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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania

You need to explain your edit on the talk page. As far as I can see, it's contrary to the most basic elements of WP:FULLNAME. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bold is generally only used for terns which are redirects to the page. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will search for "John Henry Creach", so no need for a redirect, so no bold. BMK (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth do you get that idea from? Placing the subject's real full name in bold is such a basic element of any biography that I'm astonished that we're even having this discussion. Anyway, further discussion on the article talk page please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) PS: WP:ALTNAME.[reply]

Nah, not worth arguing about. BMK (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to work on expanding some articles that I have found that are underdeveloped and missing information. I was wondering if you would like to collaborate with me on some of these articles. The one that I am currently working on now is Rawhead Rex, I know there is a bunch of information that can be added to the article and citations that need to be added. Please let me know If you're interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack Sorry, I wasn't deliberately ignoring you, your comment just sorta got lost in the shuffle. I generally do my best work on articles the subject of which I am interested in, so what kind of articles were you thinking of? BMK (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rawhead Rex, for instance (the story or the film), is not something that I'm much interested in, nor do I have in my library anything that would be useful. If you're thinking along these lines, I'm probably not much help to you. Older films, maybe so. BMK (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Monster of Piedras Blancas?--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much, sorry. BMK (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've self-reverted- thanks for that. Just "for the record", there are two broad problems- one of them is a non-free content issue, and the other is an "editorial" issue. Non-free content can't be shown outside of the article space, so that means it should only be in certain kinds of categories. As for the editorial issue- there's an open question about how appropriate it is to have images in "article" categories. If you're keen to categorise non-free images, you can get around both issues by creating new "image" categories; Category:Non-free images of Adolf Hitler (which doesn't show images) could be a subcategory of Category:Images of Adolf Hitler (which does show them), or something. Personally, I'm not sure there's much point in categorising our images heavily, but I appreciate that others may find it a useful way to keep track of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting to see that the latter category already exists but, problematically, contains both kinds of image. I'll make a few changes... Josh Milburn (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for the flurry of messages: I've just realised that the simplest way around this (obviously) would be to stop Category:Images of Adolf Hitler from showing the images, as is already done with Category:Images of Joseph Stalin. I've done that. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found our image categorization to be somewhat of a mess, at least compared to Commons - but, of course, that's their stock in trade. If you haven't done so already, I'll put the Odeonsplatz image in that cat.BMK (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the canvassing on Ritchie333's talk page if you think it's inappropriate. Although I still dissent with your gallery addition, we'll leave it at that, and I'm not going to remove the gallery.

Should we agree to disagree? Epic Genius (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. If others chime in on the talk page to agree that the gallery should go, I will, of course, go with the consensus, but canvassing is not appropriate. BMK (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inappropriate canvassing. Let's wait and see if anyone else will comment on the gallery. Epic Genius (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed some of the pics, but I think there's a better selection to be made, I just ran out of time tonight. I also want to do some sorting work on the Commons cat. BMK (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Mulholland 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:

• provide fresh water for California, secession having cut the state off from the [[Colorado River]]). He lacks moral qualms about shutting off hydroelectric power, or destroying dams, to remind

