Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 8 July 2019

There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

• BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
• When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your good work has admirers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it has. Admirers among admins too, it seems; because AFAICS, you could might have been blocked for 3RR vio at . But per WP:ADMIN, " are never required to use their tools", and apparently no watching admin felt like it. I know I didn't. I hope you cheer up. (And that Sangdeboeuf does too.) Bishonen | talk 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC).

• Thanks, Bishonen. As usual, you are right (and I say that with all sincerity). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Franklin Building (Chicago)

This article needs help and better sourcing. I saw you did some work on Daniel Burnham so I thought it might interest you even though the connection is only tangential. Other editors added some photos so it's reasonably well illustrated at least.. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of work on it, mostly copyediting, rewriting and layout. There doesn't seem to be much information out there about the building, and I myself don't have a lot of stuff about Chicago architecture in my collection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the images was tagged on Commons as being on the NRHP, but I can find no sign that this is the case. I created a new category on Commons for the 4 pictures of the building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was surprised at how little we have about the printer's row buildings. It's a start anyway.. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

I'm just leaving you a message to let you know that I've closed the AN/I discussion that was opened involving yourself and Sangdeboeuf. Give the closing statement I left a read, and take my words to heart. Like I said, your actions have more of an impact than you think. ;-) If you have any questions or need someone to talk to, my talk page is always open to you. Best regards - ~Oshwah~ 05:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, your main point is indeed one that I hadn't really considered before. I guess I have a tendency to think of myself as just another editor, and not any sort of potential role model. I'll try to keep that in mind from now on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! You are definitely not "just another editor", and people definitely look up to you as a role model! :-D I appreciate you for taking the time to read the closing statement I made, and for taking the time to self-reflect. :-) Until our paths cross again... ;-) ~Oshwah~ 13:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Beyond My Ken,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Misplaced Pages pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Beefsteak Nazis

Hello, I see you've done a fair amount of edits on the Beefsteak Nazi page and I'm wondering if you can point me in the direction of some free online sources for more info. I'm interested in this topic and it's hard to find anything from a google search. Thanks Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: To answer your question, I don't know any good online source for that. I suspect that the subject is esoteric enough that any additional information is going to have to come from specialized studies or in-depth books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

So far the article isn't very well done. EEng 20:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ooooooh! You want onions with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheap steak for you

For the Beefsteak Nazi work Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! Much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Always good BMK, to see you in the "saddle" out on the range here on Misplaced Pages. Maybe, you should have a beer or glass of Merlot with that steak. Kierzek (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm still sorta out in the cold, and will be for a couple of months, but I'm popping in now and then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Banham Los Angeles Architecture 4 Ecologies.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Banham Los Angeles Architecture 4 Ecologies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hullabaloo Wolfowitz strikes again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

@Pyrope: and @Bbb23:. Much obliged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Warsaw concentration camp

Hi, BMK,

Just wanted to draw your attention to the article Warsaw concentration camp, for monitoring for Polish and/or right-wing historical revisionism, with possible links to denialism. I am only just coming on board with this, so don't have much to say about it yet. My intro to the subject was via respected historian Anne Applebaum, which led me to an article by Christian Davies in the London Review of Books about "the battle for Poland's history" which you can read here.

Davies' article delves into the history of KL Warschau, what the nature of it was, whether 200,000 Poles were killed there, according to the 1970 theories of Maria Trzcińska. Davies considers that a conspiracy theory, and also alleges efforts from the Polish right to deemphasize the uniqueness of the Shoah by pushing a POV that similar proportions of Poles were targeted by the Nazis as well, including revisionist efforts to influence Misplaced Pages. The Warsaw concentration camp article sorely lacks references, and if Davies is correct, there may already be some pov-pushing in the en-wiki article, at least at the level of WP:FALSEBALANCE in the way that Trzcińska's theories are referred to without comment or challenge. (I don't read Polish, so can't comment on what's going on at pl:Warschau (KL).) Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a specific subject that I have any great expertise on, and you also happen to have caught me at a time when I've retrenched somewhat in my editing, so most probably I'm unlikely to delve into it to any great depth. Thanks for keeping me in mind though, and please don't hesitate to pass these things along to me -- sooner or later something is going to re-trigger my interest in editing at the level I was previously, and I'll be back on board. In the meantime, though, I'm taking things slowly, to see how they develop. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Beyond My Ken,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible essay?

