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

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

BMK,

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

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

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

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

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

added links pointing to White collar and Agnes Meyer

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

added links pointing to White collar and Agnes Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously pointless? Legacypac ( talk) 17:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{ unblock}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shhhhhh! E Eng 02:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I can't believe we don't have an article on this - I must just be looking in the wrong place. The context to this is a Genesis concert filmed there in 1981, where the New York Times said "the group's rare club appearance Saturday at the Savoy had the aura of a major rock event". ^[1] So, where's the article? I don't believe a major gig would have taken place at a venue we don't cover. I seem to recall you've done a lot of NY articles, so maybe you'll know (or know somebody else who does)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not interested in discussing the article with you here, that's what the article talk page is for. You know, maybe with a little more experience I'd be comfortable doing that, but not now. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Please see my comments there. I was hoping we could resolve this on the talk page, but you violated WP:3RR. -  Paul ^{T +}/ _C 17:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You wrote "That might be a valid argument for 'off-brand' publishers, but no one's going to evaluate the reliability of the Yale University Press or Random House by consulting our articles on those publishers, nor should they have to."

I take your point and certainly you and I are completely familiar with such publishers. But I write with the interests of English language readers worldwide, which includes young readers in South Africa, India, Jamaica, Japan and China. And so on. I concede that only a tiny percentage of readers will click those links, but anyone who does will learn a little bit about a major publishing house, which I consider a good thing. Not a big deal, but I am posting my thoughts here, since the issue is a distraction from the main point at ANI. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, I concede you have a point there. As I said a bit up in the discussion, linking them was my first impulse, but then I looked around and no one else was doing it, so I stopped. I guess it's really not that big a deal, and I was mostly annoyed at the context in which it was occured. Let me try to separate out the two things in my mind and have a think on it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You continuing to champion a pest who stalks my edits is pretty goddamn annoying, and so I thought I'd come here and ask you to stop it. If you look at the section i created, it was to cut down on the rancor, editpwarrign and nonsense that Legacypac thrives on. And you give him a stage right in the middle of it. What the heck is wrong with you, man? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jack you continue to make baseless stalking accusations. In light of the advice you received here User_talk:Legacypac#Please_remember_AGF from User:Premeditated Chaos you really need to stop these posts. Legacypac ( talk) 18:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Get lost, creep. There is no other way you would know I posted here unless you are following my edits. Ergo, you're being a creepy stalker. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jack Sebastian: Your evaluation of my comments is, I think, biased by your position in the discussion. I have said nothing there that's surprising or unusual, and the point of it was simply to stop you from trying to prevent an editor from commenting on an AN/I report. I know nothing about your history with Legacypac, and, frankly, don't care, as it's irrelevant to the question of whether he should be allowed to participate. You seem to want to simply shut him down, but I suggest you stop making a big deal about it -- both here and there -- and allow things to proceed as they will. If your complaint has merit, I'm sure it will be upheld, regardless of what Legacypac has to say.

As for my participation -- again, if you simply dropped the matter, I would have nothing to comment about, as the underlying issue is of no interest to me. However, I will not stop commenting simply because it annoys you, if I have something pertinent to say. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Consider that Legacypac knew enough to follow my edits here. And to AN/I. And to every other article I work on. Aren't we supposed to discourage wiki-stalking? I am not asking you stop commenting; I am asking you to consider the larger issue here: that creepy guy keeps stalking my articles because he's got hurt feelings. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Have you considered the possibility that BMK's talkpage was on Legacypac's watchlist? Did you? It may (or may not) surprise you to know that I currently have 8,607 pages on my watchlist, including this one. Responding to an edit that I see on watchlist wouldn't make me a "creepy guy" right? And they're not "your" articles. Remember? The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, but out of those 8,607 pages, do you go out of your way to post commentary slamming someone who you didn't like? I think that's unlikely. I hve a fairly large watchlist as well. There are people who are also on some of the pages who I'd prefer to throw down a well, so I don't interact with them. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun; why purposely turn it into a battleground? Legacypac has plenty of reason to be upset at me; he got himself punked at AN/I when he made up a litany of complaints about how I'm the Debbil Hisself (or whatever). That he has specifically shown up at pages where I am at and starts bitching about me, essentially seeking to poison the well. Surely you can see that, right? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I post whatever I like wherever I fancy, there are no rules in my mind. Wikipedia is not supposed to be fun, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia which we're all building for the greater good. I would just ignore (like I do, every single day) and move on to improving Wikipedia. I would also close your ANI thread as it's not really being helpful any longer. Deal with content and such issues at the article talk page, like the rest of us. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia is not supposed to be fun" - wow, that's just sad, man. Building for the greater good, finding a collaborative middle ground is fun as fuck to me, almost as much as learning something new every time I am here. That you derive no pleasure from that is a pretty grim way to go through editing.

And I agree that the AN/I isn't necessary any more; the concealment of entry deletion during the formatting has been brought to light, and the table will have to be reset and repopulated the right way. That's best for the encyclopedia, since that sort of sinister nonsense shouldn't be allowed to happen. As at least three of the table creators were not inclined to even respond to requests to re-add the missing entries, AN/I was my only avenue. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You misinterpret me. I didn't say I didn't enjoy it. I said it wasn't "supposed to be fun". Your over-interpretation is both unnecessary and wrong. I think my near-13 years here would testify to the fact that I enjoy it, I just don't expect to enjoy it. It's a knowledge-building exercise. Close your ANI thread, stop trampling around accusing people of bad faith, and perhaps you'll enjoy it more. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments; I don't know you, and was operating off what you stated here. As for withdrawing the AN/I complaint, it was offered in good faith about people who seem to have acted in bad faith - the number of deletions suggested that removing entries while re-formatting was indeed sone more than a half-dozen times. As far as I know, no one offered any explanation for the deletions, or edit summaries to back them up. At best, that's sloppy. At worst, it was intended to dispense with the extra work that might come from having to argue for their removal. So, the complaint has some validity. The only people who keep the complaint running are those who somehow think I'm the bad guy for expecting them to fix their mistake.