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, {{parabr}} is very nice.[1] I didn't know about it. Useful for neater posting! Bishonen | talk 06:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I made it as a redirect to {{paragraph break}} when someone complained that I was still using <p>, which apparently had been deprecated (hate that word). BMK (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BMK. Appreciate you feedback here [2] but it is based on misunderstanding. Clarification:- I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. 99% mentioned in it is not 99% of time on Wikipedia. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't discuss things with people who troll through my contrib list looking for places to pick a fight, especially when they have already been banned from my talk page. BMK (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, you were beginning to edit war with my bot at Agnes de Mille. It's more productive to either dispute the approved task, which had consensus, or place {{nobots}} on the page. As a general rule, it is difficult to win an edit war with an automated program. ~ Rob^Talk 21:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your bot not have a name with "bot" in it? I thought that was required. BMK (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does. It's BU RoBOT, which contains both "Robot" and BOT in capitals. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, damn my eyes, literally. Why the hell didn't I see that? My bad, sorry. BMK (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the inimitable words of Igor "Too late they already are. I hope that you are well and that you have pleasant autumn BMK. MarnetteD|Talk 18:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly glad that they're not as bad as Marty Feldman's ... yet. Thanks, and the same to you. BMK (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuvart Bezjián, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Osorio and Guillermo Fernandez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed BMK (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Category:African-American_cemeteries Given your contributions and experience on wikipedia, I'd like to pose this question if I may: I am interested in documenting the growing number of rural African-American cemeteries, personally my focus would be Hudson Valley or NY State. Of course many old African-American cemeteries were not marked or not marked well and have been left "undiscovered" for a century. There has been more attention to these recently in Mid-Hudson Valley NY (Mt Zion in Kingston rededicated, "Section E" in Rhinebeck assesesd, Kinderhook and I see others coming into view). Two questions. 1) Notability. These for the most part would not be Nationally Registered historic places, but collectively they add up an unarticulated history of African Americans in rural NYS in the 18th and 19th centuries that has not been documented. 2) If qualifying as notable, should there be a new category that would recognize this distinction, such as "African-American rural cemeteries" or "African-American rural cemeteries in NY State." Thank you.WindingRoad (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are correct that an article which dealt with the subject generally would be more likely to pass notability requirements than a lot of small individual articles about places that haven't (yet) been certified as historically significant. The articles could be organized by state, perhaps, or region ("African-American burial sites in the Hudson Valley", for instance.)

As for a new category, I'm hardly an expert on Wikipedia categorization, which sometimes confounds me, but I would check to see how other cemetery-related articles are categorized, and start a new category based on that, and using the other cat as a model for your creation. The worst that can happen is that someone flags it for discussion, in which case you can defend your creation, or ask how it would be better done.

One other thing, since there's no automatic notability inherent in the sites, because of their not being listed, be sure to cite as many really good reliable sources as you can. I understand that documentation may be scarce, but there must be something out there that can help put the stamp of authority on the article; unfortunately, it may not be online, so you might have to delve into a good research library to find something. BMK (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beyond My Ken. You have new messages at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools.
Message added 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The editor Lugnuts has been banned from my talk page since January 16, 2014 [3], a ban he is well aware of. Nevertheless, since then he has posted here 20 21 times. [4]. Lately, he has taken to posting questions about disputes here, instead of on article talk pages, knowing full well that I will delete his messages from this page unread, and then using my deletion as a reason to revert my edits. [5], [6].

Would some admin who reads this page remind Lugnuts that repeatedly posting to a user's talk page when you have been asked not to can be considered harassment, and can lead to being blocked from editing? Oh, and while you're at it, you might remind him that going through another user's contributions to dog their edits for no good reason except unnecessary MOS-related changes is not really a good idea either.

Lugnuts is, generally speaking, a good productive editor, but he's had a burr up his butt about me ever since I criticized his behavior on AN (specifically, that he denigrated the work of the admin corps until he needed the help of one, when he became cloying and overly solicitous).