Hello BMK. I hope you are well. Was your series of edits on The Pink Panther prompted by your watching it on TCM? Many times over the years I have seen a film they were showing receive a flurry of edits. I've found that a fun phenomena to observe. I've also wondered if there should be an essay about the "TCM effect" :-) Writing this makes me wonder if there is a corresponding station/effect for the UK. Hmmm. Best regards and have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, very nice to hear from you! Yes, indeed, it was prompted by the TCM showing, something that I do fairly often. There's also a "hidden" TCM effect when TCM showings are recorded on DVRs and watched well after the showing date -- I've done a number of films in this fashion. In my case, you can usually tell because I often cite comments from the intro and outro in the article.

It's been lovely spring weather here in NYC (for the most part) for the last week or so, I hope things are pleasant where you are (weather-wise, at least -- things are rarely pleasant here politically these days). Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We have had a delayed spring here. There was even an inch or two of snow last week. That moisture helped lead to the iris in my neighborhood seeming to grow to four feet tall over night :-) I am eagerly awaiting next months CC release of War and Peace. I saw this when it was shown in the US back in 1968 so I am excited for the DVD. I even went into storage and found my copy of the program that I bought for $1 :-) I also found this book which has some fascinating info about the films production and aftermath. Cheers and best wishes to you. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Done and done!

I've added a citation to the Hoffmann page as requested. Discord Ian (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Horse trout

OK, so you said "reigned in" when you should have said "reined in" but still, OUCH! Trout to you! Montanabw 23:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oy! You know, I looked at that twice and then moved on -- I guess I should have looked 3 times! Thanks for the catch - I'll have the trout amandine, as long as you cut off the head first. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Populism

Hey, BMK. I've received a complaint from an editor I don't know that 80% of this article is a copyvio. I saw your name on the revision history and so I'm kinda checking to see what your take on this may be. I'm trying to get the copyrighted source presently. Any help would be appreciated. Tiderolls 15:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Alleged source Mudde, Cas; Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tiderolls 15:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a very minor contributor to the article (my name doesn't even show up on the "Top Users" or "Authorship" lists) but Midnightblueowl is a major contributor (top editor by number of edits, with 71.9% authorship), and my experience with this editor on other articles is that they do have a tendency to rely excessively on a small number of sources. That being said, I am not aware of them taking material directly from sources, although I have not personally checked in the past to find out if they did.To me, that adds up to checking the article against that specific source being a worthwhile thing to do. I'll see about obtaining it myself so I can possibly assist you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I should have access to the source within 10 days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls: I have the book and have been going through it. I see a lot of the ideas presented there in the article as well, but so far have not come across anything that would qualify as a copyright violation. Could you ask the editor who came to you to give some specific passages that I can check against the book? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sourcerery (talk · contribs), now blocked indef. It's looking like I may have sent you on a wild goose chase. Thanks for wading in and doing the heavy lifting. Tiderolls 22:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• No problem, the book looks interesting, so I'll add it to my reading pile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• I see that Sourcery had a definite strong POV in regard to Populism and what the article should cover, and went so far as to say that the book in question is "false". I highly doubt that, considering that Oxford published it, but stranger things have happened. On what seems to be the major concern of Sourcery, I agree with S. that if there are reliable sources (and unlike Midnightbluowl's general predilection, I don't require that all sources be academic ones) that refer to historic movements as being "populist", I think the article should cover them. The topic is not my strong point, though, so I'll trust that editorial debate on the talk page can hash that out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo Reverts

Hey! Hope you're doing well.

Could I get some advice on why you reverted my changes -

• For the The_New_School photo, you reverted my photo that had the entirety of the building in the shot with the perspective corrected, so it doesn't appear to be key-stoning or falling backwards. Is it because it's a bit skewed at the top? In my opinion, the tradeoff of some skew is worth having the entire facade of the building in the photo.
• For the The Public Theater photo, was the revert because it didn't have the full building? To contest that, I would say that the Public Theater's icon-ness is the entrance, especially the 'PUBLIC' on the covering at the front - and that would be better to be captured rather than the entirety of the building.
• For the Alamo (sculpture) photo, taking a shot of the sculpture doesn't give it justice. It was a deliberate choice by to put the sculpture in a very public plaza and have the public be able to interact with the sculpture, especially since it was the public who made the sculpture stay as a permanent exhibit - and a photo should reflect it's context in the plaza. (This is the one that I feel the most strongly about)

Looking to get better, and thanks in advance! Epicsunwarrior (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking!

