User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

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

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)

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

Hmm!

If you read the entire sentence, and not just the word "may", I think you might agree that my edit did not change the meaning in this particular case. However, revert wars get boring, so if you prefer an incorrect comma splice, so be it. Equinox ◑ 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the "incorrectness" of comma splices is vastly overrated, and prefer the meaning of the sentence as it stands, not the meaning you changed it to (which you did). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, but okay. You have to pick your battles. Thanks for playing :) Equinox ◑ 22:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you never asked a question, you made a statement. Please enjoy the home version of our game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Help, please?

this editor signed up tonight - acts like the same sock that's been hounding me at that article. I've notified Tony & The Bushranger but they may have already called it a night. This guy is teflon coated. I've asked for full PP to protect the article from him but he's causing a stir on the TP. Any suggestions? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Sorry, I didn;t see this until just now. Two things: (1) You know I'm not an admin, right? (2) I would have done what it appears that you have done, that is, gone with my instincts and the evidence that this was the same guy/different sock, and just deleted or hatted the material. It's easy enough to revert or unhat if you are shown to be wrong, but you've been around long enough to trust your nose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I look further into it, I see that they got blocked. I don't know if you hatted the discussion he started before or after the block, but I would probably have done it even before an admin had the chance to confirm and block, if my feeling about the socking was strong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BMK. You're so right about trusting my nose but then a time or two I've heard people tell me, "Your ass is in big trouble." It's my ass I don't trust. Everything worked out because of the good tips I've received from collaborators, and the incredible work of several really sharp admins who can hear a duck quacking from a mile away. It makes me appreciate them even more for the work they do and the abuse they have to endure.^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

whoops!

very much my mistake, I was aiming for the lowercase and instead ended up with the uppercase. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The addition of lowercase "the" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful

How exactly is "beautiful" not a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS? Your recent edits on Rear Window warrant an explanation. --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. To call Grace Kelly "beautiful" is not a POV edit. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kailash29792, it's not just that Grace Kelly is universally agreed to be one of history's great beauties, it's that her character in Rear Window is very specifically a world-class beauty, as evidenced by the almost unbelievably eye-popping wardrobe, the amazing makeup and hairstyles, and every other detail of her appearance, deportment, and character. She is barely more than beautiful window-dressing (no pun intended) until she decides to take an active part in the amateur "investigation". Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Yes_another_image

I just added this option to the RfC, but am beginning to have second thoughts, wondering if this may derail the RfC. I'd be happy to remove this section if you'd prefer it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know, great minds think alike. When I found out last night that that image was the lede image on Italian Wikipedia, I had the same thought as you - to offer it up as a compromise candidate, but I decided not to do it because of the confusion I thought it might cause. Now that you've done it, I'm leaning toward advising you to let it stand, and let's see what happens. If you yourself have second thoughts and want to remove it, that's OK too. I'm rather tired of the whole thing, in fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to go there to say the image would be OK by me, but I don't want to curse it by doing so, so I'll wait under there are more responses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

Hi I don't think there is any solid evidence to support this theory, the reason why I put this on the talk section as I was not sure. The thing is the first autopsy said he killed himself, then the autopsy done by the someone the family hired said there was evidence he was murdered from strangulation marks on his neck, Hess was a frail 93 year old man who could barely walk and dress himself, the official verdict is he still killed himself, its a tough one, I don't want to add anything that violates Wikipedia policies, do you think I could find a source to support the second autopsy that found the marks on the neck. There is a lot of information and sources about that, is that enough or shall we leave it as it is. Amy foster (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. I hope your holiday is a good one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazi eugenics

If you want to discuss the article on the talk page it is up to you. There is no need for me to discuss to make clean up entries. If you keep reverting I will report as vandalism. IQ125 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" is not a free pass. If an edit is disputed, you must discuss it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material

You are making blind accusations without checking the sources in the article, and the article's contents. Xarhunter (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You think I don't know the article's content? I added 16% of the text, and am responsible for 18% of the edits to the article. I know what the article says. I didn't remove sourced information, I removed unsourced material which you added, as have multiple other Iranian editors. The sources support the version of Zadeh's ethnicity which has been in the article for years -- after discussion on the talk page -- including a statement from Zadeh himself, which is quoted in the article. If you change it again, I will bring you to the attention of administrators for disruptive editing and violations of neutral point of view. This is your only warning, please do not ignore it, or you could potentially find yourself blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary to make threats as you just did on my page without signing. I have noticed that you have been bullying people and claiming to be a subject matter expert. You are the one that is on notice.Xarhunter (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not signing was a mistake, the warning was not - I am dead serious about it. I've been here for 12 years and over 200,000 edits, so I know how things work. What you call "bullying people" is actually protecting the encyclopedia from people like you, who would violate WP:NPOV and bias our articles to uphold your ethnic or nationalistic aims. That's not going to happen to articles that I watch over, by you or anybody else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Xarhunter, I agree with Beyond My Ken here. Our articles follow what the reliable sources say, as informed by talk page consensus. Abandon your nationalistic agenda, please, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor. This is a worldwide encyclopedia which rejects all narrow agendas in Wikipedia's voice, while neutrally discussing nationalism without any trace of advocacy. That is our goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're advocating neutrality, so that's a form of advocacy isn't it? EEng 08:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

PS Slocum

Why do you believe that overlinking by putting the same link in twice in one sentence is a good idea? Dabbler (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The links serve two entirely different purposes, one to explain what "PS" means, and the other to explain what "steamboat" means in this context - and the connection between those two terms is far from obvious. If the same word or term had been linked twice in the same sentence, you'd have a point, but as it is, it is valuable to readers, who are unlikely to click on both links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The specific section is located here. It's nothing big that you need to be concerned about; just an IP who didn't understand what you were talking about in a warning you left them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the noice, and thanks for closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Barnstar for intrepid use of Common sense
	Letting Common sense rule at Adolph Hitler. Keep up the good work. Don't feed the Trolls. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

as our thread has been collapsed (rightfully, I suppose), i will re-post my last response here -- to your failure to understand my first part there (″I'd be lying if I said I understood your first statement″): This might help Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.Axxxion (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry again: I may have misunderstood what yr ″I'd be lying if I said I understood your first statement″ referred to. Forget it. Some secrets are kept by KGB, some by CIA, but some are kept secret by all these criminals and they refer to how to control their respective subjects. Very human. The truth is always TOP SECRET.Axxxion (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Merrily We Live (film) poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Merrily We Live (film) poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

You need to give a reason when you revert someone else's edit on Wikipedia Clivemacd (talk)

You want a reason, sure: The change was not an improvement and the article was better before your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason has to be expressed in objective, not subjective terms Clivemacd (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Where do you find that in Wikipedia policy? Cite something for me, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, when you say "objective" terms, do you mean edits such as "remove superfluous word" in this edit of yours, or "remove spurious/simplistic association" in this edit or "use better verb" in this edit or "remove inappropriate word" in this edit? These are all subjective editorial decisions, and none of them are "objective". If you have a complaint, take it to the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

'In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Before_reverting Clivemacd (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Right: "not an improvement" or "better before" completely fulfills the requirement for an edit summary per the above. There is no requirement for the ES to be "objective" (whatever that is) as opposed to "subjective".