Thanks. BMK (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you moved my "Topic Ban Proposal" from ANI to AN - if I am not mistaken, you did that since I am seeking a topic ban. Right? If I also seek a block - I can reframe my appeal and equally request a block and post to ANI? Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN is the place where bans are usually dealt with, unless the ban proposal comes out of an ongoing discussion on AN/I about an incident. The admins and editors who monitor AN can deal with both the topic ban request and the block request. Please don't refile for the block on AN/I, it will just be considered to be forum shopping, especially since when I moved your request I left behind on AN/I a pointer to the AN placement. BMK (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright appreciate the clarification. New to AN/I. Regards Kapil.xerox (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BMK (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "cast iron" - I think cast iron is a phrasal adjective (compound modifier) in the phrase cast iron elements and cast iron construction - i.e., cast iron is the adjective modifying the noun elements and construction. I could be wrong, of course. Neutrality^talk 07:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got me, I'm no grammarian. NYCLPC uses "cast iron" for the material and "cast-iron" in any compound form, as does the AIA Guide to NYC. BMK (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had this discussion years ago with someone else, but I doubt I'll be able to find it. BMK (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd point. This 1987 NYT article seems to be in accord: Baltimore shipped cast iron (noun, no hyphen), but a a cast-iron symbol of the past (phrasal adjective, hyphen). Neutrality^talk 07:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vitaphone Corporation wasn't a film studio either, but that is still on their! Unless you are a founder of Wikipedia, I recommend that you back off!! Jakeleereed (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vitaphone was a studio, and no I will not back off. BMK (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT A founder Wikipedia!!!! STOP YOUR FUCKING BULLYING!!!!!!!! Jakeleereed (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the heck you think being a "founder" has to do with anything, but it's clear that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, which is by a WP:CONSENSUS of the editors involved after civil discussion together. There has been no bullying, so far you have refused to discuss anything. Now, please make your arguments on the article's talk page that Technicolor should be included as a studio, and do not post here again. BMK (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is a lovely thing. That said, your ignorance is not my problem. Stop the reverts of good faith edits and simply ask for some citations. — LlywelynII 23:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn:: I'm afraid you're going to need to find a source that explicitly says that Cooper Institute was an earlier name for Cooper Union. The Encyclopedia of NYC makes no mention of it, and Gotham, which is fairly comprehensive, has overlapping index entries for both names, and indeed mentions both names on the same page without connecting them (p.886). Now, I'm not denying that it is possible, but I've never come across it before, in a fairly long history of dealing with articles about the history of NYC, so I'm going to insist that you find a source that specifically gives the relationship between "Cooper Institute" and "Cooper Union". They may be the same, they may not be, they may be related, but I think we need a definitive source that says so.

Please, in the future, do not call me or any other editor a "twit" in your edit summary, it does not help to create a colleagial atmosphere. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping: @LlywelynII: BMK (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization has provided a perfectly reasonable answer on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, in the future, don't act in the manner of a twit and you won't have people describing you as one. The proper treatment of a non-vandalous edit is a ^{[citation needed]} tag or (heaven forfend) Googling it yourself to see if it's accurate information, not instantaneous reversions. But no problem: the place's universally used 19th-century name is now sourced and mentioned and our pissing contests really don't matter. It's all about improving the articles. (I'm sure you meant well but the talk page on that article attests to the fact that you are much too heavy on the overprotection and need to stop being so unwelcoming or get a new hobby.) — LlywelynII 23:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your last comment, but thought I'd restore it for the reference of anyone looking on, to get the full measure of you. BMK (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Neutrality^talk 00:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. BMK (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well deserved, as a token of appreciation for your long and dedicated service. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I hate to be on Lugnuts's side--he's even grumpier than you--but I'm cool with this too. It makes for much easier editing esp. on mobile devices. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for both the barnstar and your opinion, which has provoked me into re-thinking my stance on that issue. Best, BMK (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I'm not "grumpy", I'm "jolliness-impaired". BMK (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel the same way, usually, though the sight of this little boy jumping around alleviates it some. He says he's "doing something"--that's never a good sign, of course. Take care BMK, Drmies (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Center for Security Policy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's a bad habit fueled by OCD. I will try again (I think you asked me once before) to refrain. If I don't/can't, then I deserve to be written up at ANI. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take you or anyone to AN/I over an issue as trivial as that - just please do your best. BMK (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning indeed. As this diff shows you deleted the occupation line I had added to the infobox for reasons I could not fathom. So I changed the AV from person to actor. It's OK. You have been making so many edits to the Le Gallienne page that at some point something had to go haywire. Youra, Quis separabit? 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea how that happened. Thanks for understanding. BMK (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I was singing "Shout" by Tears for Fears in the shower just now. If it helps any, it was following Sepultura's Chaos A.D. and the Wu-Tang Clan's debut album. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I'm going to have to rethink everything!! Let me get out my scales of justice and see if the one outweighs the others. I'll report back on the RfA, but I'll leave my "support" vote there for the time being. BMK (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we start opposing based on favourite colour, RfA will end up like this... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, considering it sometimes feels like this. BMK (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken...is the problem the lack of "full disclosure" on the user talk pages? I'll gladly add that. However, the hotel content was created with extreme objectivity in mind, is a great objective improvement over what was previously present, and with no attempt to hide a paid status.

