User talk:Beyond My Ken

It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

No paid editing

MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)

(Life is too short!)

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

...

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)
• Black Sea - a mess

Reminder: to work on

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized
• The Leatherman - copyedit
• Singin' in the Rain - add from Comden & Green intro to script when it's unburied
• Irvington Historic District (Irvington, New York) - further research and expand into sep article, if possible
• Train graveyard - lots of material out there to expand this

Preventing unwanted emails

BMK,

I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Emailing_users#Prohibiting email from specified users. Your choice, of course, but it makes for an easier dispute resolution than going to arbcom, I believe.

Best, 79.43.23.144 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that facility has already been brought to my attention, and I've made use of it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Trailer trash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to White collar and Agnes Meyer

White trash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to White collar and Agnes Meyer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done by other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: WP:DWIP

I saw this and got curious. WP:DWIP is currently in use 48 times. WP:POINT is in use 26409 times (550 times more frequently). I fail to see the point of DWIP anyway. It's not an appropriate acronym; that would be WP:DNDWTIAP, or WP:DDWIP maybe, but who would even use those? Obviously WP:POINT is the one with traction. Maybe we should delete WP:DWIP as confusing at first pass? I had to look it up, as did you. We can save others the effort. What do you think? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. POINT is so clearly evocative of the rule, while DWIP is completely meaningless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going to visit all the uses of DWIP and switch them to POINT, then put DWIP up for deletion. Sound good? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Works for me! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Moving ahead. In support of that, I changed the current reference on AN/I and removed your comment as it's doubly confusing now if left on there :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC) (doubling -> doubly. I swear I cannot type today.)

• No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We're watching the same movie

• wave* NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, how's the view from over there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, woulda been better without the Gewehr 43 in the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Majority supports it

I count two people in favor, one (you) against. So majority supports this. Feel free to remove it when there is no majority support. Also, be mindful of WP:3RR. You have tried to remove another tag from that article, and you may be be approaching your revert limit there. I suggest you take a cup of WP:TEA. If there is no majority support for said tags, we will remove them in few days. (But for now majority seems to support both adding more refs and rewriting things into prose). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not the way things work. I've started an RfC, Express your views there, not by tagging the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have violated WP:3RR at HD page. Please self-revert yourself, otherwise I'll have to take it to the relevant forum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Count again, different content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

An experienced editor like yourself should know that doesn't matter. It's a page rule, not content rule. I am filling in a report. Next time, please self-revert when someone asks you to do so, politely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Have at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Holocaust denial. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Do you deny that you violated WP:3RR? Or do you claim any of the exceptions to that bright line rule? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We both know, I think, that it's not always considered a "bright line rule" I'm sure we've both seen many disputes at AN/I where editors are at a very high number of reverts, but don't get blocked because of extenuating circumstance other than policy-based exceptions. I explained my behavior, what lead up to it, and why I stopped when I did -- because I had taken action to resolve the disputes. That, it seems to me, is much more important to a consensus-based project than rote enforcement of a "bright line rule" without considering the circumstances surrounding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway it 5:30am here on the East Coast of the US, and I have to go to sleep - so if I don't respond to any further questions, it's not out of impoliteness, I'm just not awake. I'll respond after I get up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

BMK, why humiliate yourself? Wear it with pride! EEng 11:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 3RR was violated, it doesn't have to be the same revert on an article, any 3 reverts in 24 hours breaches the rule. However, 72 hours seems very unnecessary - @MSGJ: would you consider reducing the length to 24 hours (particularly given that the reporter also agrees 72 hours is overly harsh ([1])? Cheers, Fish+Karate 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally would have left it with a warning or full protected (despite BMK's block log), because by starting the RfC on the talk page, he was clearly trying to engage in the consensus building process. I'd suggest reducing this to time served. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Endorse unblock per TonyBallioni and Fish and karate. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• MSGJ hasn't edited for six hours, so in consideration of the views posted above, I think we won't wait for him. I've unblocked. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
• Thank you Bishonen, and thanks as well to Fish and Karate, TonyBallioni and Dlohcierekim. Also, in regard to Piotrus' comment on the EWN report, I will indeed attempt to be more circumspect about the use of undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't understand how admins, and MSGJ in particular, choose who to block at the 3RR board. I've seen MSGJ block editors for breaking the bright line, I've seen them block for 2 reverts over a couple days, and I've seen them ignore bright line violations for various reasons. For an editor as experience as you, a block certainly isn't needed. At least it's over now. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think there is a structural problem with the definition of a "revert" when considered in regard to the purpose of WP:EW to stop edit wars. I have some thoughts on that, but I think I'll allow a little distance from this episode before I write them up, so I can approach the subject with more objectivity.
  Anyway, thanks for the comment, it's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Kennel Murder Case (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done - Typo, it was Warren William Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where it went sideways

