Hi Ken, Thanks for your comments. I'm completely new to this business of editing Wikipedia articles so please bear with me. I've revised my addition to the Ely Jacques Kahn article. I believe now that (aside from direct quotes between quotation marks) the information taken from the online article by Frank Heynick is not only nowhere presented verbatim but is conveyed with sufficiently original phrasing. (The source is, of course, attributed.) I look forward to your feedback. If you agree with the above, I will get to work on the Raymond Hood article and the Daily News Building article and revise them similarly. Best, "Vleermuisman" Vleermuisman (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very much better, no copyvios that I could find. I did a little editing on it, added wikilinks, and took out some of what we call original research - which basically means unsourced personal opinion. It seems pretty good now, so I look forward to your re-dos of the other two articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, I believe ti's essential to mention that the fictional Guy Francon was highly classicist in architectural style. (This is blatant in the novel, not a matter of interpretation or opinion.) So I'm adding something in the appropriate place. Also, a typo "based in large measure from" becomes "based in large measure on." Vleermuisman Vleermuisman (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V: It doesn't matter if it's "blatant" or not, you're going to need a source to support it. If it's that obvious (I'm not doubting you), finding a reliable source that says it won't be a problem. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think it's OK as description and not anaylsis. I removed "highly", though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken, I've just revised and publsihed my addition to the Raymond Hood article -- in the same spirit as my revision of my contribution to the Ely Jacques Kahn article. Check it out and let me know if it's OK. I'll soon get to work on that little addition to the article on (Hood's) Daily News Building. Vleermuisman (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I made a few minor copyedits and fixed the ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Hood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McGraw-Hill Building (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) 11:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed before I got there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeyondMyKen, good day. Referring to the Times Square article, I understand that NYC is a world city and all - but it seems the height of arrogance and parochialism not to mention that Times Square is located in the United States even once in the article, wouldn't you agree? Now this is upon quick perusal of the article, and I saw one mention of the American Revolution, but that doesn't really count. The problem here is no inbox info. As a result, someone who's gotten fresh internet access in a smallish town in South America or Africa may not have the clarity they deserve. The nice thing about mentioning "United States" just once, close to the top, is that anybody logging on from even obscure locations around the world can get quickly and comfortably oriented. I can't think of a downside, and it won't make NYC any less of a world city to mention the country once, either. What do you think? Castncoot (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, you've got it backwards, I'm afraid, it's extremely parochial not to know the major world cities, not the other way around. There's no arrogance in this, I'd say the same about London, Paris, Berlin, Mosco, Beijing, Tokyo, Cairo, Rio de Janeiro, and a number of other cities -- that's why their articles aren't disambiguated with the country name, they are sui generis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree wholeheartedly on that point, but obviously educated people can agree to disagree. In this case, it depends upon your philosophy about the purpose of Wikipedia to begin with - I believe it should educate before it assumes. All of the city articles you mention above do include the country name in the text, simply as a basic point of reference, and I believe a progeny article should definitely do the same. Anyway, I'm not making a big deal out of this - you've put more time and energy into this article than I have - but I suggest that you either create an inbox with info or mention the United States somewhere in the lead section.Castncoot (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll think about that -- and that's not blowing you off, I really am going to give some consideration to what the proper balance is between our expectation of what the reader should already know to our obligation to inform and educate. Maybe you're right. Thanks, and best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Castncoot (talk). Any global encyclopedia would and should include the country name in an article like Times Square. I tend to think that one should write the article assuming that both educated adults and children that are trying to get an education read Wikipedia. But my main reason for agreeing with him is simply my desire for articles to be complete and thorough. Assuming anything I think is a bad idea when it comes to articles (especially about peoples knowledge of geography). My humble opinion for what its worth. King of Nothing (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this issue some more while I was dealing with an editor who liked to expand names out to the fullest possible extent, and while I certainly agree in regard to most places in the world, I just can't see it in the major world cities. Fopr those few people who don't know that New York City is in the United States, a click on the link will tell them so, but we shouldn't put ourselves in the position of having to explain the most basic things to people, or else every article on physics ould start with Newton's laws and work its way up to the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a list somewhere on Wikipedia of the cities which don't require any additional disambiguation, but the closest I've been able to come is this, from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United_States:

Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]] unless they are not the primary topic for that name.

New York City is most assuredly one of those cities, which is why the article on it is simply called New York City. Now, I wouldn't expect a majority of people worldwide to know that New York City is located in the state of New York (although I think the expression "New York, New York" would get wide recognition), so if we don't require the article title to further identify that New York City is in New York state in the United States of America, I fail to see why in the Times Square article "New York City" needs to be further identified with "United States". In this instance we follow the AP Stylebook, and allow "New York City" to stand on its own, as one of the world's premiere cities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were actually facile at it, I would create an inbox with the U.S. mentioned in the info, BeyondMyKen - are you up to doing so? Look at the Empire State Building, Central Park, and other New York City landmark articles - I think this would satisfy everybody's viewpoints. By the way, I don't think either user King of Nothing (talk) or myself is saying that New York City must be disambiguated per se (i.e., New York City, United States - although it could be) - just that for completeness' sake, especially when educating fourth-graders in other countries doing book reports, etc., the United States is mentioned somewhere up top. The lead really appears oddly incomplete the way it currently stands, and I think an inbox would be the best solution here. Castncoot (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which infobox do you think would be best to use? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I haven't created one yet. Just a standard one I suppose, with the article name, image (already there), nickname (already there), location (streets, city, country), global coordinates, previous name(s), number of visitors annually, perhaps the subway lines served, and any official historic or landmark designations; in other words, just the basic info.Castncoot (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look, probably tomorrow as I'm pretty much on cruise control at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious why you reverted the valid tags on Dr Watson. I did begin a discussion on the talk page and other editors concur. Span (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a discussion, that's fine. The point is that tags can't be placed by a single editor without being supported by discussion on the talk page. Many editors tag and run. If I missed a previous discussion , I apologize, but I didn't see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received and understood. As always (well, almost always), you are right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, Mr. Bot! Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BMK, why did you stick the word "Notes" in the references section? There's nothing special about the section, just two references. I would have reverted anyone else (well, almost anyone), but you don't like it when I revert you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"References" is a section into which many kinds of things can go: bibliography, sources, further reading, citations, explanatory notes etc. "Notes" is just identification of the type of reference, in precisely the same way the "back of the book" on a non-fiction book identifies the different sections. Putting everything into one section prevents the unnecessary proliferation of hierarchical sections listed on the table of contents - we already have "See also" and "External links", a single "References" section seems like the most we need in addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a preemptive "subsection" with no basis in this article. It's a short article, It has no section headers except References and External links. It has no TOC. You're essentially subsectioning the References section, which has only two refs, when therstr no other subsections. It's just clutter at this point. I'll remove it. If in the future it's justifiable, it can be re-added.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not preemptive at all -- whether there are two of them or a hundred, a footnote is a footnote, and "Notes" identifies then as such. "References" denotes a class of things, and "Notes" a specfic kind of reference. So, I disagree with you; but that's what makes horse racing. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My father used to go to horse races when I was a kid; I always wondered why.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my "sport" either. Baseball, tennis, football, beach volleyball, curling and some others I can watch with interest, but horse racing, NASCAR, golf and soccer have absolutely no appeal for me. I'd rather watch the Weather Channel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyond My Ken (or is it just Ken?)-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either "Ken" or "BMK" is fine. Thanks for the notice. I've gotten pretty busy in RL, so I'm not sure when but I'll try to drop by and take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in helping me in a book series, or a document WikiProject, if any one already knows a project, help me into editing and allowing a project where maybe confirmed users can allow edits of famous lost notes, ballads, and constitutions, to keep them locked, and used for further notes, I know they maybe compact usually on the internet over years, however, for Wikipedia, it's already there on the main page on every major web browser, this site can keep documents such as Magna Carta, Hammurabi, Le Prophecies of Nostradamus, Ozymandias, and condense the verses better then most websites, and keep different chapters, otherwise, I am hoping under WP:Notability and other policies the document articles for creation noticeboard would offer it if possible. Thanks and please comment on my page if you wish--GoShow (...............) 00:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I'm going to have to pass. I've just started a new project in real life which will limit by Wikipedia editing time for the next month or so -- I'll probably have enough time to go through my watchlist, and not much else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here.

You really should be ashamed of yourself

The amount that you skewed the facts about the "Lake Michigan-Huron" debate, and specifically the way you misrepresented my actions in it, is unconscionable, especially considering that I had made it quite clear that I would be no longer involved in the discussion, and therefore was not there to defend myself. An honorable person would have held back from blaming the absent person, and an honest one would have made his case without demeaning himself by blatantly dissembling about his opponent. Whatever your accomplishments have been on Wikipedia in the past, I have no respect for you whatsoever after your outrageous uncollaborative behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, it's kind of sad to see Kwami spiral downward here. I think getting desysoped hit him pretty hard, but I think this editor is example A in why adminship should be for a term instead of indefinite. In many ways, Kwami has been going down in flames for a long time, and his casual dismissal of non-admins in ANI and disdainful treatment of other editors in content disputes has been happening with more and more regularity for many months now. It's kind of sad to see an editor of such skill feel more and more entitled and less respectful of consensus and collegiality. I'm sorry you had such an unpleasant experience with him - when you don't have substantive content disagreements, he is a great editor to work with, but the cons are unfortunately starting to outweigh the pros. I wish he'd take a wiki-break to gain some perspective, but it's looking like Kwami is working on racking up blocks and sanctions. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croton Aqueduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ossining, New York (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) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The creator of Tuckahoe marble quarries has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would delete the article for being the work of a banned user (consistent with policy), except that you made several apparently substantive edits there. Can you stand behind the content there? (Did you verify the contents that you edited, or did you AGF?) --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my edits, they all appear to be copy editing, resequencing of sections and formatting. I don't believe I contributed anything substantive. I did not verify any of the reference, nor do I know of my of knowledge whether the specifics in the article are accurate or not. It certainly all seemed OK, and nothing in it contradicted reality in any way that I am aware of, but I don't think that's adequate for me to take on the burden of the article as being my own. I suggest that it be deleted as the work of a banned editor. My thanks, though, for checking in with me, it is appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's no fun to delete content that's interesting and seems valid, but this user's seemingly good content has all too often turned out to be bad -- particularly, copyvio material with falsified reference citations. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:David Gordon publicity.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source which establishes that he's "notoriously shy about being casually photographed" that could be used to actually prove a free photo is unlikely? There are a handful of articles about people who've been notable in part for their reclusiveness who have had non-free photos kept, so there's some precedent there. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look and try to find a free image. I doubt you'll be able to do so -- I certainly couldn't

I also don't really understand the impetus behind this nomination - publicity images are intentionally widely distributed to the media for their indiscriminate use. It's not as if newspaper X contacts film studio Y to find out if it's OK to use image Z of actress A when a story pops up about her -- the image is in their files because the studio sent it out years ago, and the newspaper uses it, because publicity and promotion is the entire purpose of giving out the image. Why, then, are we being hyper-sensitive about the use of these images on Wikipedia? There is virtually no legal exposure in using them (unless they are used inappropriately), and re-use of the images by others falls under the same conditions. I have to say I don't really get it -- it seems like hyper-bureaucracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, you'll find some images of Gordon out there, but they're images taken by newspapers in connection with previews or reviews, publicity releases connected with various projects, with the same status as the current image. I don't think you're going to find any free images of Gordon -- I couldn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The question is not only whether there currently is a free photo, but whether there could be a free photo created. The impetus is that our mission is to provide free content, not fair use content and so our use of non-free content is explicitly intended to be stricter than that required by the law. See in particular point #3 of meta:Resolution:Licensing policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, our policy conflicts with Gordon's apparent desire to keep his private life private. Is it really "possible" to "create a free photo" when the subject (apparently) doesn't want such an image to be created? This is not a question which is limited to this instance -- are we to believe that the mere fact that a person is still alive is sufficient grounds to show that a free photo could be created? What of those who are invalid and housebound? Is it our policy that it is better to have a Wikipedian waiting outside their homes for them to emerge, so that we can have our vaunted "free image", rather than using an image that was sent out to the world with their approval as reprsentative of themselves? Where is it we draw the line between "possible", "improbable" and "invasive"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that someone wait outside of a private home, but attending a public showing of his work/event he is attending/etc. where he is in his publically notable persona certainly seems to be an option. At this time I don't wish to enter a debate with you or repeat what is stated in the licensing policy I directed you towards. Thus I will merely repeat my question from above: is there evidence supporting your claim that he has an "apparent desire to keep his private life private" as well as having little public life to speak of during which he could be photographed? VernoWhitney (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence from a reliable source I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the promotional image template says: Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. I would say that the mere fact that there are no free images of this artist on the Internet is de facto evidence that this current images is "difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent". The template does not appear to require evidence from a reliable source, as you have asked for, but a mere "rationale" or "showing", a much lesser burden of proof. I have told you what my understanding is about the artist's proclivities, and that is in line with the evidence available online, i.e. the lack of free images. This combination should be sufficient to allow the image to remain in use -- and if a free image were to become available, it can be replaced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you left a note at the image pointing here, thanks. I completely disagree with your claim that no free images is de facto evidence that it's difficult to replace since it could just as easily mean that nobody has tried. Anecdotally, for instance, I personally know a television reporter who has an article on here but no free image. They are by no means camera shy or reclusive, but simply aren't widely famous to the point that passers-by would take images for Flickr or the like.

To further address your point, we aren't actually concerned with the wording of a template, but rather that of a policy and its supporting (and mandating) Foundation Resolution. If the template doesn't align with those (as viewed through the surrounding guidelines and consensus) or is otherwise unclear, then it is the template which needs adjusted. I understand that the template (nor guideline) demands a reliable source in so many words, but my opinion (which I believe to be supported by consensus, although I certainly could be wrong) is that a showing that the image is difficult to replace requires more than a diligent search.

Can I ask, is your stance on this issue the same reason you recently uploaded File:Moosie Drier publicity.jpg about a week after File:Moosie Drier.jpg was speedily deleted for the same reason as I've nominated File:David Gordon publicity.jpg for deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a look (I'm not an admin, so I can't see it), but I believe that the deleted Moosie Drier image was not properly labelled as a publicity pic -- I could be wrong about that. Actually, now that I think about it -- it wasn't a publicity pic at all, it was a screen capture from the Bob Newhart Show, so I uploaded a publicity pic which I believe -- and still hold -- falls within a reasonable interpretation of policy.

So, now I'd like to ask you a question: can you point me, please, to the consensus discussion that says that a citation from a reliable source is required to show that "this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent." Also, how do you factor in AGF when an editor reports on a template that they've made a "diligent search" for a free image and have been unable to find one. Finally, have you verified yourself that such an image is not available in this case? It seems to me that the spirit of WP:BEFORE in regard to AfD's should also be invoked here in regard to the deletion of images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it wasn't a publicity photo. I hadn't understood that difference was your motivating factor in reuploading it. I certainly agree that a publicity photo is better than a random screen cap, I just don't believe it's better enough.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a discussion specifically revolving around the point of requiring a reliable source. However, the enforcement portion of the non-free policy states that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." and there is precedent.

The article for notable recluce J. D. Salinger for instance had an non-free image since 2006, 4 years before his death. The article on him contains many reliable references which attest to his reclusive nature. Even that isn't always sufficient for retaining images of living people however, such as happened to File:15 watterson lgl.jpg.jpg of Bill Watterson (also on Time's 10 Most Reclusive Celebrities).

As far as AGF goes - I certainly do believe that you've made a diligent search, I just don't see that it matters. The key for living people just like landscapes and other (relatively) non-transient objects, free pictures "could be created" to quote WP:NFCC#1. Now that I'm working on my answer I just now noticed that I linked to the wrong page in an earlier comment: it should've been wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Point #3 of that states "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."

And no, I haven't conducted my own search as I trust you have done a good job already. I'm not familiar with either the person or their area of activities, so I don't know any specific places which you might have overlooked. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" is a conclusion and an opinion, and could well be an erroneous one, since no evidence is given to support it, nor is extensive argument provided to buttress it -- it's basically rhetoric, just someone spinning words. The more important part of the statement is "reasonable expect" - and, as in all matters of enforcement on Wiki, this is subject to editorial consensus, so the question is perhaps: where is the consensus discussion that established what "reasonably expect" actually means in practical terms? I think one would be hard-pressed -- in the absence of a positive statement requiring a citation from a reliable source -- to come up with any more practical standard than a diligent search and a total lack of free images found. In those instances, use of promotional photos appears to me tobe legitimate and reasonable, since they can always be removed should a free image be found or created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conclusion and an opinion, it's an example provided by the Foundation, so argument and evidence is not required. It's their website, they can set whatever rules they wish to set and that's one of them. As far as the rest, I'm trying to convey policy, guidelines, and how I've observed them put into practice. If you wish to change, for example, the wording of WP:NFC#UUI point 1 which specifically labels "non-free promotional images" of "people still alive" as an unacceptable use of non-free content, then you would be better served to bring that up at WT:NFC or some other policy board rather than here. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference to observe is that between an opinion expressed by the Foundation of what the practical result of their policy will be, and the actual policy the Foundation has promulgated. I have no reason to doubt that they expect that it will apply to "almost all portraits of living notable individuals", but whether that's an accurate expectation or not only time will tell -- unless, of course, we read their expectations as being actual policy, and start deleting stuff on the basis of that expectation, in which case it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. No, it's pretty clear that what's operative here is the "reasonable expectation" standard, and what's needed is some practical consensual expression of what that means. I've put forth one possible standard, you've put forth another. As far as I can tell, neither suggested standard has a consensus supporting it, so there's no reason (at this point) to choose one over the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as NFCC #1 goes, that is the result of the mis-interpretation of opinion as policy I discussed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I know that you are trying to convey your understanding of policy, but we've already established in this discussion, by your own admission, that important parts of your understanding have no consensual basis, so please don't lay them down as if they are the one and only inviolate interpretation of policy and guidelines. As for actual practice, if it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, then it cannot be cited as precedent, and should be altered to be in sync with the actual policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Erica Jong crop.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cal Worthington.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Riley.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Antony Price publicity.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jenny Agutter publicity.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Moosie Drier publicity.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your beef with The Players? Since I edited your Controversy section, you have had a bee in your bonnet to portray this great club in the worst possible light. This is what makes people suspicious of Wikipedia. As I always say, when The National Arts gets the flu, The Players gets the sniffles.

I created The Players wikipedia page. I regret it deeply because it has became a war ground for discontented members and ignorant "editors." So sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmelstein (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no beef with The Players, the article simply has to adhere to our policies. Your having created it does not give you any special privileges. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blindly revert my edits without explaining yourself. I explained clearly in the edit summary why I removed that list. Simply "This work has twister in it" is not relevant. It adds nothing but trivia to the article. Do you think any of the listed works in that "In popular culture" section are relevant? None look like it to me. None of them impacted Twister itself in some way, popularize it, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, one of the entries was cited to a Wikipedia mirror. Do you really think that is acceptable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know full well that there is no consensus to delete popcult sections wholesale, and yet you continue to do it. If you have issues with specific entries, the talk page is available for discussion. I have again reverted your Bold edit, as the next step in the WP:BRD process is not for you to restore your edit, it is to discuss on the talk page. I'll be glad to discuss this matter there, but please do not continue the discussion on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you are completely in the wrong for assuming that I'm removing it just to remove it. I analyzed every single one, and they did not seem to meet any criteria of WP:IPCEXAMPLES. If you want to discuss it, go ahead. I'm just a little peeved that you think I'm removing it without any valid reason. There may not be consensus to remove those sections outright, but when I actually analyzed literally every entry in the list and found them all failing WP:IPCEXAMPLES, then yeah, I do have a damn good reason for chucking the whole freaking section. Ever think of that? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well in my previous comment. I'm more than willing to work with you on Talk:Twister, but I'm not willing to have this conversation here. Please do not post here on this issue again, let's leave the discussion where it should be. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (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.

Molson Coors Brewing Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clean Air Act

Patrick Warburton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Top Gear

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First was already fixed, fixed the second. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an IP[1] who had reverted a named account, but the IP was correct. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. You are, of course, completely correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Chase Masterson's management to confirm the informations on Wiki, those photos are not a good representation of her, it doesn't even look like her. Im just a volunteer trying to show people the best representation on Wiki of an actress that I met. You are doing nothing but to change things round for the worst. You dont have more right then me editing whats on wiki. Get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsmith (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment.

BTW, are you using more than one account? Is User:Shetonque you as well? Beyond My Ken (talk)

No, Mr Conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsmith (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you considered my placement of templates on this article to be tag-bombing, that was not my intent (I try to be specific when placing maintenance templates on articles). An editor had recently added unsourced content to the article, I was attempting to get them to cite their sources and then noticed that entire sections were completely unsourced. At the time I did not feel comfortable tagging the entire article as refimprove since certain sections had some inline citations. (I have subsequently moved your refimprove template from the bottom of the article to the top, which seems to me to be common usage - though gosh knows I can't find the WP:MOS that says so.) Per my previous edits, I would ask that you reconsider specifically delineating the unsourced assertions about the show's 1977 Emmy nominations and Mr. Newhart's Golden Globe nominations and restore those specific "citation-needed" templates. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the awards info, and restored the refimprove tag to the references section, the logical place for it to be. Clean up tags are of no interest to our readers (for whom we write the encyclopedia), only to other editors, so placing it at the top of the page, while customary (but not required), only defaces the start of the article for the reader. Please consider doing a bit of research next time, instead of tagging an article, since tagging only forces someone else to do the work that you think needs to be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only here to improve the encyclopedia and I assume you are here in the same spirit. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means do so. Tagging does not directly improve the encycylopedia, it tells other editors that they should improve the encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your right. Ill move em. thanks.Koplimek (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this: Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Collapse_..._or_not.3F. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aare o a conversation which contains the opinions of two people? Of what possible relevance is that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, woke up cranky today. Thanks for the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You a Jets fan, BMK? If so, I'm sorry. Good game though. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually watching the Yankees games, turning to the Jets on the inning breaks, so I didn't get to see much of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but if you bothered to look at original my edit you would have noticed that I didn't revert it back to twelve photographs but kept it at ten and removed photographs that are not currently serving as a fire station, based in the US (which had five images) and are of low resolution. You then revert on the grounds of images were not removed because of where the fire stations were, but for photographic and architectural reasons. Take out two others if you prefer, but the images left should be easily visible at the size they're displayed at, and interesting, which is clear that you didn't bother checking what my undo was however my edit regarding (US bias) was the fact that the article has US bias. And again On Bidgee's talk page, I explained the reasoning behind the removal of these top images, and suggested that he remove two others of his choice; instead he decided to behave like a WP:DICK and revert me you clearly failed to look at my edit, since I had already removed two other photographs in my first edit and you have the guts to call my edits bad faith and call me a dick. Mate the pot calling the kettle black. Bidgee (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all that is true, then it really is my error, but I'm not guilty of bad faith, I'm guilty of reading your edit summary: "Undid revision 516679117 by Beyond My Ken (talk) How about removing the US Centric images?", as meaning what it says, that you undid my revision. How, exactly, was I supposed to known that "How about removing the US Centric images?" meant "I took out two other images"? And why the heck would I come to you and explain my reasoning etc. and suggest you take two others out if I didn't think you had just reverted me? And, now that I think of it, why didn't you just answer my comment with "I already did that, take a look at my edit", after which I would have looked and I would have immediately apologized to you? Instead, you deleted my comment without a response and reverted, all without explaining the misunderstanding. So, yes, I did make a mistake in not checking your edit and taking your edit summary at face value, but I suggest you take a look at your own behavior and learn to communicate a little better -- and your suggestion that I'm guilty of bad faith is pure booshwah, I'm merely guilty of an oversight and taking wehat you wrote as meaning what it said. I won't make that mistake with you again, should we cross paths, I'll be certain to check everything you say to make sure you haven't (accidentally) misrepresented youself.

So, here's your apology: I'm sorry I misunderstood what you write and didn't check for myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want an edit war, but the fact of the matter is the Town of Greenburgh does indeed border Bergen Co to the SW. The Hudson River IS the border, it's not "between" them. Hastings-on-Hudson, across from Alpine, NJ, IS part of the town of Greenburgh. What's the problem? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Hudson gets even wider as it forms the Tappan Zee a bit further upstream. Should we removed the fact the Greenburgh borders the Town of Orangetown in Rockland Co. as well? I don't understand why you feel the need to edit out accurate geographic facts. Please don't revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.141.21 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know these things: I was born and lived the first decades of my life in Irvington; and my family still lives there. The problem is not one of facts, the problem is one of the impression created. If one says "X borders Y", it gives the impression they're right next to each other, but in actuality the Hudson River intercedes. Yes, legally and polically, they do border each other, but it's not the best way to describe their relationship.

For example, Detroit "borders" Windsor, Ontario in the same way you're saying Greenburgh "borders" Bergen County, but a less misleading way of putting it is that Detroit is across the Detroit River from Windsor. The same with Cincinatti, Ohio and Covington, Kentucky. Yes, they legally and politically "border" each other, but the way to describe it which more accurately represents their relationship is that they're across the Ohio River from each other.

Your proposed wording is not wrong or unfactual, it is simply not the optimal way of describing the relationship. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken, this is in reference to your undo of my recent edit - let's take this in two parts:

1) apparently you did not feel my addition of "(equivalent to more than $1,000,000 in 2002 dollars)" was appropriate. Why? The current "Hays was paid the then-lavish sum of $100,000 a year." does say what the referenced article says, but for most younger (current generation(s)) readers it really doesn't have sufficient strength (I felt). They weren't just paying Hays a good or high salary, they were paying him an enormous salary (this was in an era when the cost of admission to your local theater was in the neighborhood of 10 cents). Calling that "the then-lavish sum" conveys the basic info but not the full impact. If you felt that the addition was factually unsupported, I got the number from the CPI Inflation Calculator of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. I chose to state the income in 2002 dollars because that would bring it close enough to the current time and was a nice round number.

2) are you aware that the undo reinstated a dead external link? I changed the dead link "www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1980/2/1980_2_12.shtml" to the same article on the live link "www.americanheritage.com/content/hollywood-cleans-its-act". Please try the links for yourself and see. ErikBly (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix the link, and source the inflation amount -- and why 2002 dollars? Why not 2012 dollars or 2010? It's not that it's not factually correct, it's an unsourced declarative statement that needs to be sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I refixed the fixed link and I sourced as requested - this time I did it in 2012 dollars...as I said above, I had chosen to state the income equivalency in 2002 dollars because that would bring it close enough to the current time and was a nice round number ("more than $1 million" rather than "more than $1.3 million") but whatever...ErikBly (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2012 (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.

Henry Dreyfuss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hoover

Verbal language in dreams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phenomenology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article Cecil Murphey in which you might have an on-going interest. All contributions are welcome. Bielle (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to where I can find the policy that tells me how many citations are too many to include when supporting a claim. I looked but could not find any such policy. I can see the advantage in having numerous citations, yet I do not see the advantage in having a single point of failure caused by having few citations. --Abel (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every fact on Wikipedia could be supported with immumerable citations, but only one or two -- or in controversial cases perhaps 3 or 4 -- citations are necessary. To put six or seven citations to support a fact is overkill, and detrimental to the the easy reading of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinion is as valid as the opinion of anyone else, your opinion is not a policy. --Abel (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, to interrupt you boys' WP:Edit warring, which you will likely be temporarily blocked for if this continues, there is an essay on citation overkill. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. But it's not a guideline or policy, which is why Beyond My Ken likely didn't point to it. 119.73.3.54 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not point to it because I was not aware of its existence. My objection is based on what is best for our readers, and unnecessary strings of citations are certainly an impediment to easy reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Bombardment, which brings up when extra citations are a good thing. 119.73.3.54 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When faced with persistent edits that clearly violate policy, what alternative is superior to reverting?--Abel (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's your connection to the FEE? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not take seven sources to establish the non-controversial fact that Read used the Hillside estate as the site for the Foundation for Economic Education; that the seven sources are all neo-conservative political tracts pretty much sullies then as neutral sources anyway. I have cited a single, non-political source, actually published by the FEE, to reference this fact. This is sufficient. Any attempt to restore the previous citation overkill I will take as confirmation of the political motivation in your editing, and I will bring this to the attention of admins for adjudication as a potential violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV.

Were I you, Id4abel, I'd be satisfied that you're getting away with your bullshit on the Foundation for Economic Education article, which is perilous close to violating WP:PROMO, and could use some attention from a neutral editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple difference of opinion on a matter of policy met with accusations and personal attacks. Wow, I feel all kinds of welcome in this community. --Abel (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you neatly avoided answering the question. What is your relationship with FEE, if any? Simple enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your question, yet get more accusations. I get it, you are really important and should not be questioned. Ever. You win. I give up. Your point of view was clearly correct, and I should have seen that from the beginning. --Abel (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've been around here for a while, and so have many of the people who read my talk page, and the whole "I'm completely innocent and you have attacked me!" stance is one we've seen many, many (many) times before -- usually from people who turn out to be not innocent and well worth having their circumstances questioned. People with nothing to hide are glad to answer simple questions about themselves (within reason), and people who are acting with a conflict of interest, or are editing Wikipedia because they have a point of view to push, generally take the evasive and put-upon position you've chosen to take. Since you still haven't answered my question, I'll just assume that your refusal is a de facto admission that you're significantly less than innocent than you'd like to appear.

I dunno, maybe you are what you say you are. Maybe you're just a simple-minded libertarian soul and have been trapped by circumstance into appearing to be something less innocent -- but there's little I can do about that, and I won't lose a single wink of sleep over it, since your judgment appears to be so poor in any event. One thing you certainly got right -- I was, indeed, correct from the beginning, and your insistence on multiple references for simple facts was detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm a man who can cheerfully admit when I'm wrong and turn on a dime, but in this case, there's no need for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep asking, I will spell it out for you line by line. There are six categories of conflict of interest. Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing is the first. Second is editing from a litigant. Third is writing about myself or people that I have an antagonistic relationship with. Fourth, citing myself. Fifth, campaigning or "getting the word out." Finally, self-promotion. Like I have already said, more than once, none of these have anything to do with me. Keep going with the conspiracy theories, those will get you far in life. --Abel (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You persist in answering a question I did not ask -- such evasiveness is typical of people with something to hide. I frankly do not care about your evaluation of your COI status, what I asked for is your connection to FEE so that I and other editors can make that assessment. So, again, what is your relationship to the Foundation for Economic Education? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation after accusation. Now I'm on trial with you as the judge, jury, and executioner. It is behavior like this that causes people to not want to volunteer their time and effort, isn't worth the stress. --Abel (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no accusation, there has been a question, which you continue to artfully dodge. I won't ask it again, I'll simply assume, as most reasonable editors would after reading this colloquy, that you have something to hide, and that something is most probably a close connection of some sort to the FEE. I shall therefore deal with your edits to that article and related subjects as COI edits, and will evaluate them as such, and shall cite this discussion in my edit summary should I see the need to delete your contributions.

One other matter: your comments on this page are no longer welcome, so please do not post here again. Any further participation from you here will be deleted without being read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:007FRWLposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pandora's Box (1929 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tango (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) 10:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the content dispute about 40/40 Club to WP:3O, and so an uninvolved editor will make a judgment on the content at this point. Even though I think the content should remain present, I do not think continuing to revert is going to be particularly helpful in this situation. It needs another set of eyes. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've backed off from the article in the face of the other editor's intrasigence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd be interested to know that you photo is the first one in the slideshow here (bottom of the article), and that they actually credited it. --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Odd that they credited the bots instead of the original uploader or Flickr photographer, but kudos to them for crediting them at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leaving (2009 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartier (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) 11:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I owed you an explanation to my "racism" comment on the Murder of Kitty Genovese article. Please believe I was not accusing you or anyone specifically of racism. I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years and know better than to do that. When I said "is this racism" it was to clarify what I felt was the issue: that is, was identifying the perpetrators race is racist. I should have worded it better, or put it on the talk page rather than a subject line. If I offended you personally, I apologize. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, and thank you for it, but I urge you not to continue to remove the wording without consensus. The policy is that if the removal of sourced or long-standing material is disputed, then a consensus is needed to remove it, and while that discussion is ongoing, the article remains in the status quo ante state. Once you have a consensus (if you get one) then the change can be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK. Since theatrehistory appears to be a tertiary source, I'm wondering if you are amenable to converting Theatrehistory citations into primary source citations? I tried to do exactly that in many cases but you reverted all of my edits, so I don't know whether you're opposed to the idea of conversions, or my conversions were somehow unsatisfactory, or you simply reverted all of my edits without analyzing them. Would you please have another look at the edits you reverted in light of this? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion into secondary or primary source citations would be fine, and if some of the edits I rolledback were that, then I apologize for making an unwarranted assumption - I spot checked as I was going along, but didn't run into one of that type (just dumb bad luck, I guess). I'm sure you know which ones were conversions, so if you want to revert my rollback on those, I have absolutely no objection. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. It will take some time to go back through all the edits but I will do so as time permits. I already reverted this one, for obvious reasons. Cheers! Lambtron (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the ones that I looked at, the ref was simply deleted, not replaced. I do not see any copyvios - the quotations appear to be to properly attributed public domain sources. I have particularly looked at the British theatre part of the site. I also would not generally mind if ELs and refs were converted to in-line citations to reliable secondary sources, but in-line refs should not be removed until they are replace by better refs to reliable sources. Thanks, BMK for reverting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that you missed several (e.g., this one). They may not have been done with great precision, but my intentions were in the right place and, IMO, worthwhile and deserving of some helpful cleanup, not wholesale reversion. My apologies, BMK, for cluttering your talk page with this. Lambtron (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BMK. Re: your revert at the article for Becky Gulsvig. It was made by another of our long term problem socks> This one is listed here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer. I can't remember if you are aware of this so I thought I would leave this link in case you weren't. As ever thanks for your vigilance and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 01:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know the fellow, and have added a few IPs to the listing over the past few months. I have that article - and a couple of others - on my watchlist specifically to look for his edits. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught another. I've posted on WP:AN asking if some range blocks might be possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in this. It is just another of those Sisyphus style tasks that we are destined to undertake no matter how long WikiP exists. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if Wikipedia required registration before allowing people to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I made an update to Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. Adding Richard Lublin as a cast member. This is was an accurate fact as you can see on ^[1] Can you help me understand why it was removed? Richard.lublin (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Richard.lublin[reply]

It was removed because we are not IMDB and do not aspire to list every cast member in an film, just the most important parts -- and "Mourner #4" is not an important part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (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.

Harry Partch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ben Johnston

Solon Borglum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sierra Madre mountains

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ben Johnston, but unlinked Sierra Madre mountains, and I'm not sure which range was being referred to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However they have been reverted and will continue to be reverted. The page has also put up for protection as well as being reported to the administration under Edit Wars.

Further interference will also be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk • contribs)

• Please see WP:OWNERSHIP, which you appear to be in violation of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, BMK, I also wanted to thank you for your help with that article! Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions to Summer of Love have been reverted AGAIN and the page has been put AGAIN up for protection as well as Edit Warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your deletion of my careful copyediting work has been undone by another editor. Once again, you do not own the article, and you will never be allowed to be the sole arbiter of what goes into it. You claim to have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, but despite that you clearly do not understand some fundamental aspects of its regime, such as the need for collaboration between editors. If you have specific problems with specific edits, these should be discussed on the article's talk page, so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached among the editors working on the article. If the consensus does not agree with you, you cannot force your edits into the article - such behavior will get you blocked, as will continuously reverting the good-faith and productive edits of other contributors. You should also be aware of our policy on original research and neutral point of view, which does not allow your personal views to be used in the article unless they are supported by reliable sources. Unfortunately, your reminiscences and feelings about the Summer of Love, as valuable as they may be to you, are worthless to us unless you can provide citations to back them up. If you have really been here for as long as you say, you should know these things, and understand why they are necessary; unfortunately, your behavior tells an entirely different story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that, as was probably inevitable considering your behavior, you have been blocked from editing for a week. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experience has shown that when a brand-new user ID, of someone who's obviously not a newbie, embroils himself in a controversy, then starts yelling "AGF!" when the subject of sockpuppetry comes up... 99 out of 100 times (at least), it's a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC) "That's absolutely correct, but, unfortunately, other editors tend to wave aside the experience that editors such as you and I have, which leads us to our suspicions, and get stuck on things such as WP:AGF, as if we weren't supposed to use our common sense and innate intelligence to evaluate the situation and reach a reasonable conclusion about the motives of disruptive editors. I sometimes think that many of the editors here are incapable of independent thought, and are utterly dependent on the rules and regulations before they can make up their minds; they have, in fact, no imagination and little ability for creative thought. As a result, their thinking is hackneyed and stultified, and their inability to see any further than their own noses damages the encyclopedia, albeit without any real intention to do so. Then, when someone comes along who really is determined to do harm, these people cannot rise to the occasion and see what is in front of them. Instead, they fall back on those comfortable memes which allow them to do nothing and still feel good about themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]