User talk:Beyond My Ken

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

June 26, 2015

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

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

Please click here to leave me a new message.

A chuckle or two

This gave me a chuckle. You probably remember that every so often the article gets an edit changing "cause of death" to self strangulation. That must come from this photo by Herb Ritts. I have a post card of it as part of my refrigerator montage. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle! Have a good one. BMK (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it.

Love the painting, by the way - is he one of the Utrecht Caravaggisti, perchance? Not a painter with whom I'm familiar. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, you earned my support through your history. You're consistently an editor who, when I see you name on an edit to an article on my watchlist, I don;t even need to check it, I trust that it will be appropriate -- and that's what being an admin is all about - trust.

As for the painting, I'm afraid I know little about it. Another editor had it on their talk page and I filched it. Best of luck, and I hope you find being an admin rewarding. BMK (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The water

Honestly, the water around here is so tainted of late that every single hour the drama boards and talk pages explode with more craziness and turmoil than my delicate nature can take. I feel like taking every single drama board and talk page off of my watch list. I think this would be what it was like when one first joined Wikipedia -- blissfully ignorant of the wikidrama. Back then, finding an appropriate reference or learning about MOS punctuation demands sufficed. Life was simple. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This week has been one of the zaniest (yes that is too gentle of a word for it) that I have seen in many moons. There are certainly a number of people who have "lost the plot" OTOH reading your username S and the section header that you chose as one sentence did make me smile a bit. I think I gave this to my Mom on Mother's Day many years ago. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Marnette, I hope you are well. My username actually refers to the color -- my favorite color. Hey by the way I recently stole the orchids someone sent to you on your Talk page and replaced my old and rather tiresome userpage image with them! I actually like bluish lavender -- what Americans refer to as the color lavender, more than the pinkish lavender that Europeans refer to by the same word. However I do love orchids (especially now living in Hawaii), and those are gorgeous! In terms of the essential oil, I love love that too. However in Hawaii I cannot for the life of me find any that isn't rancid -- smelling like vinegar rather than the bright ammonia-like smell lavender oil should smell like; it seems that sitting on a hot tarmac in two locations -- Honolulu and whatever other-island airport -- under the tropical sun zaps the delicate oil. In terms of my section header, it was a reference to the post(s) that BMK made on Drmies' talk page 2.5 days ago: [1]. :-) Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I want them back!!! HeeHee. Yes they were a lovely gift from CorinneSD. Thanks for all the info about the situation where you live - frustrating as it is I'm sure their are other compensations :-) - and the link to the other thread. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 06:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. BMK (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again. BMK (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Spandex

In case you were interested, the spacing issue I spoke of is not present anymore (probably from just editing it in the first place). Also, in case you were interested, sometimes when two spaces or <!--spacing--> are in that situation, it creates an unnecessary extra space. This is way more prominent on the mobile version. It affect every page and it is not a huge deal. Because of all this, I have discovered a way of removing the space without disrupting anything. I wrote this like it's a big deal but it's not at all. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's purpose is to create an extra blank line to help separate the navboxes from the External links section. BMK (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I implied, it's only a problem for the mobile version. Also implied was don't worry about it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You 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/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Inflatable castle

What part of WP:MOS is causing you the problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The part that doesn't recognize that only people with accounts can set the size of the thumbnails, meaning that the vast majority of our readers do not see images at a size appropriate for their content. We're here for the benefit of our readers, not for that of our editors. 22:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Then take it up at WP:MOSIMAGES#Size and WP:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. Otherwise it's quite clear: we deprecate hard-coded pixel sizes in favour of the abstract thumb. Maybe it is limiting for non-registered users, but it's also a big advantage to users with other screen sizes. Policy-wise you really don't have a leg on that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly do. I have a way to improve the encyclopedia for the reader, so I am ignoring that rule and improving the encyclopedia. And that's not a guideline or a policy, that's a pillar. BMK (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Then take it up with MOS. Until then, we have a clear statement on how to handle image sizing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A misguided statement harmful to our readers. BMK (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Then take it up with MOS. It's not ideal, I admit, but I'd rather size with thumb for registered users than hard-code inflexibly for everyone, whatever their screen size. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "take it up with MOS". I'm an editor, I'm here to improve an encyclopedia, I'm not here for endless discussions about angels and pins that end up with no consensus after months of blather. I'd rather you leave the layout as it is, because it's superior to the one you're enforcing on it. BMK (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've diligently and blindly enforced a rule, and thereby made the encyclopedia just a little bit less useful for the reader. A day to be proud of, I'd say. BMK (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Time table change for Arbitration enforcement case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty motion passed in AE arbitration case