Look, I am trying to get the article fixed, despite getting attacked by people who arent interested in doing actual work, but have spent bandwidth on painting me as the bad guy. Ask yourself how many of them actually contributed to the article. Go ahead and check; I'll wait. Then weigh how much work I've put into it.

I came here to prevail upon Ken to see the larger picture of a wiki-stalker. He doesn't seem to care, so I'm not going to use up any more of his talk space. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If you have evidence of Legacypac violating WP:HARASSMENT, then present it at AN/I in a new report. If not, stop WP:Casting aspersions. That's the bottom line. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Unsurprisingly ANi and BMK's talk are both on my 26,000 page watchlist. Again User:Jack Sebastian has accused me of stalking him - with zero proof. [4] That is a serious allegation. This is straight up harrassment and slander. Legacypac ( talk) 05:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I am unconvinced by your arguments, as were others when you offered them at AN/I before.

So, slander, eh? Are you suggesting that you wish to pursue legal action? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Both of you need to drop it now.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jack, there are 477 editors watching this talk page. BMK, I guess that's a tribute of some sort! Happy editing@ Jacona ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

They all love me for my money. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

For having more watchers on your page than mine, you will need to pay a daily fee of $10 until this condition is no longer true. Please wire a daily payment of $10, or reduce your number to less than 464. ;p— CYBERPOWER ( Around) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, if I've done the math right, paying 14 people ummmmm... $5 each to unwatch my page would cost the same as a week of paying you your fee. OK, step on up folks, who wants 5 bucks to get me off of your watchlist and out of your life? Seems like a goo deal to me. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Energizing chewy goodness for you to keep hope alive. Kethertomalkuth ( talk) 00:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Kethertomalkuth: Hey, just noticed that I never thanked you for this, so... Thanks! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I have no comment about this user, other than that their revert of whitespace removal from the top of an article made no sense at all. TheDragonFire ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, that's hardly relevant here, but I'll repeat the explanation I gave before: when one goes to edit the article, and the top of the text of the lede comes directly after the last line of the "pre-article" stuff (Engvar and date format notices, coordinates, infobox, images, etc.), it's frequently difficult to see where the "stuff" ends and the lede begins, so a blank line helps to make the change easier to see in order to edit. The single blank line is not rendered on the page, so having it makes absolutely no difference to what the reader sees. Thus, the advantage to the editor comes at absolutely no cost to the reader, so it's not really "whitespace" at all, since no one ever sees it on the rendered page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I was simply responding to Paul's ping to clarify that I have minimal involvement with you. I understand your explanation with regard to your whitespace changes, but I have to disagree. I made this edit exactly because there was a rendered gap at the top of the page (compare this and this). Please be assured that I have better things to do than argue over un-rendered whitespace. :P TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, it appears in the case of the top of Untermensch case you are correct. I suspect the difference is because there's no infobox or images. I'll revert. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop WP:HOUNDing my edits. You have never edited World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks and there is nothing controversial about moving it to the proper name of the case In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation — I have also now stopped editing two articles to end this dispute but you are now stalking to me an article you have never even edited and reverting what should be a completely non-controversial move. Stop. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 03:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply

My god, you are... Let me make this as plain and clear as I can, so you will be able to follow it. The Holocaust Industry is on my watchlist. You made edits to that article, which I did not agree with and reverted. You then started a discussion on the talk page, During that discussion you mentioned In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, and what bad condition it was in, so I went over there to take a look. When I did, I noticed that the title of the article did not match the bolded information in the first line of the lede, so I looked at the history to see if the article had been moved (the usual reason for such a mismatch), and saw that you had moved it from World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks unilaterally, without discussion or consensus. Since I thought the new title was not as good as the old one, I reverted the move, and posted a comment on the talk page noting that a discussion was necessary for disputed moves -- but you just sent it back to where you had sent it before, still without discussion or consensus, a violation of the rules about moving articles.

So, you see, I am not "hounding" your edits. There is a significant amount of overlap in the subjects we appear to be interested in, so you're just going to have to get used to your editing being looked at by myself -- and other editors -- to see if they are appropriate. That is something you should have expected after your virulent derogation of Yad Vashem as a reliable source on Talk:Holocaust denial#Use of primary sources in this article, and now your attempt to remove any criticism of the book The Holocaust Industry from the article about it. Frankly, your POV seems to be leaking our around the edges of your edits.

Now, as a final matter, please don't post on my talk page again. I find you exceedingly tiresome and a waste of my precious time. Anything further you post here will be deleted. If you post here again after this request, any further posts after that will be rolled back, unread.

I hope that's clear. Do not respond. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alt-right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply

•  Done Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I see that you have put merge templates on Nazism and race and Racial policy of Nazi Germany. Do you plan to start a merge discussion?