This now ends this discussion on this page. If you have a continued beef, take it to the talk page of the article, where it should have been to begin with, and do not post about it here again. However, do no restore your edit, which, under WP:BRD, must remain deleted until there is a consensus to restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sling and the Stone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 18:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beyond My Ken. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II

New article, which may be of interest to you. I commented on the talk page as to my initial thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

National Action (UK)

I see you reverted my edit on this page without leaving an edit summary. I was just wondering why you did this. The ideologies listed are not all specifically cited. The vast majority of sources just refer to the group as neo-Nazi and this appears to be their main ideology. That is why I believe it should be kept to just this for the opening sentence. Some of the others have been mentioned or referred to in passing in other sources but I believe it is exhaustive and unnecessary to include them all in the opening sentence when they are clearly listed just to the right in the info box and can all be seen with just a glance to the side. As seen on the pages of other political parties, most do not list all or lots of ideologies in the opening sentence, just the main ideology of the party, take Conservative Party (UK) for example. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, and we describe what other sources say about a subject. If those other sources give these as part of the group's ideology, we include them. Besides, what the hell do you think "neo-Nazi" means? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, calm down, I sought no hostility and didn't try and revert you, I just came here to discuss this. Yes I'm aware neo-Nazism incorporates these ideologies within it (which means again its pretty unnecessary to list them all). I believe these ideologies are mentioned in the main body of text (as they should be) and are in the info box, it just seems unnecessary and exhaustive to in the opening sentence. As I said most with most political organisations just the main ideology is mentioned in the lead and neo-Nazi is what the vast majority of sources cite this group as. Helper201 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Sorry to snap at you. I've revert myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "Makesouthafricagreatagain"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Makesouthafricagreatagain (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguist^unEins^uno 10:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Linguist^unEins^uno 10:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

wrong ping

Sorry, I confused you with the IP. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor‎

Please do us a favor and use edit summaries or the talk page to explain your reversions. I have difficulty treating fellow Wikipedians in a collegial manner thanks to behavior like yours. I think we all ought to strive to do better for each other. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"I have difficulty treating fellow Wikipedians in a collegial manner thanks to behavior like yours." You have difficulty treating other editors collegially because they didn't use an edit summary? Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So to put a finer point on it, you need to start communicating or I'll just start handing you the templated warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hate to let you know this, Chris Troutman, but you're not the big Wiki-honcho you apparently think you are. Please do not post on my talk page again unless you are required to by Wikipedia policy. (Hint: templating an editor is not required by Wikipedia policy). You have an absolutely frabjous day, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lack of communication at Racial hygiene

This message is to inform you that I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lack of communication at Racial hygiene.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (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. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Commas

Hey there. Sure about this? I'm kind of hoping you'll self-revert. MOS:COMMA says the second commas should be there, and I can dig up other style manuals that concur, if you really want. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the first two, which are unnecessary but not terribly objectionable, but the third is most definitely wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Wikipedia in the early years didn't bother much with standard punctuation, and I do still note the absence of a second comma in many obscure articles. Our MOS is a little odd sometimes, but in this case we're right in step with others now. And the second comma is not only not wrong; it's house style at every major publication that I'm aware of. Chicago and AP both say commas are needed before and after years when using the DMY construction, except at the end of a sentence, and also before and after states when using the city-state construction. As far as I recall, MLA concurs, although I no longer have ready access. Britannica does it that way, as do The New York Times, National Geographic and The New Yorker. It's possible that there are regional exceptions—some variations of English use punctuation much more sparingly than others—but I really don't know. (Incidentally, I am so enjoying arguing with an editor I respect about a relatively trivial matter, for a change. Thank you. ) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, and thanks for the kind words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bazooka (instrument).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bazooka (instrument).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken. The template is just part of the notification process, but someone has uploaded File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg so a non-free image for gerneal identification purposes is really no longer needed per WP:FREER. You can of course dispute the tag using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} if you like, but the licensing of the free version appears to be in order. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's great, thanks very much for the notification and the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Amsterdam Plein and Pavilion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinwheel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pix searching

• Lantern-Univ. of Wisc

This is a collection of film, radio and television books and magazines. These are hosted at Internet Archive, but the Lantern search seems easier and faster. Many of the magazines scans were donated by the US Copyright Office. Still-there are some items donated to Lantern which may not be PD as we have to define it, so do a check for renewal.

Anything which would have been renewed before 1978: UPenn copyright books Check 27th & 28th years after publication (some renewed early). For magazines it's periodicals. Bob Burns and Bazooka

More places to try for photos Just remember if you're looking at a publication like Billboard, they renewed everything and the only thing you can have there are the ads before 1978 if the ads themselves aren't copyright marked. The American Radio History site is huge-this is why searches there take so long. ;)

If you have a Newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com subscription, you can often find a photo printed in a non-renewed newspaper. (Many times, a better quality copy can be found elsewhere and can be used.)

See if this will hold you for now. ;) We hope (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I will add these to my collection of sites to search. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Haiyenslna (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but are you sure you have the right person? It doesn't seem as if I've ever edited that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINK

It also says, "a good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". Nobody is coming to the Krampus article to determine where Austria and the other countries are. That's common sense. "Hey, you know that country near the alps? You know, the one where they have Krampus? I know. Let's check the Wikipedia article to remember which one it is." That's not a common scenario. Neither is, "Hmm. This Krampus article makes me think that I should read up on Croatia so I can understand more about this subject." Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Naughty Flirt poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Naughty Flirt poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been replaced with a Commons image, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

polemical talk pages

I noticed your aborted section at ANI. I looked into it out of curiosity, and I couldn't help but notice that there was an anti-monarchism userbox just below a pro-totalitarian userbox. With that sort of self-contradiction (compounded by userboxes supporting fascism and Christian Identity-esque ideals, compared with an anti-alt-right userbox) I would venture to guess that the example is less deliberately polemic and more just a hot mess of anything that struck that user's fancy at the time of addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's certainly possible, and I can understand that impulse - I used to enjoy repeating George Carlin's "Commie Faggot Junkie" trope (in fact, some friends and I had "CFJ" t-shirts made up). Not self-contradictory, per se, but in the same spirit of ridiculous combinations. (A friend of mine has as an e-mail address "XXX is a Commie@yyy.com", undoubtedly because he's been called that before.) Still, here on Wikipedia, it's hard to justify the controversial userboxen when POLEMIC exists. For some reason, I'd be less concerned if the editor was to write something that was obviously satirical, chaining together self-contradictory positions in a way that was obviously a joke. As it is now, I'm uncertain if the guy is serious or not -- although his editing, when I've come across it, seems in line with the views expressed in many of the boxes.