I'm not sure where the whole exchange at ANI went sideways, but I want to apologize for my part in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: That's very decent of you, and I appreciate your graciousness. I accept your apology, and in return offer my own for anything intemperate I said in the course of that discussion. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's all good. I believe we're both here with the goal of improving the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Amen to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

KKK not "far-right"? Maybe so

[2]The issue raised on the Talking Page of KKK is an issue of definition of terms being used in regards to 'Far-right' vs. 'Alt-right' in the USA. Many people see and embrace a very conservative form of politics and consider groups like the Tea Party movement to be 'far-right' but would shy away from calling them 'alt-right'. The problem is that in the USA, the term 'far-right' generally has more of a political overtone where as the 'alt-right' has more of a street protest connotation. Yes, the terms and even the movements are mixed up and overlap without clear lines, but the editor might have had a point to consider at the end of the day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe - if you think my deletion on NOTAFORUM grounds was inappropriate, please feel free to undo it - I'm just fed up with obvious right-wing trolls complaining about Nazis and Fascists being on the left and not being on the right, so perhaps I overreacted.

As for the Klan, they're obviously on the right, and at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I would hesitate to classify them as "alt-right" because of their long history - to me, they're just too old school to be alt-right. So what else do you call a terroristic organization that's anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic (at least historically), highly nationalistic, and so on? It would be an insult to those in the mainstream right to call them "conservative", so "far-right" seems pretty appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifying the KKK as alt-right seems kinda like identifying Louis XIV of France as a fascist dictator. We'd call him that now, but that doesn't make it retroactively correct. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ken, I only bring it up because I have run into this on other articles with other 'conservative' editors taking offense. It seems this will continue, that was my only point, sigh. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain you're right about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• The white-bread, white-sheet KKKers of the past would be aghast at being identified with the namby-pamby, tofu-eating, knit polo shirt–wearing alt-righters of today. There's just no respect for tradition. EEng 04:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a very solid argument for identifying the KKK as alt-right. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We do have other terms available that are less political than 'Far-right' if you do not wish to use 'Alt-right'; 'extremist', 'radical', just to name a few alternatives that are less upsetting to the political far-right conservatives in America. Merely a consideration that could reduce conflicts but maintain the integrity of the articles on these 'groups'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not undestanding your concerns, the "extreme right" or "radical right" is the far-right. In any case, we report what reliable sourcs call these groups, and we don;t whitewash it for fear of upsetting someone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

But there are very fine people on both sides, of course. EEng 15:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right" in the USA is considered much more political than any of those other terms by many; so they would classify groups like the 'Moral Majority' and 'Tea Party' within that wing of politics. Please glace through the 'Far-right' and 'Alt-right' articles, I'm only trying to say the continued use of the term for hate-groups will continue to bring out "good people" to challenge the use of the term 'far-right'. They do not seem to take issue with any of the other terms, only with using 'far-right' in non-political ways. Please keep this in mind when dealing with these "good people", thanks - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. "Extreme right", "radical right", and "far-right" are to me equivalent terms. If someone wants to set up a hierarchy of extremeness, let them provide citations from neutral reliable sources to do so. Until then, frankly, I am not going to worry about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree that "'Far-right' in the USA is considered much more political than any of those other terms by many". I want to see citations and identification of who these "many" are, 'cause I'm not buying it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I respect your point of view and was only trying to point out the way others see things so it might help reduce conflict on the articles for hate-groups. Best of luck. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not reference nostalgic WWI songs at ANI. Consider that some users will then have it stuck in their heads for the entire rest of the day. GMG^talk 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OMG, I know what that's like -- I'm so, so, sorry. Try humming one of these songs to drive it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Could be worse I guess, like the time I had to listen to the 101st Airborne song on repeat for most of a 5 hours drive, because I was expected to be able to sing it for a ceremony...because generals like singing in large groups for some reason. GMG^talk 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Five hours, huh? Do the generals not mind if the singers are stark raving mad? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's preferred by some. I did the same thing with the NCO Creed, and I'm still not sure if I'm tactically and technically proficient, or technically or tactically proficient. GMG^talk 21:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference order (thanks!)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I considered this a minor change for the longest time – clearly, I have not given it enough thought, and I'm glad to be reminded that I still have a lot to learn about this site. In the future, I will definitely seek consensus before making a similar change, and I suspect I'll have to revisit a good number of my old edits after this. As for this particular edit, I think I'll put off a discussion until I have the time to read through the previous discussions about reference order and reevaluate the sources in the article (although from what I've read so far, I'm not sure I will ever start a discussion, since I suspect I'll agree with your judgement in any case). Thanks again, and I hope you have a good rest of your week! Best, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration of my comment, and for the very agreeable message. Best to you as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