I clicked on the discuss link but it merely led to the talk page, which did not seem to have a merge discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I've started one. You must have gotten there before I did so. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Fuck off. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Your move of Catherine Wheel to Catherine Wheel (band) without leaving a redirect (summarized as "Not primary target") has left almost 100 redlinks in article space. Can you please either revert that move (almost every link to that title seems to be looking for the band) or clean up the title's WhatLinksHere? - dcljr ( talk) 09:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Since you have apparently not worked to fix Special:WhatLinksHere/Catherine Wheel in the past week, I have undone your page move (by moving the page back, leaving a redirect at the "Catherine Wheel (band)" title). Like I said, almost every existing link (in article space) to "Catherine Wheel" intends the band to be the target, so the "primary target" is (de facto, if not de jure) the band. Feel free to change that by fixing WhatLinksHere if you want to move the page again. - dcljr ( talk) 08:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

If you had bothered to read this page, you would have seen that I was busy in real life and didn;t have the time to deal with your problem. Since a band that's been defunct since 2000 is still not the primary target for the phrase "Catherine Wheel", I have moved it back to Catherine Wheel (band), but this time with a re-direct. When I have sufficient time, I will fix the links to it to eliminate the need for the redirect, but for now it can stand. Please do not move it back. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Has nothing to do with "reading" anything. You left a bunch of redlinks in article space. (Hence, your problem.) Just try not to do that in the future. As far as I'm concerned, leaving the links going through the redirect is fine. If other folks want to retarget them all, that's fine, too. - dcljr ( talk) 06:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, thanks, your advice is invaluable. You ever think about ptiching in and doing some of the fixes yourself? No, I'm sure you didn't, easier to bitch to the editor who fixed a problem. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It wouldn't make much sense for me to fix almost 100 redlinks when I didn't agree that your change was necessary in the first place. Editors should take responsbility for any problems their own edits cause and should not rely on other users to clean up their messes (unless, of course, they want to ask for help with that). Face it: you screwed up. Don't try to pretend I did something wrong. - dcljr ( talk) 21:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

(1) I am not asking you to do anything. (2) Since @ Black Kite:, an experienced long-time editor and admin with, as far as I know, no kink about the band, agrees that the band is not the primary target, I'd say your opinion is noted, but does not represent consensus, and the changing of the redirects will continue. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

(1) "You ever think about ptiching in and doing some of the fixes yourself?" certainly sounds to me like you're implying I should have done something. (2) This comment is completely irrelevant; I already said if other users wanted to "fix" the redirects, that was fine by me. - dcljr ( talk) 19:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that the band isn't the primary target, but now we have Catherine Wheel redirecting to Catherine Wheel (band), and Catherine wheel (disambiguation) redirecting to Catherine wheel. I think that the dab needs to be at Catherine wheel (which it is) and Catherine Wheel needs to redirect there as well ("r from capitalisation").— Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, but I don't feel quite up to fixing all the existing links to the band, since I don't use any of semi-automated tools and would have to do it manually. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm off to bed now, but I'll have a look at fixing it automatically when I get a moment. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Black Kite: I've done a dozen or so, but there's still maybe 150 to do. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

About 50 done now, perhaps 125 to go. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Nice one - I haven't had a chance to look at it yet - will try to do so tonight. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

 Done Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Upon visiting this dab page, I noticed the two entries under header "Film" — Naughty But Nice (1927 film) and Naughty But Nice (1939 film) — both with uppercase "B".

However, the main title headers of those articles depict one uppercase "B" — Naughty But Nice (1927 film) and one lowercase "b" — Naughty but Nice (1939 film). In view of your 2014 comments on this subject both at Talk:Naughty But Nice (1927 film) and at Talk:Naughty but Nice (1939 film), I would like to consult with you regarding remedying this inconsistency since all the other dab page entries depict a lowercase "b" in "but".

Do you still hold the same feeling regarding this topic as you did in 2014 and would you have any objections to the 1927 film's "But" being moved to "but"?     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'll be very busy in RL for the next 4 days, with only intermittent editing, but if you can wait, I'll be glad to discuss this with you. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course — the matter can certainly be put aside until a convenient time.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Roman Spinner: Thanks for waiting. Yes, I do still agree with the position I took in 2014, and the evidence I presented then is still valid, so I would indeed object to the 1927 film's title being changed to a small "b". Although that would be consistent with the Wikipedia MOS, it is not the title of the film as listed by those reliable and authoritative sources I provided. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. In reading the discussion at Talk:Naughty but Nice (1939 film)#Requested move, my attention was drawn to the line, "One last note, if the consensus is to move this title, than I think we should also look at moving the title of the 1927 film of the same name (although no relation). Onel5969 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)". Since, in the intervening four years, no one nominated Naughty But Nice (1927 film) for a requested move, I will not do so either. One final consultation — should the Naughty but Nice dab page listing for Naughty But Nice (1939 film) be revised to reflect the article's post-July 2014 main title header or would you prefer that it remain as is, with "But" rather than "but"?     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I think that the dab page should show the verbatim name of the article, which means the small "b". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'll be traveling for three weeks so you're going to have to do most of the heavy lifting on keeping track of our favorite non-Harvard alumnus surreal Japanese politician. E Eng 03:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Have a safe trip, EEng. We will miss your sense of humor and the oddball but apt images that you scatter about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm going to Japan, not a hospice. E Eng 03:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Japan's a big country -- where in Japan? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hong Kong, Tokyo, Nagano, Kyoto. E Eng 03:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I once saw Mount Fujiyama out the window of an airplane while flying home from Hong Kong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Of all things, the best apple I've ever eaten was from a 7-11 in Tokyo. They weren't in a big pile like an American supermarket but individually wrapped in fancy little doily-type coverings. Japan's different from here, apparently. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The Japanese are really into containers and packaging. Kōbako is an article that I saved at AfD by expanding and referenced it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ EEng: Will do - have a good trip! Fortunately my RL crunch is just starting to taper off. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

P.S. Never been to Japan. Had two different shows that were supposed to go there, both cancelled. Closest I've been are Seoul and Singapore. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I edited 'The Bank Dick' because although it looks fine in a web browser the multi-column section on the cast does not work in the mobile app, at least in the one I have on Android 7.1.