I would be happiest if all userboxes were banned, but I know that's not going to happen, and I'm not going to tilt at that windmill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I like editors who go overboard with their userboxes. More than once, it has helped me parse strange statements from otherwise seemingly good editors by letting me know that they were extremely religious, or very interested in homeopathy, etc. Things that make no sense whatsoever coming from an experienced editor can make a lot of sense coming from an experienced editor with an agenda. Plus, (for example) it lets me find my fellow Dresden Files fans when I can't remember some plot detail during an effort to add a summary of some short story or another.

But in this case, as I said, I get the impression that this is just youthful exuberance. If they're still editing in ten years, I'll bet their userpage will look a lot simpler. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your take, but one could say much the same thing about polemic usernames, that they help to identify the biases of the editor, and yet we don't tolerate those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- they are generally harmless clutter, but this discussion reminded me that I once came across userboxes that advocated torture. I nominated them for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/Torture2. There are about half a dozen of transclusions, meaning ppl chose to put them on their user pages, which boggles the mind, but oh well... K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your take, but one could say much the same thing about polemic usernames Well, yeah. If someone's going to be a POV warrior, I'd love for them to have a username that screams POV Warrior. It'll save me a lot of time and frustration AGFing my way through every "innocent" objection they raise to actual NPOV content. That being said, I'm not saying there should be no rules; grossly offensive or hate-speech-esque usernames/boxes should be excluded, as should corporate or group names and several other types, as well.

But even something like that "enhanced interrogation hur-de-hur I'm so edgy" userbox is merely borderline, from where I sit. I'm not sure if it's acceptable or not, though I tend to lean towards "no" because anyone who survived "enhanced interrogation techniques" who reads that is bound to get real mad real quick, and I don't blame them for a second. Same thing for anyone related to someone who was subject to them. Or anyone with a sympathetic streak.

On the other hand, I might be okay with them having it because; hey, now I know what I'm getting into when one of those editors starts a section at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse complaining about the article's anti-American POV. I don't have to engage with a half-dozen back-and-forth exchanges before I figure out that the quality of sources and arguments this editor will be presenting is going to be Pbbbt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Worms

Re [2], it seems unlikely you missed it, but a can of similar worms was open recently at VPP. I support your position, FWIW (~0). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss it, because I don't hang around the Pump very much, only when I've brought something up, or I'm pointed to something interesting. I'll take a look at the discussion, but I'm sure it just trailed off with no conclusion. Thanks for the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting at RFCN. The name was indeed appalling. But since I've been labelled as a "hard line anti-Nazi" and "Nazi hunter" in certain circles, I decided to go with the less confrontational method, vs reporting the user to WP:UFAA. Thanks again! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I really was shocked and appalled.

BTW, I think you may enjoy hearing that an IP whose edits I've reverted on various concentration camp articles has called me a Holocaust denier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also BTW, I would take being called a "hard-line anti-Nazi" or a "Nazi hunter" as a badge of honor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jingle Bells

[[File:Gemini VI Jingle Bells (90bpm) (Kevin MacLeod) (ISRC USUAN1100187).oga|thumb|Radio transmission between Gemini VI, Gemini VII and Mission Control in Houston]] shows up as a redlink for me. I click on it and it asks me to upload a file. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there, but it looks as if someone has found a working file. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks very much. We haven't had much snow so far this season, so another snowflake is quite welcome! Happy Holidays to you as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you liked Steve Martin's holiday wishes? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of funny videos...

For some reason, I felt compelled to watch again my favorite Dennis Leary video. [3]. Ain't it the friggin' Wiki-truth? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

AN3 postmortem

Hi, sorry for the mess at AN3. I was unaware of the recent ANI drama stirred up by BrightR. It does look to me like you are being pursued and targeted inappropriately by BrightR. That being said, try not to let the haters get your goat. It is hard for me from the outside to see your side when you are goaded into anger and edit warring (not that I blame you in this case). So in the future, try to take the high road. If BrightR bugs you again, I would seek intervention. See you around! Malinaccier (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Whitehall Terminal

Hi BMK. I meant to undo this edit you made to Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal, but I pressed Rollback instead. My apologies. I notified Jon Kolbert about a bug in which HTTPS URLs malfunction if they begin with https://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res= (these pages show up as blank frames). So for now, I undid this edit, but I kept the https://books.google.com URL because it works just fine. epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the Times URLs down below, or I wouldn't have reverted, as I had seen the threat about KolbertBot on AN/I, I just saw the change of https to http on Google Books, which when I checked, the https worked properly. Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Beyond My Ken, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Thanks, Ben, I hope you have a wonderful holiday! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

David Galula

The interesting thing about that image you found, aside from the fact that, once again, Mediawiki failed to inform me of an edit conflict when we both edited the dimensions in the rationale at the same time, is that the "sketch" very much appears to me to have used it as a basis, without credit. -- Begoon 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps it should be nominated for deletion at Commons as copyright infringement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I raised it at COM:VPC. -- Begoon 00:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Inquisitive Potato" Award

	"The Inquisitive Potato" Award
	I award you the second Inquisitive Potato award. For your inquiring, curious, probing mind as you seek to make Wikipedia better and for the useless drama that seems to follow you around here as a result. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Wow. My thanks to both of you, and my best wishes for a great holiday season in return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jingle Bells undo

Revision as of 19:25, 25 November 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 812066721 by Lawikitejana (talk) Sorry, but not acceptable without a ource) "

Well, then, you'd best hurry back over there and undo someone's unsourced info on the Swedish version that you left entirely intact. I was looking for sources to credit for the Spanish versions, but had not yet found one that worked for WP:RS, etc. If you're going to remove whatever doesn't presently have a source, that's legitimate, but at least be consistent about it. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your point is fair enough. I've restored your info on the Spanish version with a "citation needed" tag, and added that tag to the graf about the Swedish version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, it's been a pleasure working with you! I hope your holidays are everything you want them to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

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

David Irving (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Hare

Moxie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eddie Foy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, please explain this edit : [4]. This is correctly sourced, and you might think what you want about the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian newspapers, but this is sourced. In any case, this article does not reflect the fact that Anatoly Sharyi is a highly controversial personality in Ukraine. I'm trying to balance it using reliable sources. BobbyVinton (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider the source to be reliable for this information. Please find another source with a potential POV problem in relation to the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Beyond My Ken!!


Hi Beyond My Ken, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and best wishes to you in return! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Great to hear from you! I hope your holidays are good to you. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Still waiting for some snow...

Hey BMK, just thought I'd drop by and wish you well as we get to the end of the year. As always, it's been a pleasure working with you on Wikipedia, and I look forward to the coming year. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I hope all is well where you are, and the holidays are good for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome, and thank you for yours, and for being one of the reliable people. Happy Holidays to you, and a great New Year! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over a gallery?