What can be done to make you comfortable with the pages? Blueberry Hill (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you are a PR flack, and your writing shows that. I will be comfortable with the articles when you don't edit them. BMK (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all the hotel edits I've made and disclosed, you are the only person that's objected. They could not be more neutral and all of them are strongly based on the original text. I don't even know where the PR part comes from as I have no PR background whatsoever. I respect you as a member of the community and am glad to work with you on your objections but you've not given me one piece of information that I can work with. I would prefer to work with you directly but if you won't work with me, I would welcome an arbitration process. Blueberry Hill (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have reverted a category (double-decked bridge) on this article and I'm not sure why. Can you please explain?. The bridge seems to have two different levels so that makes it a double decked bridge. The bridge also appears on a List of multi-level bridges.

Thanks,--JuanGut (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I've restored your edit. Apologies. BMK (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, problem. Thanks for restoring it. --JuanGut (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how boring a person's life must be, if his idea of fun is deliberately annoying volunteers on a collaborative website. The guy thrives on attention. Don't give him the satisfaction. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm real busy annoying multiple editors right now, so you're gonns hafta be pacific. About whom are you referring? BMK (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be RfA troll Andrew D. Reyk _YO! 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize he was a known troll, or I probably wouldn't have bothered. OK, point taken, thanks. BMK (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK, the Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion in response to a request you filed, please see here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Downtown Hotel, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there is this article that has recently come to my attention called The Bat which is an adaption of a play of the same name. It is missing a lot of information on it and since it is an older film I was wondering if you would like to collaborate with me and help me expand it since it is very underdeveloped . Please let me know what you think.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've contributed to that article in the past. I'll take a look, but I'm inthe middle of a few things. BMK (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

had to delete the IMDb references in it and add dome new things to to but it's still a tub. This is not a big priority so take your time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (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.

Raffles Makkah Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Mosque

Ryan Fitzpatrick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FX

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow sir, Iam trying to create a wiki account but its being blocked..and actually i was blocked by some reasons 1 year ago and since im trying from that time, its showing blocked and sockpuppet of that acoount i creaed at the beginning. Thank You Hopefully---188.48.196.36 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you, I'm neither an admin nor an account creator. I assume this is connected to your church in Nigeria? BMK (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your observation at Gone with the Wind the companies were pretty much interchangeable prior to 1959 so I understand why many articles record MGM as the distributor for films of this era, and in that regard my edit may seem slightly pedantic. However, the distinction obviously is important for MGM films after 1959 when the companies were forced to split so I think we should avoid historical revisionism where we can. I don't have any objections to a note etc, if you want to add clarification. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll add a footnote, thanks. BMK (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK. For your info. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it. BMK (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK. I wanted to let you know about the ANI thread about you that was started here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure. I don't think that you will have gotten the pings since they linked to the Beyond Our Ken article which is on the humorus (the chuckle not the bone) side. Enjoy your weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - holiday weekend here in the states. BMK (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"American Engoish"? Of course, I make typos in my edit summaries far too often, but some of them are funnier than others.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

made me smile — Ched :  ?  02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting pointers to AfD threads on the talk page of WikiProject NYC when the articles in question are not related to New York City. Such pointers could be construed as WP:Canvassing. BMK (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live is filmed live in New York City and I thought people involved in the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles about New York City would be interested. I remember watching Saturday Night Live (season 27) and how it addressed the September 11 attacks and the appearance of the Mayor of New York City on that program and I realized how integral Saturday Night Live was to the culture of New York City. But fine, I won't post again to that particular WikiProject. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be useful to have a WikiProject Saturday Night Live at some point, instead, and that could be a central noticeboard for such notices related to Saturday Night Live. Hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That SNL's studios are in NYC would make the SNL article itself relevant to WP;NYC, it does not make every single article related to SNL relevant to WP:NYC. BMK (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're saying, that makes more sense, thanks for the extra explanation. Yes, per Saturday Night Live (season 27), I do think SNL is integral to the culture of New York City and appropriate for the NYC project. But you may be right, upon reflection, that individual episode articles would be better for a WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Packers fan like you said on WP:AN. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bully for you. I like ice cream. BMK (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You were just being snarky, I realize, but THIS. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right!! Very good - I do remember hearing about that, but had forgotten it. So it actually is possible that the poster on AN is a part-owner of the Packers. Thanks for that reminder, I always appreciate being shown when I'm wrong. (No snark there, I really do like to get my facts straight whenever I can.) BMK (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2015 (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.

