...but, I always manage to get into arguments with unreasonable people. Thanks for making me chuckle at the end there (though I'd hoped putting a hat with the clear words "Do not modify" would stop the off-topicking). Ansh666 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that keeping the discussion under the hat was probably enough. Thanks for the note, and I appreciate the compliment. BMK (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and take this up with Administrators, so as to save me the trouble. This should be interesting. Chop chop.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally up to you. BMK (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are very familiar with the drill at this point There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken? The reason for changing some of the graphic "look" of the article was due to the large amount of white spaces that were involved. I can live with the columns and even the reference section but can there be a tightening of the white spaces? BTW, I can do a lot to provide details on the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the film- see the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to see you again! I just finished leaving some comments on the talk page regarding the historical accuracy issue. As for white space - the columnization reduces white space, and I guess I'm not seeing where else you're seeing it in the references. Can you be specific? (If you mean my reduction of the citations from 3 columns to 2, there just aren't enough cites to justify three columns, and in any case, two columns doesn't take up much more space than 3). Let me know. BMK (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The view that I get might be related to the type of monitor I am using as it does give an exaggerated "white area" around the cast section. My using a single column seemed to eliminate this, however, I am not "wedded" to my changes as they were mainly formatting rather than content issues. There was a large body of work that involved criticism of the film and its director's attempt to rewrite history into a black-and-white argument against war-mongering, typical for the times, likely but, nonetheless, an anathema to historians, especially, aviation historians. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That material would seem to be perfectly acceptable to use, and a plus for the article, as long as it's cited. BMK (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in this film, and incidentally, the subject matter, is from knowing Denny May. Denny is "Wop" May's son, the neophyte pilot who was in Von Richthofen's sights, that fateful last flight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of the film as a film? I thought it was weak, poorly directed, and badly acted, overall. BMK (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film has literally disappeared from broadcast television repeats, save for a TCM showing recently and as a historical record, has been blotted from the collective memory. None of the sources I reviewed except for those which deal with Roger Corman's career, even reference the film, either as an aviation or war film of note. Personally, I found the film jarring to watch as I noticed the errors throughout and spent more time nitpicking and tut-tutting than appreciating the story. I found the leads were cartoonish and over-blown representations of "the knights" of the air, something that Corman may have wanted to convey, as he was making, in essence, an anti-war film within a war film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to videotape the film when it was shown on TCM, but my videotape didn't have enough room to tape more than a scene. Were you able to make a reasonable copy off air? Email me as I would like to get a copy for my files- now over 2,000 aviation films (and counting) as I am pondering the prospect of writing a book about the topic of aviation on the silver screen. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I recorded it on my DVR and erased it after watching. Did you know that you can stream TCM films online? Perhaps you can connect that to a VCR?

If you do the book, drop me a note, I'd love to read it. Also, most of my collection is on VHS, so if you're missing anything, let me know and I'll see if I have it. BMK (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have transferred nearly all my video (Beta and VHS, yes, Beta!) onto DVDs. I have two of James Farmer's books on aviation films and lately picked up Mark Carlson's Flying on Film which combined, do an extensive look at hundreds of films. With TCM, I have been able to catch some of the more obscure titles such as Winning Your Wings with Lt James Stewart narrating. The one film I keep missing is the Rosalind Russell-Fred MacMurray biopic, Flight for Freedom which was loosely based on Amelia Earhart. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disney Theatrical Productions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Hall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your recent support. Thank you so much. It certainly is correct to 'keep the faith.'  :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please do heed the advice I just left on your talk page. BMK (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I would like to recognize you for your support of me regarding recent issues about which you are familiar. You stated to the editor what I wanted to, but didn't. I appreciate your support. Thanks for making me laugh! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all of your efforts and support of me on Wikipedia and in WikiCommons, I really appreciate it! Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Once it is a new "subject", wasn't it supposed to be a new paragrpah? Thank you Johnnyboytoy (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be clearer? BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're referring to, but, in fact, that section was very poorly organized and jumped around from one thought to another too much. I've reorganized it. BMK (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a {{reflist}} or {{reflist-talk}} template} (doesn't matter which) to the end of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment by Beyond My Ken? You used a ref tag in it, and the reference is currently appearing at the bottom of the page, in an unrelated case. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that came over when I copied wikitext from elsewhere. It really wasn't pertinent to the discussion, so I removed the ref. BMK (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kameradschaft

added links pointing to Saar and Lorraine

Fools for Scandal

added a link pointing to Marie Wilson

Operation Crossbow (film)

added a link pointing to Richard Johnson

Runaway greenhouse effect

added a link pointing to National Geographic

When You're in Love (film)