Thanks for commenting on the last of the edits. Having three galleries is problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No, three galleries is not problematic. I've just posted on your talk page, asking you to let me know what the specific problem is, so we can work together to solve it, but three galleries has nothing to do with anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks, it is appreciated. Happy Holidays to you as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncommented reverts

Any reason you just reverted two of my very undramatic and clarifying edits? Ogress 20:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Because various parts of them did not improve the articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

HEY FELLOW EDITOR, HOW ABOUT EXPLAINING HOW INSTEAD OF REVERTING AGAIN. YOUR INITIAL REVERT HAD NO EDIT SUMMARY. You know better to ever do that. Ever. Ogress 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, how about following WP:BRD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you and yours a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Especially a propos as I'm just about to sit down to a Christmas dinner of roast turkey. It smells great in here! Please do have a good holiday yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please enjoy your feast, and rest assured that I am not at all upset with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I'm really pleased about that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some? :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We were so disappointed at Thanksgiving not to have turkey leftovers, that my wife bought a humongous turkey for tonight, so just send me your e-mail and I'll send you some! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just use Special:EmailUser to send me the turkey. :D—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazis and Slavs

Are you really disputing the Nazis classified Slavs as Aryans? All the available evidence shows that the Slavs were regarded as Aryans. It's a myth that the Slavs were classified as "non-Aryan". The Nazis never spoke of a Slavic race and acknowledged racially there was no distinction between a German and a Pole, a Russian or a Czech. The Nuremberg Laws mentioned the Poles as a racially minority living in Germany that were of related blood. An Ahnenpass document gave examples of Aryans as "Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". Himmler described the Russians as Aryans in an anti-Bolshevik brochure titled "The Schutzstaffel organization as anti-Bolshevik struggle". After the invasion of Poland, ethnic Poles were put in the Aryan side separate from Jews in the General Government. There are lots of other examples.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am disputing it, and you have not provided any citations from reliable sources to show that it is true. In point of fact, the Slavs were, in particular, after Jews, the Nazi's model for untermenschen. The Jews they planned to eliminate, but as for the Slavs, they planned to take their land, kill all their elites, enslave them, limit their education and rule over them with an Iron fist, things they would never do if they thought they were Aryan. In fact, because of interbreeding between Aryans and Slavs, they carefully culled through Slavic children to find those who had "Aryan" features, who they then kidnapped and took to Germany, to be raised by German families. Again, this would only be the case if they saw a very clear distinction between Aryans and Slavs. Your "myth" is, actually, a fact that is accepted by all reputable historians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Nuremberg Laws make no mention whatsoever of Slavs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute that some individual Nazis such as Hitler and Himmler regarded some Slavic ethnic groups as racially inferior.

However, according to the official laws of the Third Reich, Slavs were regarded as racially equal to the Germans:

According to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of the Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law.

Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, p. 63

The Ahnenpass document stated:

Aryan ("German blood") is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be.

In German: "Arischer Abstammung (= „deutschblütig“) ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volk ausgesehen, fremdrassischen Bluteinschlag ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraum lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z. B. ein Engländer oder ein Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat, in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der USA oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.

Christopher J. Wells, Deutsch: Eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945, p. 447

When the Nuremberg Laws were announced, the Nazis used the Poles as an example of a racial minority of "related blood":

A member of any minority group demonstrates his ability to serve the German Reich when, without surrendering membership in his own specific Volk group, he loyally carries out his civil duties to the Reich, such as service in the armed forces, etc. Reich citizenship is, therefore, open to racially related groups living in Germany, such as Poles, Danes, and others. It is an altogether different matter with German nationals of alien blood and race. They do not fulfill the blood prerequisites for Reich citizenship. The Jews, who constitute an alien body among all European peoples, are especially characterized by racial foreignness. Jews, therefore, cannot be seen as being fit for service to the German Volk and Reich. Hence, they must necessarily remain excluded from Reich citizenship.

Anson Rabinbach, ‎Sander L. Gilman, The Third Reich Sourcebook, p. 214

It is important to distinguish between Aryan and Nordic. The two terms were not interchangeable during the Third Reich. The most influential racial theorist of the Third Reich Hans F. K. Günther dismissed the ideas of a "Germanic race" and a "Slavic race". Before the war, there was no ban on sexual relations between Germans and any Slavic ethnic group. Many Nazis themselves had obvious Slavic ancestry. The Nazis were also aware many Germans had Slavic ancestry. As late as 1938 the Slavs used in the Nuremberg Laws classifying people as Aryans. Even after the war began not all sexual relations between Germans and Poles or Germans and Czechs were prohibited. Throughout the war Poles were placed on the "Aryan side" separate from those classified as Jews. Poles are Slavs so if Slavs were classified as non-Aryan why were they placed on the Aryan side? Being an Aryan did not mean exemption from Nazi persecution, the first people persecuted were German and thus Aryan socialists, communists and other political opponents. Thousands of German Aryans were persecuted during Aktion T4, etc. I've not come across a single primary source from the Nazis that described the Slavs as Untermenschen, although certain Slavic ethnic groups such as the Poles and Russians were described as untermenschen after WW2 began, I have not seen as a document that specifically says "Slavs" as untermenschen like the Jews, Gypsies, etc. Even the infamous "Der Untermensch" pamphlet of 1942 used some Slavs as Aryans and part of the European peoples in comparison to the Untermenschen. Also, some Slavic countries were allied to Germany during WW2.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

English Patriot Man is that you? Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The IP's already been blocked as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

/* Shenanigans at AfD */

I'm not sure how AFD works now but long ago users who had red username or red talk-page were assumed to be less active wikipedians and there was slight increased presumption of WP:SPA going on. The reason I gave the welcome message was so that he would not have a red talk-page next to his name. Maybe AFD runs differently now but I learned under the tutelage of u/useight and u/balloonman. (sorry i forgot wiki-formatting) all I know now is reddit and quora... LaceyUF (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You were so concerned that Oscar's Oasis not have a redlinked talk page that you reached out and created one for them by posting a comment there, despite the fact that you do not know them, and regardless of the fact that about 100+ other Wikipedia accounts were created about the same time and you did nothing for them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not interested in "getting this straight" you are just trying to assert the validity of your opinion, which is invalid so I suggest you drop it. You'll only make yourself look bad. It takes firetruck-all of 10 seconds to click a red talk page and type the curly braces and WP:WELCOME on their page—hardly an ***expression of concern***. You can read my edit history and the questions I asked at the science ref desk. I'm no dull knife. I have an EE degree. Wikipedia has lost 90% of the credibility it once had, just ask anyone out in the real world. 67.233.34.199 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup I've read your history, and I've read the AN/I, and I've read your ridiculous explanation right here and I've come to the obvious conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm glad this matter is settled. Now we both get to put our swords down and each save face. LaceyUF (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

– – – Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Beyond My Ken!