• Your image of the New School University Center makes the corner of the building appear to be extremely acute, and not the right angle it actually is. As such, it distorts what the building looks like to the naked eye.
• The Public Theatre building is not "iconic" in any sense of the word, and it has a history going much farther back than being a theatre center. A representation of the full building, or as much as possible, is more appropriate than just the entrance.
• The "plaza" that the Alamo is in is a slab of concrete surrounded by streets. It has no character of its own, so backing off to show the sculpture in long shot is inappropriate, since it's the sculpture itself which is unusual and interesting, not its surroundings.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail

If what they say is true, they're a troll; if what they say is false, they're a troll. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... that must mean... hold on, I'll get it, just give me a minute, it's on the tip of my tongue... that they are ... a troll?? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Atomwaffen

I found your edit summary of "use a dictionary" to be unnecessarily rude. But thank you anyway for providing the clarification I felt was necessary in the very next edit, as it is military jargon. Please consider your tone in the future. Kakurokuna (talk)

Please don't throw around "clarify" tags without doing a little research first, it wastes the time of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the word "future" was misplaced. Please consider others the very next time you press publish. Not all of us have the time to do research on our daily commute via mobile. Kakurokuna (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And not all of us have the time to look for misplaced and unneeded tags, so please don't insert them unless you know they are needed. The onus is on you to make sure that every edit you make is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion of me, immediate concession, and subsequent interactions would appear to violate your own "WikiPhilosophy." This encyclopedia is not about you, as you yourself state there. I have no further interest in interacting with someone whose tone has so far been that of a curmudgeon. I now understand the reason why there is that box above your talk page. Good day. Kakurokuna (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You understand nothing. Do some research -- including reading a dictionary, if necessary, or searching the internet -- before you make an edit if you don't know what something is. Do not put the burden on other editors to do the work that you should do: your personal ignorance about something does not mean that it has to be clarified. This conversation is over, do not post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Encomienda

I reverted your edit because the exact Stannard content is elsewhere in the article. The editor who has been most active there recently seems to be adding substantially and at a furious pace to the article (necessitating copyedits and other edits to avoid WP:UNDUE and to correct other issues) but they do not appear to be removing anything (at least not at this article).--MattMauler (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Can you take a look at their edits to Genocides in history and Taino as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, added to my list.--MattMauler (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User may be a sock

Beyond My Ken The Users account is 1 day old and is following the same editing pattern of user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Poundofdonuts who was a sock puppet of banned user. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Accopulocrat and this old user was to following the same editing pattern also https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=6ullga&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end= I did file a report https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Accopulocrat Jack90s15 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it looked very sock-like to me. I'll take a look (tomorrow, probably) and see how their edits compare, and file an SPI if it looks promising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And blocked. Nice work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Have I offended (you)?

After wondering about the tortured prose, I found the changes made in 2015. It seems to me that since the cite is to his memoirs, the elaboration is unneeded. All a questioning reader need do is hover over the reference to see the source.

But your removal of the {{when}} has me checking my breath for odor. Since hesitation figures repeatedly in the text

Hitler for his part remained indecisive and uncertain ...

Hitler had hesitated for months in moving against Röhm, ...

it seems reasonable to map out those periods of hesitation. Thus the {{when}} - June 17 mentioned prior to Neudeck and June 24 after. You have me non-plussed. Shenme (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

My removal of your "when" was an oversight - I simply forgot it was part of your edit, sorry. I don't think it's particularly necessary, but if you do, please feel free to restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Beyond My Ken,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Misplaced Pages. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Use of the word "ken" - I recently started watching Outlander (TV series), and I turned on closed captioning to verify that what I thought was being said was actually being said. The actors were speaking with a Scottish accent so some of the terminology went over my head. One of the words frequently used that confused me is "ken". My initial thought was that they're saying "can" with an accent but that didn't fit. Then I thought maybe it meant "know" but that didn't fit. My final thought was that it meant one's comfort zone. Does your user name have anything to do with the latter? _Talk 📧 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. On the off chance that BMK is on vacation I'll leave this link to a dictionary definition for you. You can also check the "Regarding Ken" section of User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory. I hope you are enjoying Outlander. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MarnetteD - that was exactly what I needed. I don't know why I didn't think to look in the dictionary. I thought maybe it was a different language. Happy editing! _Talk 📧 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks MarnetteD. I'm not on vacation (if only), although I did just return from a one week gig in Massachusetts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You are both welcome :-) Happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 18:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Hi, this edit violated the Enforced BRD arbitration remedy in place at Deep state in the United States. Could you please self-revert? R2 (bleep) 19:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I'll discuss with Awilley and ping you. R2 (bleep) 20:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping, you are correct that the edit violated DS. I have self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please self-revert all the unexplained mass reverts and then familiarize yourself with WP:OCASSOC and WP:BLPCAT. You have mass-restored BLP violations, as some of them aren't conspiracy thys, some are not at all supported by Trump, and some do not state that Trump supports them (which is necessary for a category as per the aforementioned rules and WP:NONDEF, which applies to several). wumbolo ^^^ 21:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• They are not BLP violations, your edits are in violation of NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with neutrality and everything to do with verifiability. In any case, I started a discussion at Talk:Deep state in the United States. Please join me there. R2 (bleep) 23:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo:, @BMK, I haven't had time to look at the content dispute itself, but I know you both to be intelligent and rational individuals and I'm sure that with a little good faith you can work out a compromise on whatever the dispute is. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ref section style