Always Leave Them Laughing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jack Rose

Girl Missing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carl Erickson

The Florentine Dagger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tom Reed

The Night Cry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Klein

The Sea Beast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jack Wagner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BMK (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. No offense though, I am going to check the RSAs just to be sure. South Nashua (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the link to the original IBan discussion at WP:EDR, and have posted it at the top of the AN thread. Good questions, and my apologies for taking so long to find it. The original discussion was here. — Ched :  ?  15:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm about to head off to work, but I'll take a look later today. BMK (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't say stuff like that for shits and giggles, though you've been here too long and made too many enemies--we all do--to have an easy run. BTW, I don't know that "the process is broken", and I'm not sure that so many applicants are unjustly raked over the coals. One should be raked over the coals (the big surprise is I never was, though I'm sure I'd have a hundred people opposing me in a minute, including some whom--ironically--I have helped in one way or another) if one runs for admin. But I usually trust your judgment, though in this particular case (the iBan thing) you are utterly wrong. I also think Ent should run for admin, but I know Ent would never get it: too long here, too many enemies--and not enough article edits. Many are rightfully rejected for lack of article editing, but Ent seems to have a sensitivity, or sympathy, for editors (not for admins) that I think makes up for that. John Carter, you're a weird one--I haven't quite figured you out. I still don't agree with that lower-gravity thing: it's an unfair advantage brought in by the directors, and I think you should pave your own way, with our 9.8 ms2, or whatever. Oh, my, it's dinnertime. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Square street chess scene is pretty large and visible on the southwest corner of the square... I am trying not to be biased as I am one of those players, but there are lot of sources on this subject. I plan to expand into a new article if necessary (hence why I am redlinking street chess). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (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. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No, there isn't. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were reverting me. I just posted it. I edit pretty slowly sometimes. Sorry, I had to do this step first. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confused at how this process works as of 2015, but I needed to post this notice before I could post the 3RR report? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to post the 3RR report first, Yanping Nora Soong. You see how the notice above says "there is currently a discussion involving you", etc? My italics. So the discussion needs to exist there when you post here. What probably confused you is that the 3rr noticeboard asks you to post a warning to the user before you take them to the noticeboard. This kind of warning. And then, when you post at the noticeboard, you include a link to the warning. You never warned BMK, which isn't a big deal since he's an experienced user who knows all about 3RR, but with a new user it's absolutely necessary to warn them first. They don't know our rules, and your 3rr report will be declined if you haven't warned them. Sorry to bloat up your page, BMK. If you have further questions, YNS, please take them to my page. Bishonen | talk 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest you stop edit warring, or you will be blocked. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the WP:BLP policy: removsl of BLP violations is immune from edit warring sanctions. BMK (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to interpret that carefully. If there's a dispute over whether it is a violation or not, it is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. You can't just claim BLP when the text you are reverting is clearly cited. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to interpret it, thank you. Please stop retaliating against mr for other disputes. Such behavior can be considered to be disruptive. BMK (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, could you check indentation/chronological position of [7]; and/or perhaps expand "your" so that it's easier to follow and continue the conversation. —Sladen (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my error, fixed. BMK (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked your account for 72 hours for edit-warring. You performed way more than three reverts in an hour, and the reverts do not qualify as an exception to WP:3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my edits on Anna Politkovskaya, these were removals of a BLP violation, as explained here. If this is the case, I request that you ask for a review of the block on AN/I, as issues of the enforcement of BLP policy are involved. BMK (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Can never get the ping right. BMK (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not an unambiguous BLP violation. You may request an unblock of course, this is why I added the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the EWN report, in which at least one admin said that it was? BMK (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: BMK (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for me obvious means obvious. It does not mean one admin thinks that... . I disagree that it was obvious, I checked that you are aware of the existance of WP:3RR, and that you were told other users doubt it was an obvious violation. Then I blocked you (taking one day longer than the last time). This is my job. As I said, you are welcome to look for the second opinion by posting an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are not going to honor my request for a review of the block by the wider community on the basis of policy enforcement? BMK (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: BMK (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: BMK (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what do you mean by this. If you mean posting on AN or ANI, no, I am not going to do this. If you mean another administrator reviewing your unblock request, well, I already suggested that you post a request two times, and I am going to do it for the third time. Note that this is completely different from the discussion about whether the piece you were reverting should stay in the article. That discussion should go via dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, I meant exactly what I said, but never mind, you clearly aren't interested in having your actions reviewed by the community to see if they are in line with the norms of BLP enforcement. Don't worry, I won't ping you again. BMK (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• BMK, I would have been in perfect agreement with you had this occurred in a previous version of the article. In its current state, the BLP violating-quality of the edit is less convincing. I am perfectly willing to unblock you if you tell me you won't revert that again if it gets reinstated, but that you take it up on one of the boards. OK? I'm not staying up much longer--let me know. Ymblanter, I accept in good faith that BMK is convinced he's right and sees it as his sworn duty to protect the BLP, even if it concerns someone like Putin. If he won't go back to it he is no disruption. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Too late. They posted a message assuming bad faith. I never deal with anybody demonstrating bad faith towards me. There are policies, let them follow the policies. If they did not post it, I would unblock. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Beyond My Ken (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Necessarily, much of this is going to be a repeat of the discussions here and here, but I will pare it down a little. Here's the situation: Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006. Many other birthdays and world events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that a number of editors want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist. What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually present any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday. Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers. Such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article is a BLP violation, and is subject to immediate removal. The last time this came up, admin Swarm said about it