Happy New Year!

Beyond My Ken,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Winkelvi, I hope you have a great New Years as well, and a good 2018. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 02:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, PaleoNeonate, I hope your New Year is a good one! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zabriskie Point (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hunter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done By someone else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert 2

Regarding [5], I checked it again and see no major issues. If there's one or two of the dozen edits, undo that edit not the entire batch. Disembodied Soul undid two series of edits by Alex without explanation, both of which were not clearly disruptive or unconstructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's the case. That editor's work is always a mixture of overlinking, exceptable grammatical changes, and unacceptable grammatical changes, and unless one want to laboriously go through the dozens of edits they make on each article, one has to either accept the package or delete it. I've opted for deleting, since the changes made -- the acceptable ones make little or no difference in the quality of the article, and are overwhlemved by the overlinking and unacceptable changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, my description is the case for each individual edit as well as for the edits en masse. The editor really needs to be indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And BTW, if you want to restore each individual edit, fixing the problems in each one as you go along, please be my guest, but I think we both have better things to do with our time. What cannot be the case is that the edits are a fait accompli because of the hassle of fixing them. In fact, see WP:Fait accompli). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know this editor's "work"... if you think there's a CIR issue, I suggest going to ANI. From my pov, not knowing much about this user, I am seeing a lack of good faith. If I get time later, I'll restore the parts I think are most useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to make judgements about "good faith" when you have no familiarity with the situation. As for going to AN/I, I reserve that for major problems, not petty stuff like this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to be quick to judge, but from "outside" that's how it looks (more so Soul's reverts). Not sure what the solution is if we have a CIR lacking user. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of "EchoUSA"?

Why have I been added to this category? I have no idea who EchoUSA is. GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you do - you responded on the SPI that was filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Horst Wessel

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I found it rude and non-constructive of you to revert a constructive change (typo fix) just because of a whitespace change you didn't like. I found it even more rude of you to not leave an explanation for the revert in the edit summary. I'm not some drive-by IP vandal, I am here to contribute to a better encyclopaedia. Reverting good faith changes without explanation has a chilling effect on newbies. Luckily, I am not one. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith. I didn't see the Luxemburg change, and as soon as you pointed it out to me, I restored your edit. We're not required to ask permission in advance to make changes, nor do we have to look up the history of an editor we revert to see if they're a long-term editor or a drive-by, so I don't know you from a hole in the ground. I suggest you grow a thicker skin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

AE appeal

Hi BMK! You just closed an appeal at AE for a sanction I placed. Under WP:AC/DS, AN is an appropriate venue for the appeal. Since this sanction originated at AE by a consensus of admins, AN is actually probably the preferred venue as Rob noted. Thanks for the work you do. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted myself. I misunderstood and thought that the discussion I had read was an appeal discussion and not the original AE discussion. My error, and my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I know you were trying to help. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Earthcore article

I have done exactly that. Made suggestions on Death Librarian's talk page for a fair and balanced article. If he doesn't allow 2 sides to be submitted into the article I am sure there will be others that will also put the same forward. It's clear you are a personal friend of Deathlibrarian and therefore simply bullying me and not being impartial Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Also you have failed to carefully read the talk page of the article about the use of credible sources and other issues that are all in support of my suggested edits.

Using your personal bias here is def a breach of Wiki polices so I suggest you change your path here. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So you choose to cast more aspersions instead of dealing with your own behavior. That doesn't bode well for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ive read your comments on the admin page and apologise for any inference of association (however you both edit articles on the same topics (military history) with another editor however disagree with your premises that forbid an article being presented impartially. Also your claims about my username are incorrect. Please cease deleting my comments on your talk page Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lastly please explain why the following article mention is allowed on the Earthcore page from a credible news source ? You talk about various violations I have supposedly committed yet isn't bias also a violation ? Earthcore countered that many artists were paid and kept the fees and did not perform. http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have questions about the article, the place to discuss them is on the article talk page, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok so how does one attract attention to the allowed editors of that page when putting something down like what I have put forth to you directly. You mentioned all these breaches of Wiki policy is me asking you this question also a breach ? Also can you link me to where Wiki policy discusses the following

1.Bias

2. Not credible news sources

3. False statements that do not match the footnote statement has been attributed to.

Please advise Fisted Rainbow (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You make those arguments on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited $ (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Coast Highway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Herman Goering

I live in the United States, not Germany, and in this country, asking for proof of assertions is not yet a crime. So, do you have any? It actually harms your cause to delete requests for citations or proof.John Paul Parks (talk)

Don't be an idiot. Read a fucking book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Or this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Or this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Or this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Like this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Or this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

National Catholicism

The Catechism of the Catholic Church at the official Web Page of the Vatican is a HIGHLY HGHLY reliable source. The documents written during the XIX Century that justify political Catholicism and used in the XX Century Catholic governments are summarized in the 2105 of the Catechism, as universally recognized by Catholic Theologians in Spain and the whole world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for the content of the Catechism, it is not a source for your theory that a certain part of the Catechsm is the basis for National Catholicism. For that, you have provided no sources whatsoever. It appears to be entirely your theory, and we don't allow that, per original research, which you badly need to read.

Answer: If you take 20 second of your time and actually read the 2105, you will see it all about politics. It is the justification of the Catholic State, or the State with the Catholic religion as the official religion of the state. This fact is not my theory. This fact is universally accepted by Theologians all around the world.

Not that matters as you might not be Catholic, but the 2105 specifically cites Pope Leo XIII Immortale Dei and Pope Pius XI, Quas primas, the most political documents of the XIX Century where specifically the Popes call for the Catholic Religion to be the official Religion of the State, including of course, Spain. Furthermore, the 2105 also cites the most political document of the Second Vatican Council, APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM, where the Council specifically calls in its number 7, for Catholics to take control of the Politics of the state and, like in Franco s times, of Law, Arts, Structures of Society, Economy, etc, etc. and this is not my theory, this is Universally accepted by thousands and thousands and thousands of bishops, priest, theologians all around the world. If you take 40 seconds to read the 2105 of the Catechism you can see it by yourself. If you can read Cardinal Avery Dulles articles, he, one of the most famous Catholic Theologians and SMEs in the world, will explain this in a wonderful way.