Regarding this edit: As this is a style issue, I'd like to discuss here rather on article talk. Seriously? When I was striving for GA before I was told to use ==note=={{notelist}} whenever there's {{efn}}. We already have a glaring ==References==, having a ''Notes'' seems like gliding the lily to me.

Also, while I think your edit to Identity Evropa logo size was correct, editing images in infobox is still construable as dancing around your previous community sanction. You must be aware. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 03:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, my editing restriction -- which is not a "sanction" and was voluntarily entered into by myself, and which you can read at the top of this page -- is only about putting images in the section they're connected to. I did not move an infobox image from the infobox, so my restriction is totally irrelevant, and I don't really appreciate your bringing it up, since it feels like an attempt to poison the well.As for the other, there are myriad articles where "Notes" appears within "References", since footnotes are a type of reference. And, yes, it's completely a style issue, which means that no policy whatsoever is involved -- but if you feel strongly about it (although why anyone would feel strongly about such a trivial matter is beyond me) take it out, I won't revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Uh, I didn't mean to be hostile, it's just that I've never noticed or came across an article that has "Note" not pointing to a notelist template but the reflist template. If there's a MOS provision or community discussion on that, it'd be great if you could let me know. Cheers. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Economic Consequences of the Peace

Could you please point me to that section where the alleged source is cited? — Thanks.Muhali (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you could try reading the section titled "Success". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you just edited that section. That doesn't answer my question though. So where is the section giving evidence for the impact of the book on public British support for the appeasement?Muhali (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that until you find or add that specific section with source, I will add the citation-needed template. If you object to that please answer here directly. -Muhali (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charging Bull statue.jpg

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2019 (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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beyond_My_Ken reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: ). Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a Question about "General Hans Schlemmer"

hello Beyond My Ken, I only have a short question: I just uploaded 2 pictures at the article "General Hans Schlemmer", that you reverted. Did I make a mistake? I did not want to be unpolite! I thought maybe someone would like to integrate them into the article ... It was not my intention to bring this article to any kind of "nazi-glorification" or so... please excuse my bad english, i think you have noticed that i am gerrrrman ;-) best regards, --Auge=mit (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a photo gallery, and a very short article such as the one on Schlemmer doesn't need all those photos, they add nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

okay, I agree with you (that wikipedia is not a gallery)! - Question: is there any interest to fill this article with a little bit of content (if English wikipedia likes, I could translate parts of the German article) -and someone brings that later to "a proper language"... And for general: I'm not the son/brother/friend or something else from Schlemmer, I just have these informations... - an other question: do I need an "English-Wiki-account, to publish here?... best regards, ---Auge=mit (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No, your account is valid to edit on en-wiki, however, (1) I would strongly discourage you from adding content to any article on English Misplaced Pages if your command of English isn't up to it. Relying on other editors to clean up your language is not a good practice, and the article could potentially stay in its poorly-written state for an indefinite period if not enough people follow it closely. (2) Any content taken from de.wiki is required to be noted as such, for copyright reasons. (3) You should evaluate as neutrally as you can whether Schlemmer is important enough a figure to have anything besides a short article here. The question of "notability" can be highly culturally-specific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean - I think my idea was bigger than my ability, sorry & best regards, --Auge=mit (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Harry Elmer Barnes