I saw you made an intervening edit while I was cleaning up some broken refs - it was a minor edit, but I am working with a 1RR restriction (it may have been lifted but I would have to check) - anyway, if you don't have any objections ok I am going to keep editing the article...I'm not sure it counts as multiple reverts anyway as long as it could have been one continuous edit, but I don't feel like having an argument about that with a sanctioning admin Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: You know I'm not an admin, right?

My understanding is that edits made continuously, or in close proximity, are considered to be one edit. I wasn't aware that you were doing a bunch of edits, and I'm sure that you weren't aware of my edit as you were working, so I would think that reasonable admins would conclude that your edits, even though technically interrupted by mine, are, for the purpose of counting reverts, all one edit.

But, as I said, that's just my opinion, I'm not an admin, and I myself have gotten into trouble recently by improperly counting reverts, so if you have doubts in regard to your 1RR restriction, I'd check with the admin who placed the sanction on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Hasn't your 1RR restriction run out? If it's the one listed at WP:Editing restrictions, it was placed on 26 January and was to run for 1-2 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Shhhhhh! EEng 02:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Savoy Theater (New York)

I can't believe we don't have an article on this - I must just be looking in the wrong place. The context to this is a Genesis concert filmed there in 1981, where the New York Times said "the group's rare club appearance Saturday at the Savoy had the aura of a major rock event". So, where's the article? I don't believe a major gig would have taken place at a venue we don't cover. I seem to recall you've done a lot of NY articles, so maybe you'll know (or know somebody else who does)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• Try Savoy Ballroom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I tried that, but that was demolished over 20 years' earlier, so it can't be there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're right. The Times article says it was a "club appearance", so I don't think it was a theatre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• OK, here's a short thing from Playbill [3]. It was a short-lived rock nightclub venue in the now-landmarked Hudson Theatre on West 44th Street. The club is mentioned in our article. I'll make a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Savoy (nightclub) now redirects to Hudson Theatre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Regarding this statement Personally, considering the opinions you expressed above - can you please specify what opinions you are talking about using quotes, or stop saying vague things like this? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The opinions in the section the remark took place in, regarding OR, BLP and official capacity, which were all incorrect or inaccurate. I'll revise the statement to make that clear, if you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be a fairly experienced editor, but I think it would be better if you focus on the content on the edit and try to avoid making belittling comments about other experienced editors, even if you disagree with them. A certain level of precision and accuracy is especially important for a GA article...Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I "seem to be a fairly experienced editor", do i? Talk about damning with faint praise.

BTW, I'm not interested in GAs, I'm interested in good articles. The two are not necessarily the same thing, and the latter is much more important than the former. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well take for example the dead links in the article - this is not a GA criteria. Articles with dead links and inconsistent citations may still meet the criteria, but is it good? My opinion is no. And there are a lot of long quotes - many of them are not necessary. They could be paraphrased in fewer words without removing any essential information (conciseness) — for example the Niewyk quote could be paraphrased as

"According to Douglas Niewyk, denial may be distinguished from legitimate historical revisionism which seeks to improve "aspects of the story for which evidence is incongruous or absent". Niewyk gives several examples of such aspects including "Hitler's role in the event, Jewish responses to persecution, and reactions by onlookers both inside and outside Nazi-controlled Europe".

Breaking up a long quote this way preserves all the essential information of the quote, but also improves readability. Unfortunately, the editing atmosphere on the article is so hostile that even minor good faith attempts to improve the prose quality of the article are turning into content disputes, assuming bad faith about editors motives for editing the article, personalizing disputes, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing the article with you here, that's what the article talk page is for. You know, maybe with a little more experience I'd be comfortable doing that, but not now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Please see my comments there. I was hoping we could resolve this on the talk page, but you violated WP:3RR. - Paul^T+/_C 17:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)