If you can read Spanish let me know and I will send you the Chapter of the book of bishop Fernando Rifan from Brazil where he also, like Cardinal Dulles, explains all this in a wonderful fashion. He is a highly respected and famous Catholic bishop and Theologian and friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Aroniel2 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, new comments go at the bottom of the page. Please sign them using 4 tildes (~~~~). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The CCC is a snapshot of what the Catholic Church viewed as it's own teaching in 1992. Theology, like any academic field, is always evolving in it's understandings of itself. What BMK removed was commentary on the CCC that was not supported by the CCC itself. For the claims that were being made, you'd likely need academic sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ANSWER: As the introduction of Pope John Paul II in the Catechism, the 1992 work is the Definitive Doctrine of the Church, with full authority. That does not means that new Dogmas can be defined in the Future, but that all that is on the Catechism will stay forever and ever as the official Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church can develop new doctrines, but never Contradict itself or contradict old doctrines. All that it is in the 1992 remains today in 2018 the official doctrine of the Church. The point that the Catholic Church can never change in a contradictory way its doctrine is basic to Catholic Theology. It can add new things, it can never change old doctrines The Church changes in Discipline, Rules, Canon Law, Liturgy and Rites etc, etc, but never on its doctrines. The Baltimore Catechism explains this very well the same as the Catholic Encyclopedia:

-- The Baltimore Catechism (1891): 126. Our Lord left His Church FREE to make certain laws, just as they would be needed. It has ALWAYS exercised this power, and made laws to suit the "CIRCUMSTANCES OF PLACE OR TIMES. Even now it does AWAY with some of its OLD laws that are NO longer useful, and makes NEW ones that are more necessary. But the doctrines, the truths of faith or morals, the things we must believe and do to save our souls, it never changes and never can change: it may regulate some things in the application of the divine laws, but the laws themselves can never change in substance. (Nihil Obstat: D. J. McMahon Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: *Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York New York, September 5, 1891)

--Catholic Encyclopedia (1917): "... The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men...” (Thurston, H. (1908). In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 8, 2018 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.) Aroniel2 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the 2105 of the Catholic Catechism,

In Spanish, explanation that the 2105 is the fundamental doctrinal base and Key Element to understand Political Catholicism in all its forms (Absolute Monarchy, Franco s National Catholicism, Cristeros from Mexico, today s Hungarian Constitution, Catholic Party of Bayern, Germany, etc, etc, etc. Bishop Fernando Rifan explain with detail how all the Political Doctrine of the Church is contained and summarized in the 2105 of the Catechism:

Cuando el Concilio afirma que deja «íntegra la doctrina tradicional católica acerca del deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades para con la verdadera religión y la única Iglesia de Cristo» (DH 1), está declarando que continúan en vigor los principios que enseñan las encíclicas Mirari Vos (Gregorio XVI), Quanta Cura (Pío IX),Mortalium Animos, Quas Primas (Pío XI) y la totalidad de la enseñanza tradicional sobre el reinado social de Cristo Rey.

....El Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica,otro acto del Magisterio, promulgado por el Papa Juan Pablo II, «en virtud de la autoridad apostólica» por la Constitución Apostólica Fidei Depositum, explica con claridad en qué sentido la Iglesia comprende la libertad...El deber de rendir a Dios un culto auténtico corresponde al hombre individual y socialmente considerado. Esa es “la doctrina tradicional católica sobre el deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades respecto a la religión verdadera y a la única Iglesia de Cristo” (DH 1). Al evangelizar sin cesar a los hombres, la Iglesia trabaja para que puedan “informar con el espíritu cristiano el pensamiento y las costumbres, las leyes y las estructuras de la comunidad en la que cada uno vive”(AA 13). Deber social de los cristianos es respetar y suscitar en cada hombre el amor de la verdad y del bien. Les exige dar a conocer el culto de la única verdadera religión, que subsiste en la Iglesia católica y apostólica (cf. DH 1). Los cristianos son llamados a ser la luz del mundo (cf. AA 13). La Iglesia manifiesta así la realeza de Cristo sobre toda la creación y, en particular, sobre las sociedades humanas (cf. León XIII, enc. Immortale Dei; Pío XI, enc. Quas primas, sobre Cristo Rey)» (CEC 2104-2105). (Bishop Fernando Rifan, Tradicion y el Magisterio Viviente de la Iglesia, Chapter 7, Fundación GRATIS DATE Apartado 2154 - 31080 Pamplona, España ISBN 84-87903-86-X, DL NA 822-2012, Gráficas Lizarra, S.L., Ctra. de Tafalla km. 1 - 31132 Villatuerta, Navarra. WEB Site: http://www.gratisdate.org/archivos/pdf/54.pdf ) Aroniel2 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT¨, Avery Cardinal Dulles, December 2001 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/12/religious-freedom-innovation-and-development
• https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=National%20Catholicism&item_type=topic
• http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=National-Catholicism
• http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347670bdc4.html?eng=y&refresh_ce

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

For F

I do not have time to look at these sources at the moment. I will check them out tomorrow.

Once again new comments go at the bottom of the page, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ANSWER; Read Cardinal Dulles when you have time. But please read the 2105 of the Catechism as it will only take you 30 seconds and it is 100% Self Explanatory: The official Doctrine of the Church is that the State must be a Catholic State, 100% what Franco did in Spain verbatim. Aroniel2 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2105 of the Catechism says

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ." By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live." The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.

I do not have a problem with accepting that section 2105 of the Catholic Catechism is an official expression of Catholic theological belief. However, the section says what it says, and nothing more. Any extension of the ideas of the section, any interpretation of what it means in the real world, any statement that the section is the basis for any version of Political Catholicism or National Catholicism, all have to be supported by citations from reliable sources. You cannot insert your own interpretation, your own understanding, of the meaning of the section into an article with a citation only to the Catechism. That is original research, and it is not allowed. That is the bottom line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Verses left out of modern Bible versions

Having received your admonition about my 'unprofessional' style of working, I made a determined effort to insert citations and otherwise finish up the article before anyone else had reason to bitch about me. Imagine my surprise when, after pounding the keyboard for more than an hour, I try to save it all and find out someone else short-circuited my work by erasing the same paragraph that I was enlarging. So I give up on the article altogether. Alephb, who was so quick to complain about me, can take on the job himself. But I am very angry about it. The article was totally neglected by everyone, Alephb included, for more than five years, during which time it was conspicuously incomplete, uninformative, and useless. Yet I could not work on improving it for a mere five days without someone interfering and deliberately sabotaging my work! Sussmanbern (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-up, please - this is a serious request - direct me to the Wiki rulebook about conduct, or playing well with others, or whatever it is called. I have been referred to the Wiki guides on verification and citations of sources, and other stuff but I want to see these rules that I rather seriously violated. This is a sincere request. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Sure, take a look at WP:CIVILITY and WP:No personal attacks, that should give you the basic info you're asking for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: And listen, do read and follow the policies I've linked to, but don't be overly concerned that you've ended up in a bit of hot water. Wikipedia editing is definitely a subculture that it takes some time to get acclimated to. I think it probably happens to the majority of serious editors here -- and some of those who have contributed a great deal of content never quite get the behavioral norms right. (I've been known to be a little less than ideally civil when my buttons are pushed, and I've been here for 12 years!) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you enormously for the guidance and soothing words. I had posed to Sarek a question which so far he hasn't answered, so I will ask it of you - namely, when (if and when) I am blocked from editing, what (if any) rights do I still have within Wikipedia?<