If you could re-edit it so that it works for all interfaces, what seems now to be called Accessibility, that would be an improvement to my edit. Your revert broke my 'fix'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoringHusband ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not our responsibility to format our pages for all interfaces, it is the responsibility of the people who program the interfaces to interpret our normal, legitimate code in such a way that it displays correctly on their systems - so complain to Google, not to me. And, no, it's not an "Accessibility" concern, since that refers to programs used by the blind or vision-impaired. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm dropping this note here since replies like this are not appropriate there. You wrote:

'the cauldron of the "Middle East" in which the countries all around Israel have taken up a strong opposition to its existence.'

Untrue. See the Arab Peace Initiative where 22 Arab member states have pressed three times for a treaty with Israel, for the normalization of relations between them and that state. This has been steadfastly rejected by Israel fore 15 years. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 08:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for confirming your POV here, as did Zero0000 and Mhhosein on the AE discussion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I would be more careful, if I were you. Pinging the user you're accusing: @ Zero0000:. -- Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

If you were me, you wouldn't be a POV editor. Stay off of my page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So what's the story with the inclusion of these "fake header" messages? We've been employing this convention for a long time on a great number of pages. Has there been some change or is there a template of which I am unaware? Thanks for any info you can provide. -- Obenritter ( talk) 22:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What is it you want to know? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

...for your support. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I cite five references including Senate Resolution No. 614 in my edit. Which one do you think is biased? If so, please point it out and present evidence. Sleepy Beauty ( talk) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You've got it backwards. When material is disputed, it is your responsibility to gather a consensus for the restoration of the material: see WP:ONUS. Therefore you have to show the reliability of your sources. This discussion will not continue here, please take it to the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sleepy B, what he is referring to is how WP:BRD is suppose to work. Kierzek ( talk) 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you both for you reminder of the Wikipedia policies. I really appreciate that. Sleepy Beauty ( talk) 01:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello Beyond_My_Ken, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. – Lionel^{( talk)} 06:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Get a consensus. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I see the only way to deal with your disruption is to make a report at a noticeboard.– Lionel^{( talk)} 06:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Go ahead, be my guest -- only don;t post on this page ever again. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

If you look at my edit history, I do a metric butt-ton of research, adding references right and left: [5] [6] [7] [8] (this one I had to go to the French article to copy the sources, except they turned out to be dead links, and I was able to find the original primary sources, in French no less) [9] [10] [11] [12] and so on and so on. I think I've earned the right to ask other people to do their part. — howcheng { chat} 07:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's fine, but when the source is in the text, and you tag it instead of just copying the source into a ref (which, in fact, I was working on when you posted yours), and then want other people to do that for you instead of you doing it yourself, that is unreasonable. Tag-bombing is unreasonable. Tagging obvious facts of history that are not in serious dispute is unreasonable. Read WP:V again -- it doesn't require that all facts be supported by citations, it requires them to be verifiable, and when you cite something that is of the nature of "the sky is blue" you are causing unnecessary work for other editors. You should only be tagging those things which you sincerely believe are wrong, or which you are in serious doubt about. If you think or know that a fact is correct, don't tag it with "CN". That's not what WP:V calls for, and it's not helpful to the encyclopedia or the community.

In other words, your balance is way off, and you need to re-center yourself on what you're doing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Howcheng: Please listen carefully, because I'm going to nip this in the bud right now. You just followed me to Nazi book burnings, an article you've never edited before, and which I had just finished doing some work on. This is closing in on the textbook definition of WP:Harassment. If you follow me to any other articles, I will be bringing this to an admin for their evaluation. I hope that's abundantly clear to you, I will not tolerate your harrassing me. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I am NOT asking for citations for "the sky is blue" types of facts. It may be "obvious" to you, but as someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, it's not so obvious, and that's why I want the citation there. Perhaps in Peter Stuyvesant, if you had linked to Three Forms of Unity and Thirty-Nine Articles (two terms that I had never heard of before reading this article), then I might not have added a tag. There is no basis for me to "think or know a fact is correct" (again, beyond general knowledge) unless there's an inline citation to a reliable source. Do you know how many uncited "facts" I've discovered to be completely wrong? Going back to Stuyvesant, the sentence I tagged with {{ contradict-inline}} (which BTW is suitable for use when facts in one article contradict those in another article, otherwise it wouldn't have article and section parameters) which you then removed is one of those, according to the Johannes de Decker article. Believe me, I would love to copy the ref from somewhere else in the same article, but when there are so many of them, how am I supposed to know where to look? Or when the sources are offline?

As for Nazi book burnings, I didn't "follow" you there. I have absolutely no idea what articles you watch, nor do I even care to know. I was at that article because I was considering it for inclusion at WP:Selected anniversaries/May 10. Because of my involvement with OTD I touch a wide variety of articles, so as our paths have crossed before, they certainly will again in the future. Alert WP:AN/I if you must. In fact, I encourage you to so that you may be reminded by other people about WP:AGF. Every edit I make in article space is intended for the improvement of the encyclopedia. — howcheng { chat} 08:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, but that explanation is completely unbelievable. My edits to Nazi book burnings were at 3:14 and 3:16, and yours was at 3:23, your very next edit after you posted here at 3:15. If you looked at my contribution list right after you posted here, the Nazi book burnings edit at 3:14 would have been at the very top of the list.