added a link pointing to Alfred Newman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, not sure why you moved the coordinates of the St. Regis Shanghai Hotel to the top of the article - I have put it back where it should be according to the style guide. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit with a comment that the style guide is "behind the times". Please can you point me to the where that discussion took place and the associated consensus for the change? Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle to be followed is that things should appear in the WikiCode roughly where they will appear on the page when rendered. To have the coords at the bottom, when they primarily appear at the very top of the page makes no sense at all. BMK (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... sounds sensible. I'm going to seek some technical input on this, maybe the style guide should be updated. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. BMK (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll take a look at today's edits a little later on, though I'm sure they'll be fine. BMK (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to become a Wikipedia administrator and if you know how to become one than I want you to help me to become a Wikipedia administrator and also that my first edit to cab Calloway was a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyRedBow (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, an editor who wants to be an admin has to follow all the rules and policies of Wikipedia. For instance, did you know that it is against the rules to create a new ID to edit with after your previous ID has been blocked from editing? That's called "evading a block with a sockpuppet." Doing it once is understandable, but an editor who did it time after time after time has very little chance of ever becoming an admin. They'd have to admit to what they had done, and apologize for it, and promise never to do it again.

By the way, have you gotten a new mobile device recently? BMK (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Carriearchdale_abusing_her_talk_page_while_blocked.. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I think you're dead wrong in allowing an editor to deliberate mislead people who read her userpage into thinking she's been active here longer than she has been. BMK (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently 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/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beyond My Ken,

I wanted to get back to you. I am relatively new to editing and wasn't aware that I was not following the necessary protocols. I was not trying to vandalize any articles, but I was trying to make them match the data in other Wikipedia articles. For example, according to the Wikipedia page titled "List of tallest buildings in Atlanta," the GLG Grand is listed as the eleventh-tallest building in Atlanta because the buildings 1180 Peachtree and 3344 Peachtree are taller. So according to this article, it is not the ninth, as it says in the article that I edited named "GLG Grand." Here is the link of the Wikipedia page, "List of tallest buildings in Atlanta" where I got this information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Atlanta

All the other edits that I made today used data that I found from other Wikipedia pages as well as Google. I thought that if I was using this type of information to make the edits that it would be valid. Am I supposed to present this information to someone before making the edits and if so, who do I contact and how do I contact them?

Sincerely

Gominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gominator (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move your response to your talk page so that the conversation is in one place. BMK (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for having the patience to help out new editors like Gominator. Chillum 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Perhaps the first time in my Wikicareer that my name and "patience" have been linked together without an intervening "lack of". Best, BMK (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, show me the MOS for this layout. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, MOS is a guideline, not a policy. BMK (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on a consensus. Show me the consensus please. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS may be based on the consensus of the handful of editors who give a shit about MOS, but IAR is policy.

Please note, this page is a "No Asshole Zone". Since your talk page shows quite clearly that you are one, and my experience with you from way back (and my observation of your comments on the noticeboards) confirms that, you are directed not to post here again, unless Wikipedia policy requires you to do so. Any future comments from you will be deleted without being read. BMK (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at WT:NRHP on whether the Hammond House should be disambiguated as being in Hawthorne, as we currently are since the NPS data base gives that as its location (which consensus seems to agree isn't very accurate) or whether we should use Valhalla or Eastview instead. Some participants have expressed interest in hearing from someone with local knowledge, and I think you might be able to contribute something. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It Happened Tomorrow

added links pointing to Jack Smith and Robert Dudley

Footlight Parade

added a link pointing to Matt Doyle

Gus Wickie

added a link pointing to Oscar Hammerstein

Stamboul Quest

added a link pointing to Jack Conway

Trouble in Paradise (film)

added a link pointing to Charlie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

noted. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Beyond My Ken,

I just made a change to the article of Wikipedia "GLG Grand" using the advice you gave me. This time, however, I not only changed the information on that article, but I also included a reference. Can you tell me if I made the edit and posted the reference correctly?

Thank you,

User:Gominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gominator (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have tweaked the reference a bit, which you might want to take a look at, but essentially what you did was right. BMK (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blowup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsai Chin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me to make changes to the Mountain WIkipedia page. I am Leslie West's wife and would like to verify and contribute to this page as there are a lot of missing discs and need to update current menbers.

posh_jenn@yaho.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.61.221 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stroker and Hoop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Christie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beyond My Ken,

There are a number of unregistered users who repeatedly vandalize the article on Ali Javan. I was just wondering whether it is possible to protect the page against such edits (ethnic war)?

These users from time to time add a Latin spelling of his name. This is completely irrelevant given the fact that Javan is Iranian (his surname means "young" in Persian), and the Iranian-Azeri language uses the Perso-Arabic script, not Latin.

Thank you so much for your attention. Grinevitski (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think this IP`s who "repeatedly vandalize this article" are Grinevitski sock puppets. Please help to stop this user`s vandalism.