Apparently you have this problem with a lot of people judging by your talk page. Why do you insist on undoing all the work I’m putting into this article? What’s your reasoning behind separate “bibliography” and “further reading sections”? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not "undoing all the work put into the article", I am editing it, and I have removed nothing of substance. Unnecessary hierarchical sections clutter up the table of contents and add nothing to the reader's ability to navigate the article, as I explained clearly and succinctly in my edit summary. I suggest you read WP:OWN. BTW, you've got 715 edits to your credit. When you have over 200,000, as I have, you'll probably find that your talk page has a lot of comments on it too.Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He’s a writer, so they certainly do, but that isn’t so much my concern. I primarily work on bibliography so again I have to ask, why are you choosing to subdivide the works about him into separate “bibliography” and “further reading” sections? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that;s how it's done on Misplaced Pages. The "Bibliography" or "Sources" sub-section of the "References" section is only for works that were used in the preparation of the article or are referenced by shorthand citations in the "Notes" section. The "Further reading" section is for works that were not used in preparing the article or are not referenced in the citations, but may be of interest to readers looking for more information. Lists of the subject's writings in the main body of the article are generally titled "Works", because of the ambiguity about a free-standing section titled "Bibliography", i.e. is it the bibliography for the article or a list of the subject's written works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, would you mind pointing out where that’s stipulated? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You might try WP:Further reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What do you make of his occupation? I see that you don’t like “journalist”, but “historian” isn’t adequate to cover his extensive writing career. Do you suppose “writer” suffice? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think that "historian" is sufficient. Certainly his articles in Foreign Affairs don;t qualify him as a journalist, and his influence -- at least until he be3came a Holocause denier -- is based almost completely on his historical expertise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

First - did all of ArbCom read the article before it was deleted, or do they have magic access to deleted material? Second - how can the community possibly propose a fair and reasonable remedy without knowing what was written in the article? All we can do at that point is base our comments on what we know about the people involved. I would very much appreciate your thoughts since you've read it and our positions are different. _Talk 📧 12:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that all admins have access to deleted material. It's one of the primary reasons that the WMF requires admins to go through a fairly rigorous community vetting process, a point that comes up ever time a new user right for non-admins to see deleted material is brought up. And, to correct you, in point of fact I have not read the article, and my statement on the Arbitration Request did not, I don't believe, hinge on my knowing the article's content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. My mistake. Then, if I may ask (while reaching into the language of yore), on what did you stake your claim? _Talk 📧 15:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I based it on the discussions I had seen which indicated that the article was easily fixable, and -- at least I thought -- there was agreement on how to do that. Given that, a case seems a waste of everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

But how does the article get undeleted if the wizards don't make thunder roll and lightening strike? Dorothy and Toto want to know. I read somewhere in the discussion that if we followed the yellow brick road to RevDel that it would create more issues, nothing would be resolved, and we'd find ourselves right back at ArbCom. Oh well, I s'pose we'll just have to wait and see. _Talk 📧 23:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to confirm that I checked and the Signpost article is currently visible to administrators. I am of the opinion that most of the article could be restored if some of it was redacted, but that is just my personal opinion, and I have no intention of doing anything about it at this time. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't need my tools to read the article. I read it before it was deleted, and because of perfect recall, I remember every word. It started with "Once upon a time in a far-off kingdom called Misplaced Pages there was a prince called Fram..." It was correctly deleted per WP:NOFAIRYTALES.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Perfect recall. That explains your astonishing productivity, Bbb23. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I also read it before it was deleted and commented on the talk page (which may or may not still be there). I'm not 100% up on the Fram-related content but I believe there was one assertion in particular that was made which Fram disputed. I think if it was removed, the article might be salvageable. But there are some folks who think the entire analysis was unfair even though Smallbones states he had Fram review and sign off on it. That contention, whether or not Fram was okay with the article before it was published, is basically the crux of the ArbCom case and I doubt the article would ever be restored until that case has decided upon.

I can tell you without censure that the article was basically four or five anonymous people telling stories about how they felt harassed by Fram including quotes from messages they exchanged with Smallbones. If you are familiar with cases on ANI, it was similar. But while editors make cases at ANI with diffs, this was just quotes relating their negative experiences so there was no "evidence" provided and being in a Signpost article lent the allegations credibility that many editors felt was unwarranted and unfair. But content-wise, BMK, you have seen all of this kind of stuff before regarding other editors or admins on ANI. Liz 00:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, folks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice on Australian Theater Company article

Given your experience with theater articles, I was hoping you could take a look at an edit request at Australian Theater for Young People specifically on the substantial amount of information they wanted to add regarding the scholarships and commissions they offer, first off because that seemed a bit like PROMO to me, and secondly because of the references provided for them seemed to be secondhand info coming from the theater itself through proxy website/blogs. The other parts of the request seem fine to me. Any feedback from you would be most appreciated!  Spintendo  02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)