There was also something said, at the time, that indicated that even after I was told I was blocked something was going on to grant me clemency. I was unaware of this and would like to know the details. Evidently someone (presumably more than one person) spoke up on my behalf, and I would appreciate knowing who took my side. I might add that the Wiki disciplinary proceedings are a bit ... how can I phrase it? ... no defense advocate, no clear procedure, etc. I once worked up a long and tedious article on disciplinary proceedings in voluntary societies, so I noticed these things. 07:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you get blocked from editing, for the duration of the block you cannot edit anywhere on English Wikipedia except your own talk page (unless that is taken away in a separate action). If the block is timed, you can edit again after the time has elapsed. If it is "indefinite", that doesn't mean it's infinite, it just means it's in effect until someone removes it -- that's what happened to you. While you are blocked, it is you, the person, who is blocked, not simply the account. The account is mechanically prevented from editing, but you would find that you could edit using an IP, or by creating a new account, however, doing so is a egregious violation of the block, which decreases the possibility that the block would be lifted, and, if it's a timed block, would probably reset the clock on it or be bumped up to indefinite. Thus you could physically edit by block evasion, but you shouldn't.

A block on English Wikipedia does not affect your ability to edit on another language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, or any other Wikimedia Foundation website, it's only a block for English Wikipedia.

As for what happened, specifically, on your unblock, I only know what took place on the AN/I thread (I'm not an admin, and don't have access to any non-public information). There, several editors expressed the opinion that the block was unwarranted, but several admins said that they would have made the block themselves if they had seen it first. What I believe happened is the you filed a UTRS request to be unblocked, and the admin who handled it (Yunshi) looked into it and contacted you (by e-mail, I would guess, but you would know), getting an explanation from you about the meaning of the comment in question. Yunshi then checked with the blocking admin, SarekOfVulcan, who agreed to the unblock, and Yunshi lifted your block.

Meanwhile, back at the AN/I thread, one editor in particular, Joefromrandb, kept posting comments opposing the block, but I'm not certain if these influenced Yunshi or not, you'd have to ask him.

One of the principles that Wikipedia works under is that we are not a bureaucracy (see WP:BURO), so hard-and-fast procedures are not quite that hard-and-fast, things can differ depending on the circumstances and the admin(s) who handle the problem. We do try to adhere to principles of fairness; still, we are a private website with a purpose, to improve an online encyclopedia, so that is generally held to be more important than individual "rights". In fact, no one has any rights here, we all are afforded the privilege of editing by the owner of the site, the Wikimedia Foundation, who then devolves on the community of editors the running of the website (except for certain very basic policies about copyright violations, paid editing, and biographies of living people).

I hope all that wasn't too confusing, and answered your questions. As I said, it takes some time to acclimate and absorb the local culture, which is as important as knowing the rules (mandatory policies, editing guidelines, and widely accepted essays). Feel free to ask again if I can be of any more assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right

Just a heads up, the article has been under 1RR [6] and looks like you are at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. 1, 2, and 3 PackMecEng (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Shit, I thought I was keeping track of that - obviously not so good. Thanks for the notice, I'll stay away from it for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Image resizes

Hi BMK, Just to make you aware Ron uses some sort of script to detect and tag all images, If you add {{non-free no reduce}} to the very top of files that should stop Ron from detecting and tagging these, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, there may well be images which I feel should remain larger in order for their content to be easily seen by the reader, but so far I haven't had any particular beef with the reductions that have been done. Good to know, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Unfortunately your images will probably be reduced at some point so having this is rather handy :), Anyway no worries happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mel Blanc

Okay, I added those films on there today, having gotten the info from Disney Wiki, which I'm sure you know a Wiki is not an accurate source. After realizing he had an EXCLUSIVE contract with WB for 20 years, latsting from the early-40s to the early-60s, I did some digging around, and could not find any evidence he actually did those cartoons. The only Disney works he was involved with were The Mickey Mouse Theater of the Air, Pinocchio, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I was reverting MY OWN EDITS, righting a wrong. And on most articles on Wikipedia, we usually tend to shorten down years (eg. 1945–46, instead of 1945–1946, etc.) I appreciate your help in wanting to maintain the best possible quality on the article, but reverting my OWN EDITS that I HAD PREVIOUSLY REVERTED is not a way you are doing that. Thank you. Dpm12 (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dpm12: OK, thanks for the explanation. It would be useful in the future to include some version of that in your edit summary, something like "Reverting edits made by me earlier today as not properly sourced", or something along those lines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit summaries in your reversion of my edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Again, I apologize. I'm not sure why I even added them in the first place. I was certainly being stupid.

Dpm12 (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Justice prevails

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fegut is NOTHERE Musical accompaniment nagualdesign 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, THE SYSTEM WORKS! Thanks for letting me know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Aryan people

Aryan people are Iranians (this is a fact) and we are not proud of any race and gen like you. European racists and Indo-Iranians always try to say we are Aryan to be make themselves different than others. You can change the Wikipedia but you can not change the history. This kind of racism will change the world in bad way. We would be back after get rid of this anti-Iranians regime in IRAN and let the world know all the history by love but not like you by hate and racism. Kasra tcme (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

sir/ mam (beyond My Ken) I had checked some of your past talks and I figured out this much editing wars and bullying others in different pages comes from a sick mind. how could a person write these different opinions about different things and have conflict with others for nothing. I usually donate to Wikipedia because it is a place for good and knowledgeable people to contribute science facts and spread love. but it seems it is a game for you to entertain yourself. shame.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasra tcme (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So you've come here to tell me that I should be full of shame because I'm a hater, a racist and a bully, with a sick mind lacking in love and prejudiced against Iranians, and that I have caused Wikipedia to lose money. Anything else on your mind? Perhaps you'd like to comment on my diet, my preferences in music, the clothes I wear, my facial hair or the comeliness of my mate?

While you're in the mood to express yourself, you might consider going to Talk:Aryan and explaining the purpose behind the edit you made to the article, which I reverted, and which has been reverted again by another editor (I assume yet another shameful hater, racist, anti-Iranian etc.). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

^{The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.}
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks! Nice to hear from you again! I hope your 2018 is a happy and productive one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know what you've been working on recently, but I regularly come across your most helpful ledes on the Wiki Commons category pages. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus on talk page for this

BMK,

the main purpose of this edit is to allow the use of the edit summary to correct the previous summary, rather than to modify an article in any meaningful way. As such, consensus on the talk page is not required. 79.37.30.238 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what a null edit is for. My intention -- and the subject of the edit summary -- was to revert the re-addition of the name of the claimed micronation, and I can't figure out how I ended up reverting only your null edit. Might have something to do with my being on a train with an intermittent connection. In any case, sorry about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It did look like a weird justification for undoing. Well, thanks for explaining! 79.43.127.185 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

On a second thought, the fact that I reverted WikiHannibal's edit before you did could explain why your revert only netted the removal of my empty space. I've seen it happen, but only once or twice, and a long time ago, so I did not think of it straightaway. If it is so, and it probably is, I believe I owe you an apology for jumping too quickly to the wrong conclusion, so, here it is.