Sincery yours Predator2014 — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was away when this came in, but, in any case, I could not have done anything as I am not an admin and cannot protect pages. If the request is legitimate, Grinevitski should make a request for protection at WP:RFPP. BMK (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I copied your rather excellent and well reasoned thoughts about "hit and run editors" in User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts into a separate essay? I seem to come across them a lot (particular tell tale signs are the words "AWB" or "script" plus a number in the edit summary) and feel like directing them to something a little more concrete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, be my guest. Send me the address when you're done, please. BMK (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've parked it in User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors, but it needs further work as at the moment it's a bit of a mish-mash of thoughts. I don't want to mention specific people or incidents as it will doubtless come back to bite me if I do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Empire State Building may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. 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:

• including the [[Statue of Atlas]] at [[Rockefeller Center]] and [[Grand Central Terminal]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Metropolis (1927 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"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:

• "[[Express Yourself (Madonna song)|Express Yourself]]" pays homage to the film and Fritz Lang.{{cn|date=August 2014))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BMK. I'm going to replace the comma in the lead of Astor Place Riot. Per the Manual of Style guideline for commas found at WP:COMMA:

Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and also after the year (unless followed by other punctuation). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic.

Incorrect:	He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.
Correct:	He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.

I hope this helps. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't help, because the commas is completely unneeded and totally superfluous, and you examples are, in fact, incorrect. Please do not restore it. BMK (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The examples provided are what has been agreed upon via consensus by the Wikipedia community and what has been adopted as an element of style as dictated by the site's Manual of style. It's certainly possible that some outside MOSes do not follow this guideline but then again, the users of this site have, by consensus, elected to abide by the style format they designed. This style can be seen in many quality articles including (hopefully) all featured articles, such as 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens ("An earthquake at 8:32:17 a.m. PDT (UTC−7) on Sunday, May 18, 1980, caused the entire weakened north face to slide away"), 1689 Boston revolt ("The 1689 Boston revolt was a popular uprising on April 18, 1689, against the rule of Sir Edmund Andros"), and today's featured article, Indian Head eagle ("Following the sculptor's death on August 3, 1907, Roosevelt insisted that the new eagle be finished and struck that month"). If you'd like to argue that the comma is truly unnecessary at a venue where you may actually be able to affect the style guidelines, try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I hope this makes things a little clearer. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, friend, you can toss that condescending attitude right into the crapper and flush it, if you please. That ignorant people agreed on something doesn't make it grammatically correct. The comma is neither necessary nor required, full stop. BMK (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to rub you the wrong way; that certainly wasn't my intention. My grammatical pedantry does know some bounds so I won't re-insert the comma again, though I can't guarantee that someone else won't. Sorry for the unnecessary trouble. Kindly, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 17:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skr and myself are aiming to get it up to GA. Can you not revert for the time being?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you'd be so kind as to tell me when you're done so I can take a look. BMK (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be an ongoing thing over the next few days. I've tidied up some of the sourcing and bullet points today. Some of it is too bloated in the lower sections and could use a cut and rewrite. Perhaps @Tim1965: would also be interested in working on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the entire "In popular culture" section as "all trivial", as that is certainly not the case. As I'm sure you are aware, there is no consensus on Wikipedia for the wholsesale removal of these sections. If you have problems with specific items, they should be discussed on the article's talk page, just as with any other piece of information in the encyclopedia which is disputed. Going for a GA is laudable, but it isn't a free pass, and if the GA standards require no popcult sections, then they need to be changed to bring them into line with general encyclopedia-wide consensus regarding popular culture coverage. Please follow BRD and do not revert my restoration, thanks. BMK (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"LGV" isn't an edit summary that makes any sense to me or probably anyone else. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard abbreviation, widely used throughout Wikipedia: "Last Good Version". BMK (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it before and it's not discussed in an essay or guideline. Also, we use inline citations in articles. Per BRD, you can now discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have brought "LGV" to your attention, as I've seen it frequently, and have used it considerably without ever having had it questioned before. BMK (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catharism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. 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:

• of [[Roger-Bernard II, Count of Foix]], [[Aimery III of Narbonne]] and [[Bernard Délicieux]] (a Franciscan friar later prosecuted for his adherence to another heretical movement, that of the [[
• *{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Albigen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, would you consider contacting me back-channel? I don't suppose Wikipedia is the place for this request, but I'm out of options: the email address I have for you is years out of date. I'm pretty sure you are who I think you are, and if so then you surely know me. And, man, I miss talking to you! This is Roger in Oregon (soon to be Roger in California). I'm still getting automated emails from the old group, so I trust you have contact info. Thanks, and happy Labor Day!Oregon Writer (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever classified "Baby Doll" as an American black comedy on Wikipedia must have never seen it, out of their mind, or bending over backwards to give credit to blacks where it's not due. Tennessee Williams would kick the arse of anyone who misrepresented his play to such extremes, even using the word "bigoted" in describing one of his characters. Alas, these neomarxist liberal types shouldn't be allowed to define history from their narrow perspective. If anything, "Baby Doll" can be counted as a Southern American White comedy portrayed by a Southern author named aptly Tennessee Williams, although he hailed from Columbus, Ms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.121.156 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A black comedy is not not a comedy about African-Americans. "Black comedy" is a specific genre of comedy. BMK (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for Good Article status. Since you are the principal contributor in terms of number of edits, I thought I'd notify you of this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and I thought I'd stop by and encourage you to explain your edits on the talk page. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explaining nothing. MOS is not GOD, MOS is not policy, MOS cannot be edit warred in support of. My layout is superior to the one you imposed, period. BMK (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here's a real world tip for you. Regardless of WP:OWNERSHIP, never try to bring an article to GA status without the active approval and participation of the primary author, it's just not going to work out well. BMK (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I'm understanding you before I misrepresent your views in another forum: you refuse to discuss your edits on the talk page and your personal preferences trump accessibility? Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not accessibility problem. Using ; for a sub-topic heading causes an accessibility problem, but using ''' does not. BMK (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a different accesibility problem in mind, say so. BMK (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said so on the talk page and you're free to respond there. No use in discussion regarding the article getting lost in user talk archives. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on the talk page explains nothing.

Do not post here again, I'm working, and you are interrupting me with your idiocy. BMK (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's work together on this, okay? I'm not out to get you. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please join the discuss page about Hassan Rouhani's infobox in the page's talk. GTVM92 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alphabet City, Manhattan

added a link pointing to Bongwater

Elizabeth Street (Manhattan)

added a link pointing to Spring Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyond My Ken, please see my response to your edit comment on the [1]Talk page of Tin Pan Alley. best, Mick gold (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there: withdrew my objection to the edit. BMK (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the hatnote at Category:American films, and per the discussion here. Unless I hear otherwise. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're hearing otherwise. Please stop and discuss on the film talk page. BMK (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop using rollback to revert non-vandalism, I'll take you to AN/I and have your rollback rights revoked. This is your only warning. Stop now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm upholding a basic Wikipedia categorization, principle, that parent cats shouldn't be added to articles which already have a child cat. Specifically, articles which already have Category:American Western (genre) films should not have Category:American films added to them. You want to take that to AN/I, be my guest, but you are banned from this talk page for threatening me without justification. BMK (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you thought I was a "sockpuppet" on Dangerous Panda's talkpage, but this is a misunderstanding - I meant it was a different username on Wikia, a separate website. I only have this one account on Wikipedia, and only one on Wikia. So sorry for the confusion! Momsandy (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. Best, BMK (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your revert here. These clearly aren't "notes", they are references. Cluttering up the section with a superfluous title doesn't help the encyclopedia while the style guide clearly indicates that "Notes" - means just that - additional footnotes like those generated by {{Cnote2}} et al.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. "References" are a class of things, of which "Notes" (or "Footnotes" or "Endnotes") is a specific type. BMK (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So if references are a class of things and need further sorting into specific types then it would appear that the {{reflist}} template used in over 3 million articles is redundant and that the Mediawikia framework is flawed in its failure to deal with the "types" you list above.

Two threads down, you claim that MOS can be discounted as a non-mandatory guideline. Notability is also dealt with by a guideline; are you suggesting that too is open to interpretation? Consensus based guidelines work fine on Wikipedia and exist for a reason - they are accepted by the community as best practice and bring a degree of structure to what otherwise would be an anarchic mess of data.

If you disagree with the guidelines, avenues are open to discuss potential changes but implementing your views on how articles should be structured in the face of opposition from other editors isn't helping anyone.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of The Lancet before? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have. Would you mind telling me what article you're referring to? BMK (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Pantyhose. My revert was an error. My mistake, my apologies. BMK (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry my comments may have been a little off color. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking this revert - isn't it the case that a footnote section should either be called "References" or "Notes", or be two separate sections per WP:CITESHORT? Having a "References" section with "Notes" as an apparent subsection of it, with all footnotes being in that subsection, seems unnecessary. --McGeddon (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just noticed the same thing being raised regarding another article, two talk threads up. Is this in the MOS somewhere? Haven't ever encountered it before. --McGeddon (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the formatting of notes/reference sections, MOS takes no stance on any specific format which is preferred. Some MOS-warriors ignore this and act as if they have backing from MOS to enforce a specific format -- ignoring, of course, that MOS is a guideline in the first place, and not mandatory, as it would be if it were a policy -- but this is not the case. BMK (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just thought it might save some time if you could point me at a clear "here's why we sometimes do it like this" essay. What's the reasoning, then? Why not just call the whole section "Notes" instead of putting three footnotes inside a solitary pseudo-subsection? --McGeddon (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]