WP:AGF is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I repeat - do not follow me again. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Whether you choose to believe it or not, my sequence of events was:

1. During my article evaluations for OTD for May 10, go through the articles in the Events section of May 10
2. Touched several other articles that are all related to that date: J. Edgar Hoover, Astor Place Riot, Siamese revolution of 1688, Rock Around the Clock, Felix Manalo
3. In the process of doing that, I added a refimprove tag to Nazi book burnings
4. Noticed later that you moved the tag to the bottom of the page, but decided I didn't feel like getting into an argument about it, especially since we also tussled about {{ fake heading}}
5. Decided late last night that since we were already in discussion, to enforce the MOS and went back to the article

I never once looked at your contribution list so I had no idea you were also editing the article at the same time. The timing happened to be coincidental. Contrary to what you might think, I have no malice towards you. True, you frustrate me to no end because you'd rather argue than just add the damn citations. Seriously, it takes me a long time to do research on topics that I'm not familiar with, and if you already know where in the article text the citation is for the content that I've tagged, you could have saved us a whole lot of time and bad feelings by just doing it instead of reverting me. Seriously, I was trying to go to bed but instead got sucked into this. The article is not harmed by the additional citation(s), so why are you so against having them? Or maybe use a better edit summary: "citation for this sentence is at the end of the next paragraph" or whatever. Something that points me in the right direction so I can actually resolve the problem that I see.

Look, I went through your thoughts and for the most part, you and I are actually on the same page (LOL at the Giano and Malleus Fatuorum observations). Like you, I am trying to the best editing I can do in the limited time I have available. When I feel like I can add missing citations to an article, I do it (I've been getting a lot of experience doing genealogies, for example), but if the task is "beyond my ken" (sorry, couldn't resist) or if I get stuck down a rabbit hole trying to chase sources or if I just don't have the time, I'm going to give up, but I can't just ignore the fact the article is in bad shape, so it gets tagged. You may be right that readers "would be totally disinterested in going any farther and looking at the article", but you might also be wrong and maybe people understand that to mean "take this article with a grain of salt". Regardless, responsible editors should dislike seeing that tag on the article that they've presumably spent a lot of time and effort on and do the needful (as my Indian colleagues say) to fix the problem that's been identified. To repeat, if I could fix it myself, I would, but at the same time, I can't be expected to do everything myself. We are all ostensibly on the same team here, right? So please, when someone in good faith leaves a tag on article, just work on resolving the issue instead of arguing about the process. Because otherwise, you just come off as someone who is uninterested in improving the quality of articles, when I know that's not true. — howcheng { chat} 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up, looks like you broke 1RR on Alt-right.

1. 23:16, May 9, 2018
2. 11:46, May 10, 2018‎

Just be careful. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Aargh! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hehe happens to the best of us. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Continuing discussion on that edit, I was just looking to see if there was a paragraph I could drop as "don't need to know right now, as long as it's covered later", and that seemed to me to fit the bill. I'm definitely willing to consider it might have been too drastic, but since "get it down to 4 paras" had been raised somewhere or other, that seemed like the cleanest way to do it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Four grafs is just a guideline, and it shouldn't come at the expense of necessary information. I'll look it over again tonight after work, but my feeling is that possibly the first half of the paragraph could go, and the second half -- with the list of beliefs -- might be integrated elsewhere. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I randomly ran across you being unnecessarily threatening (a while back) to another editor, over something as trivial as dashes. That seemed out of character. But more to the point, what you said here is incorrect, in being overbroad and misunderstanding the nature of what the early disputes were about.

We are definitely supposed to normalize to EITHER spaced en dash OR unspaced em dash in the same article. (For this use of dashes, that is; there are uses of en dashes for which em dashes are never substituted, as in constructions like "Dunning–Kruger effect").

What's discouraged per MOS:RETAIN, etc., is taking an article that uses spaced en dashes consistently and converting it to use unspaced em dashes, or vice versa, just to assert a preference. What's encouraged is fixing inconsistent usage in the same article (on any MoS matters).

It's also perfectly fine to convert unnecessary HTML character entity codes to Unicode dash characters, though that kind of edit is trivial enough that people may complain if you make it without also doing something more substantive like at least fixing a grammar error or a typo, because it triggered their watchlist over something that doesn't make any visual difference in the article, something that isn't really broken.

But the edit you reverted rather hostilely was perfectly legitimate; the HTML→Unicode cleanup trivia was also accompanied by a dash consistency edit that's encouraged not discouraged. Please reserve your dash complaints for people going around converting all spaced en dashes to unspaced em dashes or vice versa for no reason.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack:_Beyond_My_Ken Since he can't be assed to do it himself... -- Tarage ( talk) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I think I'll stay out of it until someone asks me to respond. In this case the harassment doesn't take the form of following me to articles he's never edited before, it's comes in taking up a knee-jerk antagonistic attitude toward me and my edits. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• BMK, I have some similar ammo of my own and will join you if/when you're ready. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  I was going to get some popcorn, and then realized I was fresh out from all the previous Dramah TV ANI episodes lately. :p— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 17:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