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 42nd Street (Manhattan) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• / Naughty, bawdy, gaudy, sporty / 42nd Street." The film was later adapted into a [[42nd Street (musical}|stage musical by the same name]], which ran on [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] from August 1980 to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

York Avenue / Sutton Place

It needs to be referenced. I could add that Cher lives there; doesn't mean it's true.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, not here. Deletion is not the best course of action. BMK (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fan mail from some flounder?

Funny how you just updated the definition about the civil war & confederate. I just read it an hour ago & now you changed it. WHO DO YOU WORK FOR...LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.14.251 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I really don't know what the heck you're talking about, since the only edit to an article about the Civil War I've made recently simply reverted the date that the British banned slavery in their colonies, which had been changed without explanation. I've done nothing that could be construed as "updat[ing] the definition about the civil war & confederate", so I think you're somewhat confused -- but, then, I'm willing to bet that you spend a fair portion of your time in that condition. BMK (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass Edits / Unprecedented

You mention me seeking approval. Is there an appropriate location to raise this issue? I would be glad to do so - I don't know where to begin. Thanks, Brad S Entirelybs (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A very good question. You could start a Request for Comment (RfC) on the talk page of one of the articles -- see WP:RfC for the procedure to use -- and list it under "Language and linguistics". You could also do it on the talk page of WikiProject Grammar, although I'm not certain how active that project is, or WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors which I believe is much more active. Wherever you do it, it should be publicized so that you get a consensus from a fairly broad cross-section of Wikipedians.

If any of the Talk Page Stalkers have any additional ideas for Brad, please feel free to chime in. The issue is that he made a large number of edits which removed the word "unprecedented" from articles. You can find Brad's thoughts on the use of the word on his talk page. BMK (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just curious

Do you think that this has reached the level of WP:POLEMIC? The venting is wearisome - especially in light of how many time I tried to help this editor - and usually I would consider it "water off a ducks back". But, when you start urging others to trash editors in another venue - well I just don't know so I thought I'd ask. Cheers anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think if the point was pressed we could probably get him sanctioned for it, or at the very least seriously warned, but I really don't think he's worth the energy. I doubt there's a lot of traffic to his talk page other then people who went there for the same reason we did, to try to inform him about policies and guidelines and help adjust his behavior, i.e. people predisposed not to believe he's an innocent put-upon victim. BMK (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just unwatched his talk page. BMK (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is going to improve your weekend immensely. Thanks for the reply. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, wandering in D.C.

On the Lincoln Memorial template thing, I thought it's worth taking to the talk page, just wanted to let you know. Didn't want to do an edit skirmish, but to talk this one out a bit. I'd just finished reading a really good book on the Lincoln Memorial, which is why I wandered to the page, and also love templates. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

Did I do that wrong? The clerks said to list everyone who was involved. Not all on the list are under investigation. Atsme^📞📧 03:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My question had nothing to do with form of what you wrote, it had to do with your allegations. If my re-statement of what you're claiming is incorrect, then you should take pains to correct it, because that was how I read it. You allege a "cabal" - so who is a part of this cabal? Please don't answer here. BMK (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

NAC of discussion on AN

Hello, I've reverted your NAC closure of the discussion regarding User talk:LOGGERHEAD on ANI. The discussion was definitely inside of the purview of administrators on the noticeboard. I've removed the entry responsible for the editor's troubles and will be watching to ensure that any possibly pagemove vandalism from this removal will not recur. Thanks, Nakon 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You have no WP:BEANS concerns? BMK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, this would be covered under other anti-vandalism efforts. Nakon 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 July

