Spring Time". And yes, I moved your sourced addition into a production section, as I thought it wasn't best placed in the article's lede. BMK (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of comments

You're hereby warned not to remove or modify others' comments. -A1candidate 01:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't touch your comment, it still existed exactly as it did before, only inside a collapse box, where it belonged. Don't reply. BMK (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken, you have been removed as a party from the American politics 2 arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mel Blanc Reply

Aight. Go ahead and falsify the events leading to his death despite there being recorded video of his son talking about what happened. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for that attitude, and there's also no guarantee that the son's perception of events is correct. I'm not saying that he doesn't believe it, or that he is wrong, but is there any independent evidence to back it up? I don't know, all I know is what I wrote on your talk page, that if you wish this information to be in the article, you must accompany it with a citation from a reliable source, not a YouTube video. BMK (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Which I did, which you then decided wasn't reliable, despite this website being used before. All I know is I have a source that has his son saying what happened, and for whatever reason you rejected it. I don't believe in misrepresenting events, so I implore you to reconsider. Rusted AutoParts 23:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Again, YouTube is not accepted as a reliable source. Work within that please, and find a citation from a reliable source that found Noel Blanc's claim to be credible enough to report it. BMK (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

K. Fuck me for assuming a family member was a good source, right? Rusted AutoParts 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Noel Blanc is a primary source. What we need is a secondary source'. See WP:Primary sources. BMK (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

blah

You're so worried about if I get formatting at the ANI screwed up that you won't even take the time to finish answering my questions? Will you please now go and answer my follow-up questions instead of being just one more wiki "admin." who "can't be bothered" with follow-up questions?

Thanks if so.... 75.162.237.213 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) I'm not an admin, (2) I have no interest in answering the questions of an editor who is evading a block. (3) Go away, you're an idiot. BMK (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're not an admin., then why are you even there posing as one, trying to answer a few things, and then trying to tell people to not "mess around" with the ANI? And where do you get the idea that a block I was given just for creating 6 accounts in one day is even "valid" even though the system allows it?

Nope, you are the idiot, and you should go away. Don't go act like an admin. if you are not one, idiot.

75.162.237.213 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@75.162.237.213: Please don't bait other editors. The discussion you started did not belong at ANI in the first place. I suggest that you let the matter drop. Thanks.  Philg88  06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an IP Sockpuppet of blocked user User:IDriveAStickShift, who has many blocked IPs. JoeSperrazza (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No surprise there. Thanks for the info. BMK (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

He's now vandalizing WP:AN/I and complaining about you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw. I assume someone will delete it and issue a block. BMK (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Just informing you as the IP failed to do so.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw. BMK (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Hey. Recently, you filed a speedy deletion request for an attack page of @DHeyward:. The request didn't go through because DHeyward blanked the page himself and asked for it be deleted himself, which meant the discussion got closed prematurely- however the archive he created of the page is still there. I politely asked DHeyward that he remove them on his talk page, but he just deleted my request- what avenue do I pursue from here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me try something. BMK (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work. I deleted it from the archive and he reverted and accused me of lieing about the material in the edit summary. (I have no idea what he means by that, I merely described it as material that duplicated the deleted page.) I don't see any alternative except to bring it to AN/I, but I'm not going to do it. This person seems extremely stressed and possibly a bit paranoid about being "harrassed" by multiple editors, and an AN/I report is liable to get very, very messy. BMK (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and advice. When I'm home and using a more stable internet connection, I think I'll submit an AN/I report. Thank you for the effort. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started a thread here on AN/I. Not sure if it's formatted entirely correctly, but I think it's acceptable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Undid my edits