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/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say thank you for your participation in important discussions and for keeping Wikipedia the solid source of factual information that it is. Your efforts are important and greatly appreciated. Cypherquest ( talk) 19:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi BMK. Regarding this edit, what I intended to do was rephrase the awkward wording consists of a teardrop-shaped roadway which provides five exits from Interstate 78 which sort traffic down a number of city streets. I didn't change any ref names, intentionally or otherwise, but the Visual Editor did put them in quotation marks. epicgenius ( talk) 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Then, that's changing ref names. Quotations are no tnecessary unless there is a space in the ref name. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that they aren't necessary, and it really doesn't matter that much to me. The grammar changes you also reverted were what I was more worried about. I'm just giving you a heads up that putting quotations is what Visual Editor does. epicgenius ( talk) 22:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not able to post on WP:ANI (it is currently protected), but have made some comments on the talk page for the International Art Museum of America article. To be brief, the disputed content is blatant Wikipedia:Coatrack articles material in my opinion, and disputes about its sourcing are therefore irrelevant. I think that pointing this out might prove more productive than further discussion of sourcing for material which clearly doesn't belong there in the first place regardless of sources. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:403A:2FB7:2915:8DBB ( talk) 06:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC) reply

??? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/842485126

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/842500762

This opens up for gaming the system. In a thread or procedure that is not about me, such as the current one, FCAYS, or any of his friends, can just starting mentioning me and suddenly the iBan means nothing. That's ridiculous.

That's how he violated the iBan.

I'm on my phone, so can't do much. This must be stopped. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

If I recall correctly this IBAN (which is way too highly structured and subjective) says that the thread must be directly about BR. So for example at my recent weekend visit to AE, I thought there was a violation where BR was mentioned, even though there was no essential reason for him to be mentioned at all. In my opinion the only way IBAN or TBAN restrictions are workable is when they are very broad, bright-line rules. In this case, I thought it was the wrong remedy from the start, because the problem was not specific to BR. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, sorry BullRangifer, but the description of the IBan that NeilN gave on AE didn't seem to fit the circumstance. As I said, I had assumed it was a normal one-way IBan, which is why I reported the violation, but that appears not to be the case. I agree with you that the way it's structured gives Factchecker too much leeway for gaming, and also with SPECIFICO that a normal IBan would be preferable. I'll say as much on the thread there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Right now, he's going way off-topic to attack me with spurious accusations. That's a huge violation. He's relitigatiing the kind of behavior that has gotten him in trouble before, but now he's trying to drag me down with him. It's impossible for me to debunk so many falsehoods, so the fact he can use multiple quotes (out of context) makes it look like he has a case. Sigh. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

My essay was started nearly a month before FCAYS came to the dossier article, and before I had any interactions with him. It was inspired by my interactions with two other editors who used very extreme sources. I only moved it at the time he claims I created it, so it obviously wad not about him. I have the diffs at home. He is demonstrating a huge amount of bad faith. It's a whole conspiracy theory, claiming that I am to blame for his lack of self-control. He blames the victim for his constant attacks and harassment. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe

Holy shit!! Now I feel sick. At the end of this diatribe, he tries to invent some weird attack on himself by me, just because I'm a medical professional who is studying the anatomy of where my possible colon cancer is located! I had just gotten a colonoscopy and I have a 1x3 cm mass in my cecum. Now I have to get surgery to remove it and get a better biopsy result. I'm scared. Jesus fucking Christ. FCAYS is pure evil. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 00:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry to hear that. Timely book on RE: Facts and Fears of a different kind. [13] SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carey Wilson (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

•  Done Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Just want your advice here. So... per this users removal of " Pitchfork awarded the song the distinction of "Best New Track"." from This is America (Childish Gambino song) ( edit summary:"a Pitchfork contributor is not notable."), I used Twinkle to add a warning to this user's talk page. As you can see the user's response was 100% inappropriate and not WP:CIVIL. Is this a case for ANI, or how can this be solved? R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I don't think it rises to the level of an ANI issue. Their response to you was certainly inappropriate, but you might have left them a personal message instead of a templated one -- sometimes that goes down easier. Also, what I do sometimes (not all the time) is to check the article's history to see if the editor has contributed a lot to it, and might feel a stewardship stake in it, as seems to be that case with this editor. If I see that, I try to make my message as "soft" as possible to avoid stirring up any resentment. But that's hindsight, what you did was prettybe reasonable, and they really shouldn't have told you to "fuck off". I would wait to see if anything develops. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Beyond My Ken:, looks like the user is 100% unapologetic and has no intention to change their behavior. They commented again and then 4 minutes later removed the section to one of their archives before I could even respond. R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's unfortunate, but perhaps understandable. It's certainly not anything that they're going to sanctioned for. I'd advise just to stay away from that editor as best you can. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr. Beyond My Ken, Please actually look over the edits made to Wikipedia entries that you seem to think you are master and commander of. Especially when your benevolence corrupts the Wiki markup and causes the page to malfunction. Perhaps you should curb your vigilantism before you assume that anyone that makes corrections to WWII articles is some crypto-fascist thug or sympathizer etc., and allow the system to work as intended.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and what I can only assume must be good intentions. I'm not in that big a rush to get to Hell.

All the best, Anonymous Coward that undid your undo of certain improvements using IP address 31.184.197.6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.184.197.6 ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for your best wishes. It's so refreshing to be called a "reactionary" after spending all of my adult life being labelled as a "goddamn pinko liberal" or a "Commie faggot junkie".