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

R. H. Quaytman

Hello BYK - if you have a few minutes, please revisit this article where you made recent edits. Anon made a valid (IMO) argument on its Talk, about a small aspect (a transgender person's choice to not use a prior name), but has used it to justify the removal of much relevant (again IMO) content. The artist RHQ incorporates gender, with much press interaction, as an aspect of her work and persona. The transgender history of her adult son is relevant, as the NY Times concluded as well. Anon abandoned discussion and has unilaterally deleted and reverted. I seek another voice, even if it may disagree with me. Nixie9✉ 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I rather agree with you, but I'm not going to get involved in that particular quagmire at this time. My feeling is that if Isaac Preiss is notable, which he may or may not be, we should have an article on him, but I have little interest in researching and making one. If there were an article on him, then much of what was in the RHQ article would be in that new article, and some of it would fit into the RHQ article, as he would no longer be simply a child, but a notable person in his own right. Still, as I said, I'm just not going to go there, sorry. BMK (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lolita page edits

Dear Ken: There is no reason for this mincing; you can see the road it is headed. My edit summaries make the issue plain: the differences are not minor, they are significant enough to earn an entire section, which is by no means comprehensive. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong .The broad details are the same, just the details are different. Stop edit warring before you get blocked for it. BMK (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with at the Talk page.

Don't be so quick to throw the threat of a block around to an experienced user engaged in a civil interchange with you, very much imploring the situation desist from becoming an edit war here, in their edit summaries, and at the concerned page's Talk page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow BRD and don't edit war. BMK (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I did, and didn't, respectively. As pointed out above, I engaged you here to explain things first and try to avert one, then did likewise at the article's Talk page when that proved fruitless. It is beyond pointless to continue this quibbling. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointless indeed, so why the fuck are you still here, continuing it? BMK (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[further nonsense deleted]

This Is Not A Theatre Company

• If you can drag yourself away from Lolita for a moment, see Talk:This Is Not A Theatre Company--it needs your help! Drmies (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  I've seen it, but the article is a total mess of promotionalism and COI and really requires a complete re-write from scratch. I'm just trying to get up the energy to start. (It's a real organization, though.) BMK (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the COI is clear: the director is the editor, is a drama prof at NYU or so, if I remember correctly. The prose is typical for a new editor who is involved with the matter, but the thing as a whole is not beyond rescue. Whether it would withstand AfD I don't know, but it will be helpful to have more academic editors on board; perhaps they'll catch the bug and write about other things as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• What's really the worst about it are the reviews. Our theatre company articles rarely have more than a few words about particularly significant productions, not multiple reviews for every production they've done. Also, Show Buusiness Weekly almost never publishes a bad review. When I was actively working off- and off-off-Broadway, you could always count on a Show Biz review to give you some good pull quotes. Everyone in the business knew that, but the public didn't. American Theatre is a good RS, but the lack of citation from the NY Time or Variety is a problem - reviews in the Staten Island Advocate (a local paper with a tiny circulation, but a legit source) don't make up for that. I can't recall what kind of rep New York Theatre Review has. BMK (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Horst Wessel

Thanks for improving the article. Please, consider converting the references you added to the article into Harvard links; it's a bad practice not to do if the rest of the article does. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn Heights Association

Dear Beyond My Ken:

I have noticed that you take issue with the recent Brooklyn Rail article detailing the BHA and the local Democratic club's support of the Cadman Plaza Tower urban renewal plan of 1959-60. I cited my source and I am only attempting to explain the facts and climate of the times. I am a strong believer that the BHA is a force of good and preservation. However, in this one particular instance I feel the facts speak for themselves. The plan did not prevail because of an act of God.

If you disagree, please add your facts and cite your source that will present a contrasting opinion. It is not cool to delete my sentence and source because you find it suspect or uncomfortable.

All The Best

Jon Melnick Jon Melnick (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. You have cited the opinion of one writer (expressed in a blog, no less - see WP:SPS), but you have not shown that this is a generally accepted viewpoint, which I don't believe it is. As I said in an edit summary, please find a citation from a more reliable source to support that opinion, and there will be no more objections from me. Until then, the material should stay out of the article, per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. Please read these policy pages. BMK (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Brooklyn Rail is not a blog but rather a monthly newspaper that is published on paper with ink. Also, Ms. Lorna Salzman is a respected author, politician and political activist that has been a fixture in Brooklyn politics since 1958. I will, however, find an additional source to support my statement that you find troublesome. In the meantime, you have not provided a single source that the BHA actively worked with preservationists and actively opposed the Cadman Plaza Towers plan.

Jon Melnick (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)