I noticed you undid some of my edits without so much as an edit summary. Could you please provide more information regarding your reason for doing so? Thanks. Pikachu (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What article? BMK (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it was Men's skirts. The first edit I undid because you removed the word "men's" from a sentence which said that someone wore "men's skirts". Without the "men's", the impression could be given that the person wore women's skirts (i.e was a crossdresser) which is not what the sentence means to convey. In the second edit, you removed added "less common" from a sentence which said that the usual circumstance inm contemporary western society was for women to wear skirts and not men. Making it say that it was "less common" for men to wear skirts is a violation of WP:NPOV, since the number of men who wear skirts regularly is exceedingly small. It may be that you (and I) would wish it was otherwise, but at this time it's not. BMK (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed "men's" from "men's skirts", as I didn't feel it was relevant. Any garment that skirts the body is a skirt, no qualifier needed. And with no qualifier on there, it does not imply "women's", it, in fact, implies nothing. But I could see how someone might infer that. As for the second one, it's definitely not a violation of NPOV, because it was technically correct. It is, in fact, less common. Even way, way less common is technically still "less common." I made it "less common" because, while exceedingly small, it is greater than zero. What would you say to changing the lead to say "the wearing of a skirt is today usually seen as typical for females and atypical for males..."? Pikachu (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Less common" does not mean or imply "greater than zero". Your edits were not helpful to the article, and muddied rather than clarified matters. If you have more to say, please say it at Talk:Men's skirts, not here. BMK (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi BMK. Please consider rewording your comments at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#General community comments to make them more civil and in compliance with WP:NPA. This is not a formal clerk warning, but please be aware that the Committee has directed the clerks to watch for decorum and other issues on the clerks-l mailing list, and if the comments are not satisfactorily reworded they may be redacted by me or another clerk. Thanks for your time and understanding, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment to NE Ent was accurate and, considering his editing history and his lack of contributions to the encyclopedia, extremely mild. Hammersoft's responses to my comment were absurd - describing the actions of a banned (not blocked) user and extremely disruptive sockpuppeteer can in no way be construed as a "personal attack". I can see no reason to reword anything, but f you or any of the clerks feel the need to redact anything, so be it, there will be no pushback from me, although I feel it would be unwarranted. BMK (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright. The entire thread was hatted by another clerk, didn't see which. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw, thanks. BMK (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello, I'm Clubjustin4. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Statue of Liberty in popular culture without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And I've deleted it again. I was quite clear in my edit summary - the Mel Brooks movie is not a "classic", by any definition. BMK (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Glitch on ANI

Evaluating these edits and , reminds me of a glitch randomly joins ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

I noticed this comment is missing. Not sure what happened. Since it was unarchived I think the archived thread should be deleted from the archive. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Personal_attacks_alleged. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Q.G. it should be. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Seaman-Drake Arch

Nice work on an interesting page about an intriguing subject. I've nominated it for Did you know if you are interested. Epic Genius (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seaman-Drake Arch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument (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) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Arcology, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus for template on talk page. BMK (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO

Oh, yes, of course. I'm sure "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" only refers to links that aren't related to the subject. I'm not going to fight you on this, but I'm baffled that you'd ignore this clear guideline. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know the guideline. Not policy. Not mandatory. We should always do what's best for the readers. BMK (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Enigdifang as sockpuppet

Not what I was hoping for. Seemed like a good-faith editor who just needed a little schooling. I looked into it, and have to sort of agree things do look quacky. Let's wait to see what DoRD has to say. Also just a FYI I don't think your ping worked properly, if that's what you intended to do. Best — MusikAnimal 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I just addressed you with a plain old "@", not a ping, thanks. I have my own notifications turned off (too annoying), so I usually forget that pinging exists. :) I thought about dropping a TB on your talk page, but figured that you would be watching his page for a response from him. BMK (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

I think that your question about whether diffs that were offered in mediation (but did not originate in it) are privileged would be best addressed to User: TransporterMan, the chair of the Mediation Committee, but I think that if the diffs did not originate in mediation, they are still yours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi BMK. Just to let you know, your question on Everymorning's RfA has already been asked above. Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Geez, you're right, I didn't see that -- I've removed my duplicate. Thanks! BMK (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Some advice

I have suffered interminable harassment from that editor, and no matter what you do or say, you will not change him. Save yourself the aggravation and don't engage him. It is useless. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice. I was, in fact, already in the process of disengaging. BMK (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)