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article.

My edits were removals of a clear BLP violation, "thinly-veiled innuendo" which shouldn't be in any Wikipedia arricle, let alone be connected to a living person. As BLP removals they are exceptions to the 3RR rule, per WP:3RRNO #7. Ymblanter's block was not in line with the norms of BLP enforcement and, if they became widespread, would completely neuter the BLP policy, discouraging editors from removing violations for fear of being blocked. His contention that my block is separate from the validity of the material in question misses the point of BLP entirely, and his suggestion that dispute resolution be used is not supported in any way by that policy. In point of fact, his block is wrong in every respect. What is at issue here is whether I had a reasonable belief that the material was a BLP violation, and therefore could act on that belief. As seen by the comment by Swarm, that belief was absolutely reasonable, and the local consensus on the talk page -- by editors antagonistic to Vladimir Putin -- cannot override that. A glance at my block log will show that I have been previously blocked for edit warring 5 times. Each and every time I was blocked for edit warring, I did not protest, I did not ask for an unblock, I admitted it was a "fair cop" (as they say in the UK) and served out my time without problem. This time is different. Anyone who looks at the edit history of Anna Politkovskaya‎‎ and doesn't see that I was operating from the clear belief that I was removing a BLP violation isn't looking very hard. As I said in another discussion, you don't have to love me, but at least concede that I am not an idiot. For these reasons, I request an unblcok. BMK (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblock request granted; see also BMK's response to my note below. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. First of all, BMK, the "previous version" I referred to predated the one you and others edit-warred on, the one that was reported on, by a week. I just reread the EWN report and Swarm was pretty clear, and more convinced than I was--I gladly concede the point to Swarm. Second, Ymblanter, I don't see any bad faith; I just see BMK strongly disagreeing with you. Policy (letter and spirit) dictate that blocks be preventative, not punitive; if BMK leaves it be, at least for now, there is no reason to continue to block. And then this can be sorted out on the BLP noticeboard or some other forum. But BMK, I do want to hear from you that you won't return to it, at least not for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I will take my own advice (see above) and "let things go", take the article off my watchlist, and never return to it. It won't be my concern anymore. BMK (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies: BMK (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't want it to not be your concern anymore, and I would like you to take the matter up again at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for the unblock, I appreciate it. I have taken the article off my watchlist, and will post to BLPN. BMK (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagreeing with me is no problem. Assumng that I am not interested in my actions being reviewed by a wider community is in my opinion highly problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, BMK likes playing hardball; he beats me at that game. More important right now than our sensibilities is that we get the article situation right. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. In my experience, BLPN is inefficient. If there is no response there as I expect, I would go to WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You may well be right. In my experience BLP is pretty effective, but the matters I dealt with there were either less complicated or more clear-cut, or both. Anything but ArbCom, haha. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would like to ask BMK not to take the article off of his watch list. That's just letting the trolls and POV-mongers win. Now that this has happened, there will ideally be more eyes on the article, and I don't think you will need to revert more than a couple of times in a row. Plus I suggest that the blatant tag-teamers who were adding the material be sanctioned or templated/warned. BMK, you're doing a good job with this stuff, and we (if I may speak for WP) want you to keep at it, not abandon it. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I appreciate it, but "once bitten, twice shy."

As I mentioned in my unblock request, I have been blocked before for edit warring, and I freely admit to getting carried away in the heat of the moment sometimes, but I've always, in the past, served out my block time with no fuss. I consider it intellectually dishonest to ask for an unblock when you've actually done the deed. This time was different. This time I was clearly within policy, and I got hammered for it nonetheless for reasons that, in my opinion, go completely against both the intent of the BLP exception and the norms of BLP enforcement, and which, if promulgated by other admins, would have the result of effectively doing away with it, removing protection for the good Wikipedia citizens who attempt to keep scurrilous material out of the encyclopedia.

Given that, and the clear example of an admin willing to ignore the purpose and intent of the BLP policy, I have no plans to pursue the removal of BLP violations in the future, and would advise other editors that if they act to protect articles and enforce the policy, they do so at their own risk. BMK (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Duck Soup Groucho and generals.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, sort of. For some reason, although the image is clearly displayed in the article Duck Soup, the file information page doesn't show it as being used there, so the bot is probably going to continue to mark it as orphaned. BMK (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stay up too late, and often don't get enough sleep; if I'm not working, I sometimes don't get up until the late afternoon. Occasionally, I pick my nose, and I sometimes go a day or two without taking a shower, if I don't have anything particular to do. I cook dinner five days a week, but I don't particularly enjoy doing it, but I also don't like doing the dishes, which I have to do if I don't cook. I once had several hundred dollars in outstanding parking tickets, and my car -- my wife's car, actually -- got towed and I had to pay the tickets before I could get the car out of the pound. Like almost all New Yorkers, I jaywalk whenever possible. I'm not particularly good with money, and don't really care much about it. I think I'm smarter than a lot of people. I sometimes drink more than I should. I had several affairs when I was married to my first wife, and my girlfriend, who became my second wife, was pregnant when we got married. I'm sarcastic at times, probably more than I should be. I don't particularly care if my apartment isn't decorated to within an inch of its life. I should lose 20 pounds, and would like to, but do absolutely nothing to bring that about. I used to ride my bicycle regularly, but since moving to a new neighborhood with a lot of hills almost 2 years ago, I hardly ride at all. I own more LPs and CDs than I could possibly listen to in the remaining years of my life. I don't like reality TV. I watch Adult Swim. I don't particularly care for social events, although I'm told that I'm OK at them. A lot of people annoy me. I generally wear the same clothes -- black shirt, black pants, black socks, black shoes -- every day, except in the summer when I wear a black shirt, cargo shorts and sandals.

Obviously, I am a bad, bad -- maybe even evil -- person.

But the proof of that, the cherry on top, the one thing that shows how utterly bad and unworthy I am, the thing that really should get me kicked off of Wikipedia forever, is that I've been blocked for edit warring six times in a little under five years. That's an absolutely incredible average of one block for every 304 days of editing.

We should all of us, every Wikipedian, do our very best to remove from our midst this scourge of person-kind, this epitome of lack of collegiality, this salty sovereign of Wiki-sin. It's a wonder that Wikipedia has been able to survive his 10 long years of editing the project, his 170K+ manual edits (all suspect, of course, as every edit of such a reprobate must be) and the hundred or so articles he created (which, for safety's sake, should probably all be considered for deletion). We, the sturdy, upright, upstanding citizens of Wikipedia, who have never been blocked or banned or sanctioned in any way, must hold firmly to this purpose, for the fate of the project clearly rides in the balance. BMK (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Dedicated to Alan Sohn, one of my greatest admirers, whose house was built by Libbey-Owens-Ford, [8] but who still enjoys pitching pebbles -- [9],[10],[11] -- whenever he gets the opportunity.) BMK (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]