In the meanwhile, sorry for the IP jump - IT provider was down for maintenance, as usual without warning. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thna, and no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nordic people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of William Black (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Black (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Black (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me

Hello, if my account be freed please tell me with <redacted> because I have closed email of that account! 2.182.165.220 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin and am privy to no inside information. I've redacted your e-mail address, which you should not have left here. I'll request that it be oversighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 130.255.240.214 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet.

Hello BMK, Could I direct you to my note on NeilN's Talk page regarding Maximajorian Viridio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This person's alterations look very much like the activities of Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and only started when the heat was turned on the latter. Would be glad of your views? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Hi. I took a look at some of the editor's contributions, and I'm not sure it's the same person. Yes, they do seem to be focused on linking, but there are two aspects of Alexb's editing that appear to be missing. Alexb did a lot of small grammatical changes: inverting sentences, adding "the" unnecessarily, and so on, which seems to be absent from MV's edits. Also, Alexb -- although they did do single one-off edits to articles -- had a tendency to latch on to an article and do multiple edits as they worked their way through, something else I don't see in the current editor. Still, even if MV is Amexb, and is simply consciously changing their editing style in order not to be discovered, I'm pretty confident that -- sooner or later -- they will lapse back into their old pattern of editing, so time will tell. It's worth keeping an eye on them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I will continue to keep an eye on MV's edits. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They're still overlinking and making unnecessary changes and have not replied to comments on their Talk page, exactly the same as Alexb. I will continue to monitor their "contributions". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like NeilN blocked them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation Bagration

Hi, Beyond My Ken, you will notice I undid your revert. There is no article on the XXXV Corps (Germany) in English, nor in German, hence my decision to link to the 35e corps d'armée (Allemagne) version. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on List of mayors of New York City

Hello.

Why did you revert my edit on List of mayors of New York City? I removed the {{NYC year nav}} template per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Have you read that guideline? Additionally, it is being considered for deletion, so it will likely be removed from the article eventually.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I've read that guideline, and it's a guideline, which means it's not mandatory. In this case, that article should definitely have that template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Because? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

White trash.

This is admittedly nitpicking, given the triviality of the issue, but I'm curious.

Given the way WP software handles headers, Beland's choice seems the logical one in this situation, rather than yours; at least it's one step down from the main header, which is "References". Yours is one or two steps further. Neither choice seems inherently better than the other, nor an improvement over the other; it just looks like an aesthetic preference. I'm wondering, though, whether there is something else behind your reverting the edit not readily apparent to a passerby.

Thanks! 82.63.89.78 (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to clutter up the TOC with completely unnecessary hierarchical sub-headers in the "References" section. Readers looking for any kind of reference will go there and find what they want, without the need for "Notes", "Bibliographry" etc. in the TOC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining. 82.63.89.78 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

To be Frank...

Hey. About this: you're right that "Frank's father, Otto Frank, the only survivor of the family" wouldn't be good writing, but that's not what readers see. The link is piped, so it reads like this: "Frank's father, Otto, the only survivor of the family". I won't revert you, but I don't believe the change is an improvement. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'll revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Personally, I favor the "Anne's father" version, but this might be another option:

"Anne Frank's father, Otto, the only survivor of the family"

82.63.89.78 (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited White trash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

@Diannaa:, @Kierzek:, @K.e.coffman:

What's the best book about the Reichstag fire? Currently on Amazon, I see:

• The Reichstag Fire: The Case Against the Nazi Conspiracy (2016) by Sven Felix Kellerhoff and Karina Berger
• The Burning of the Reichstag: The History of the Controversial Fire That Led to the Rise of Nazi Germany (2015) by Charles River Editors
• Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich's Enduring Mystery (2014) by Benjamin Carter Hett
• Reichstag Fire: Ashes of Democracy (1972) by R. John Pritchard and Sydney L Mayer
• The Reichstag Fire (1964) by Fritz Tobias

Tobias and Hett are used as sources in our article.

Any thoughts? (TPS, feel free to comment as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read any of these books, so sorry. A general comment: books published after the fall of the Berlin Wall may contain information that was inaccessible prior to that date. So the current books may be better. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, a very good point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

David Sams

Thank you for your efforts. You did the article better justice than I was going to give it once we got Sams or his hired help under control. You've cleaned up a lot.Trackinfo (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Probably a lost cause though, since it appears to be heading toward deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi(i)sm

Why did you revert my edit without any sort of explanation? That's really only appropriate for vandalism, which this edit clearly wasn't. —mountainhead / ? 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not spelled that way, even though it's pronounced that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. Obviously, I added this spelling merely based on the word's pronunciation, and not because it can also be spelt that way.

Even if this spelling did not exist, though, my point would still stand. You could've given this non-argument when you actually reverted the edit instead of now. —mountainhead / ? 22:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So... it's OK for you to add the material without explanation, but not for me to take it out again with no explanation. Is that a general rule, or just something I should follow with your edits? Do other editors have to follow it too? Do I have to run my reason for deletion by you before I delete, so you can certify it as not being a "non-argument"?

You know what, forget it, I recommend that you take this very, very, very serious matter to AN/I, so the full Wikipedia editing community can see how shabbily I treated you. But don't post here again, I'd hate for your deep grievance to be seen only by the 400+ people who watch this page, instead of by the thousands who watch AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Disruptive Edits

I noticed that you’ve recently visited several pages that I have edited, that you have made large-scale reverts of work I’ve done on those pages, that you have made false POV accusations, and that you have not attempted to discuss your reverts at all. It’s hard to assume good faith when you do that. I’m not going to put up with much more of this, and I'm not going to waste time arguing, so you can either stop your behavior or you can keep it up and I can seek third-party involvement. Up to you. SunCrow (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll put up with it, because if you don't I will take you to the Administrators' noticeboards and expose you for the POV editor you are, here to do hit jobs on politicians you don;t like, and promote those that you do. I'll let administrators decide what to do with you. It's not a coincidence that any article about a Democrat that you edit -- such as Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio -- you add as much dirt as you can find -- violating WP:WEIGHT and at times WP:BLP -- and on any Republican or conservative's article -- such as Kathy Marchione -- you add as much styraightforward promotional material as you can, violating WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. If you continue to make those edits, I will continue to remove them, and I say that knowing that 460 people read this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

...you have made false POV accusations'

User:SunCrow, considering your antics at Family Research Council and its talk page, no, it's not false. So this third party says that if anyone need to curb their behavior, it's you. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

After sampling your contributions this fourth party says the same. You would profit from reading this essay. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Operation Barbarossa

Why are you deleting this? Please educate yourself before making the changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)