Perhaps you might consider that this is English Wikipedia, and links on-site are preferable to links off-site to other language Wikipedias. We also use the English terms for things in preference to non-English terms, per WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Not taking a position on anything, but for my own benefit, will you help me get this straight in my head? So, an editor can be filed against at AE (which for some reason I thought was sorta the 2nd highest court) and also be filed against at AN/I while AE is in session, despite there having been a 1st AN/I case that directed the problem to AE? Is that not like WP:forumshopping? I'm not understanding the reason for having 2 cases going on at the same time (not to mention the fact he's blocked but with TP access). The problem is behavior, and the purpose of both noticeboards (or any admin action) is to stop disruption, correct? Is there concern that the AE case won't hand down an acceptable resolution to stop the disruptive behavior and AN/I will? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 00:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC) reply

At one point, investigations into whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign were being carried out by the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Special Counsel. Or, think of those instances such as O. J. Simpson where civil trials followed after criminal trials for precisely the same set of facts. Or think of situations where Federal charges and state charges are filed simultaneously for the same behavior, but as violations of different laws. Or, how about, let's say, a landlord indicted for rent gouging who also gets a speeding ticket and one for jaywalking.

In this instance, Fackchecker's general behavior lies behind both complaints, but the specific issues are violations of different policies. The AE complaint concerns violating discretionary sanctions on American politics, which include enhanced civility requirements, while Guy Macon's complaint on ANI is of a run-of-the-mill violation of WP:HARASSMENT. If Fackchecker were to edit war once they came off their block, that could be brought to WP:EWN, and of they were to begin harassing another editor, that could be brought to ANI. If they violate the IBan regarding BullRangifer, they can be blocked again for that -- and all of this even if the AE complaint is still open. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Ahhhh...I see. Thank you. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 05:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Alex Shih ( talk) 01:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, you may be able to provide insight on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Stylistic question about capitalization of "independent" in an infobox. It's clear that "independent" should not be capitalized in a sentence (except if it's the first word), as is the usage in Independent politician, because it is a common noun and not a proper noun, like Republican. Should it be capitalized in an infobox or when it's abreviated in parentheses, i.e. Bernie Sanders (i) vs Bernie Sanders (I)? I look forward to your thoughts at the talk page, above. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fort Tryon Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tweet ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

 Done by another editor. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You said "If a polity blocks a site". No political entity has blocked the site. The owner of the site themselves decided to make the website inaccessible to European users.

The site owners fear they'll be liable for a fine under the GDPR (which went into force last month). Several American websites have done this: "On the effective date, some international websites began to block EU users entirely (including Instapaper, Unroll.me, and Tronc-owned newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times)" ( General Data Protection Regulation#Impact). I expect there'll be a lot of European users complaining about sources being unavailable until American businesses stop acting like children figure out the legal situation (which they've had two years to prepare for). -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Reliable sources are not required to be available to everyone at any particular time, hence we allow rare books, available only in academic or research libraries, which many people do not have access to, to be used as sources, and websites that require subscriptions, as well as foreign language sources which the majority of editors cannot read (although English sources are preferred). Sources do not have to be online, and they do not have to be available to every editor. This is because the purpose of sourcing is to verify the information, and as long as someone can verify that the source supports the information, that information is acceptable to use in an article.

That websites have voluntarily cut themselves off from Europe is unfortunate, but is a foreseeable consequence in the changes made by the European Union -- thus it is actually the polity which caused the problem, and not the website, which is merely reacting to protect itself. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ChiveFungi: Please see previous edit. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Please follow the sequence of edits on Turning Point USA. Your argument for reverting the latest edit seems to be a missunderstanding. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Just to draw your attention to the manual of style in respect of possessives: the correct format for singular possessive is always " 's ", including words that end in s. Kind regards. MapReader ( talk) 06:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Just to draw your attention to the fact that the Manual of Style is a guideline and is not mandatory. See the top of this mage. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Whilst not mandatory in the sense that content added to articles has to reflect in in every regard, edits that align an article to the MoS are improvements to the encyclopaedia, reflecting existing consensus on the most appropriate style. Therefore they shouldn't be reverted, and it is hard to believe that something as simple as the correct possessive form is worth an argument. MapReader ( talk) 20:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not interested in having a discussion here about the MoS or your theories about it. Simply stop edit warring to enforce it, and everything will be fine. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the advice but as someone who has suffered admin abuse and an unjust block forever staining my log, I have little sympathy for those who abuse their power in a clearly unwarranted and ignorant ways. It is entirely too difficult to remove a bit from an admin once they've gotten it. I've seen three cases, none of them resulted in removal. Quite frankly, it's the same way I feel about police violence. If I were an admin and I saw another admin acting that way, I would be ripping them a new one because they make my job that much harder. Granted it doesn't have the real life consequences, but it's still important. Did I go too far? Possibly. But I really was laughing out of disbelief after learning that, in addition to the bad block, in addition to editing against consensus, he also violated his very clear topic ban. It's that level of incompetence that plagues the admin corps, and if he doesn't lose his bit, then there's no hope for any of us. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Your revert has now created duplicate material in the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Breitbart News article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC) reply

That could be a form of subtle irony, I suppose. E Eng 23:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, in the continuum of Wikipedia problems, I would think that accidentally causing a duplicate reference ranks somewhere significantly below attempting to skew an article to bring it in line with one's personal political POV. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

You didn't just "create a duplicate reference", the 2nd and 3rd sentences now both speak about Steve Bannon in a way that doesn't make sense. The edit you reverted [14] did not change the political POV of the article, it reinstated duplicate material, which is why I tilted this section, "Slow down when reverting." Maybe you'll take the time to fix it. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Nah, I don't think so. Better to restore it to what it was before you edited it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply

You may only use nonfree images when they are irreplaceable, regardless of rationale. In this case, the article says clearly in text that the book is responsible for the myth. Future restoration of the nonfree image on Rommel myth is disallowed; please ensure never to do that again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

NFCC says no such thing, but since you're armed and I'm not, I'm obviously not going to restore, since you've obliquely threatened to block me. Way to use your bit to get your way, instead of using the proper community discussion process. You've fallen considerably in my estimation. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, you did, and you can see I'm not blocking you. That's never my preferred solution to anything, especially with established editors. That being said, inappropriate nonfree images aren't really negotiable, they're copyvios. There's no need for the book cover in that article, the role of the book can be easily covered by text. That renders it replaceable. Replaceability by text fails #1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The mere fact that you threatened to block me, when you should have followed the instructions at WP:NFC#Handling inappropriate use of non-free content to open a discussion at WP:FFD is a blot on your record. As for the image, there is never any absolute "need" for any image on any article, so that argument is specious on its face. "Need" is an opinion, and on Wikipedia, differences of opinion are settled by discussion at appropriate venues, not by pulling rank or displaying one's armament. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I neither threatened to block you, nor did I do so. And I'll make very clear that when I do tell someone I'll block them, I mean it and I'll do it. If I had meant "I'll block you", I would've said exactly that, and I would've done exactly that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

And by the way, I don't see the purpose of your FFD recommendation. That image would be appropriate for the article about the book. I'm not seeking to delete it, just remove it from a single inappropriate use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The use is not inappropriate, in my opinion, and differences of opinion are settled by discussion, not by fiats such "Future restoration of the nonfree image on Rommel myth is disallowed," which was most definitely an oblique a threat to block -- how elee were you planning on "disallowing" something? Please stop trying to explain away your inexcusable behavior. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, it's not allowed by the nonfree image policy. Specifically number 1, nonfree images may not be used when replaceable, including by text. It's not that I'm disallowing it, it's that policy disallows it. It would be like me saying "Not remaining neutral in articles is disallowed". That's not somehow my personal rule, it's site policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

That's your particular interpretation of NFCC #1, one that is not shared by many -- perhaps most -- Wikipedians who are not hardliners on this subject, and, on Wikipedia, disputes over interpretation of policy are settled by discussion, and not by flashing one's badge and threats. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Erm, not really. We don't even have images of the Harry Potter book covers on J.K. Rowling or the Lord of the Rings covers on J.R.R. Tolkein, and both of those would have far stronger cases for it. But since they're not articles about the books, they don't have images of the covers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The bottom line is that you abused your authority by threatening to block me instead of opening a discussion as is recommended by WP:NFC#Handling inappropriate use of non-free content. It's a single incident, so it's not going to get you desysopped -- nor should it, considering your generally good work as an admin -- but it should make you reconsider your hamfisted approach to NFC issues, which the community has consistently held are subject to consensus interpretation and are not the kind of black letter law you want them to be.

Since we are not going to agree, and you are unwilling to open a formal discussion about the use of the image in the article, I see no point in continuing here, so this conversation is over in this venue, unless you plan on sanctioning me in some way and need to communicate that to me. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Beyond My Ken,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 22:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

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. — Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Does Wiki have a policy about "Further reading" sections? If you look around, you can see that many articles have "Further reading" sections. For example, here, here, and here. Sometimes there is also a "Sources" section with book titles, as for example here. Without putting a book title under a heading of some kind, it gets lost in the article. No one can find it. Would you object to putting Mike Welding's Alt-Right book under the heading "Sources"? Chisme ( talk) 16:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thee is no policy, there is only a guideline, which is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Where can I find the guideline? Also, why do you object to making the heading "Further reading" appear in the "Contents" listing near the top of the Alt-Right article? Someone wanting to know more about a topic should be able to click "Further reading" at the top of the article to see a list of books on the topic, IMHO. Chisme ( talk) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't "neglect" that, it was a deliberate choice, to prevent the TOC from being cluttered up with unnecessary sections. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Neglect? If I told you I don't think the "Contents" section is cluttered, would you mind if I put "Further reading" in? It's just one line in "Contents" after all. I don't want to edit-war about this, but I do want readers to be able to find the book title. It's the first (and probably not the last) book about the Alt-Right. Also, where are the "Further reading" guidelines you mentioned? Chisme ( talk) 17:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

There is a further reading section, it is within the References section, where it belongs. We don't need a heirarchical section for a single book which was not used in the preparation of the article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Further reading" isn't really "section" if you can't get to it from a link in "Contents," IMHO. By "not used in the preparation of the article," you mean that the book isn't referenced in the article, therefore it doesn't deserve listing in a "Further reading" section? I don't understand you. If the book were referenced in the article, you wouldn't object to its appearance in a "Further reading" linked to "Contents"? Again, where are the "Further reading" guidelines? Chisme ( talk) 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

There's no need for the reader to get to the section. Why are you attempting to promote this book? If you have it, and it has relevant material, enhace the article with that material and it will be listed in the notes. Otherwise, given your advocacy, I'm tempted to remove it entirely per WP:WEIGHT. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I've been very respectful to you. Show me the same. Where are the guidelines? I'd like to bring a broader discussion of this to Wikipedia and I need to see what guidelines are already there. Chisme ( talk) 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

You have not been respectful, you've been as demanding as a petulant child. I was about to post the link, but was prevented from doing so by an edit conflict. Given your attitude, find the damn section yourself, and don't post to this page again. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply