User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

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

MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

(Life is too short!)

...

Articles that need serious visual work

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

Reminder: to work on

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Administrators noticeboard Incidents regarding an issue with which your name has been mentioned.

Hi again Ken, There was a complaint filed against me by User:R9tgokunks. The short part of my recent conversation with you was presented as an example of my unwillingness work with other editors (?) Could you comment on that there when you get a chance? The interesting point is that you had recently a run with User:R9tgokunks as well. By the way, I liked the way you warned him, lol that was funny... GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I routinely check AN/I, so I was aware of the discussion, however I didn't feel I had anything to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added a comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard Madenfort

What do you suspect be done about the Richard Madenfort vandal as I reported on WP:AN? Should their name be added to the edit filter? It seems this editor has a vendetta of some kind, and sock/IP blocking has proven ineffectual. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of the Sexes poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Battle of the Sexes poster.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mel Blanc

Regarding this edit, what in particular about it did you want me to discuss? It appears that the issue of IMDB sourcing has already been raised on talk, where you agreed that it wasn't particularly reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, I misread your edit. I'll restore it. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well said

Hello BMK. I had to stop by and let you know that you have a way with words that - quite often - makes my day. Many thanks and best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 05:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I do my best. Hope things are well with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

re: Hospitals

By the way, we are both right about this one, However Montefiore is just slightly further to the east in the Norwood section of the Bronx. So therefore we are both correct, and the info is NOT inaccurate for same.

Thanx.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6000:C400:A43C:4FBE:DCB0:192B (talk • contribs)

No, we are not both right. You are wrong. There are several locations for Montefiore Hospital, one of which is in Riverdlae (the Moses Division) and is therefore the closest hospital to thyat neighborhood. Columbia Medical Center is in Washingtomn Heights, but the Allen Hispotal is indisputably in Inwood, not in WashHeights, as you had it. If you don;t know the geography, or are adept enopugh to look up stuff, don't add it to articles, you're not helping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture inserted

Good day Ken, I just entered an image here. No rush, but when you get a chance take a look at it. I'm rather positive that it looks ok but a quick glimpse of an expert eye would make me more comfortable. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to the layout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	When a fascist snowflake opens an ANI thread to whine about their spade being called a spade, that's amore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, I really appreciate that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Seconded. Good show. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you as well! It's nice to see one's work appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Whatever happened to WP:PA? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You're a self-proclaimed "sellout provocateur" "anti-PC" "shit disturber." I'm sure you'll get over it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who made the policy. I'm pointing out that you're breaking it - not because it offends me (I've been called worse things) but because it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film)

Ken,

The billboard shown, mentions the other 2 actors; Miriam Hopkins and Rose Hobart

Savolya (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in much, much smaller type. They are not the stars, they are featured actors. The film was made before the billing box was developed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Germania

Did you think my edit was vandalism? I thought my wording was better. Presumably you did not but did not say why. Red Jay (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it was not vandalism, and I did not say that it was. If I had used an edit summary, it would have been "better before". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's just the lack of explanation meant I was unsure. I preferred my wording, but it is not worth arguing over. Red Jay (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done

War Children

The sources I removed and then you reverted are not directly from the book. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:68 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Madenfort vandalism

I bought a copy of I Don't Dance (album). I can provide pictures of the liner notes to verify that no "Richard Madenfort" was involved on the album at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

your recent move of Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono

You moved Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono to Suzukake Nanchara. But this was proposed with a RM a while ago for the same reason, and rejected - see the talk page. Though consensus can change it would require another discussion for this to be established, which is I think required given the previous discussions. Therefore please move it back, probably easier for you with your user rights.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the RM until after I made the move, but in reading it afterwards I do not believe that the close of the RM accurately characterized consensus, so I chose to invoke WP:IAR and leave the move as I had made it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Moscow Connection has said that they are going to move it back, so the point appears to be moot. I think that doing so does not improve Wikipedia, but so be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s been moved back. Seems now there’s a lot more concern over the longer name, so I imagine there will be another discussion soon.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your move of Taumata back to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu for the same reasons as the other article (aka, there was a move discussion disagreeing with a similar move). Since the move is controversial by nature, I would recommend having another discussion if you wish to have the article moved (you could also merge it with the move discussion here, since you want to have both articles moved for essentially the same reasons). SkyWarrior 05:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your move back was not an improvement. The previous RM had 4 comments: 2 supports, 1 oppose, and 1 "moderate oppose". That was closed as "no consensus", when it should have either not been closed, but allowed to run until there was a reasonable number of participants, or closed as "Slight consensus to move". The short title is sourced, and appears to be what fulfills WP:COMMONNAME. Your move was pure WP:BURO and totally ignored WP:IAR. I hope you're happy you saddled us with another extremely long non-English name as an article title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the close was correct or not, it was still discussed (the title was actually discussed twice), so therefore any other move would be controversial. Plus, I can see at least one editor who would've disagreed with your move. Argue your point in a new move discussion if you really want the article moved. SkyWarrior 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You're not making any friends for yourself by being a smart ass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And to make it clear, I looked for am RM discussion, but as far as I could see the Talk page was blank, because I didn't see the Archive banner hidden in the headers -- just like you didn't see it when you added an Archive box and then had to remove it when you noticed the banner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ellipsis

Please explain? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Easy to explain: I screwed up. I reverted back, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

regarding an information presented in Anti-Polish sentiment

[DimaHagever] In the first paragraph it says:--"During World War II, such prejudices contributed to mass murders and genocide or were used to justify atrocities[2] by Nazi Germans, Ukrainian fascists, Soviet communists, and Jewish partisans." As a new editor i cannot edit a semi protected article, but as a person who reads a lot of history ,especially regarding the events in WW2...i can tell you that the were no atrocities committed by the Jewish Partisans towards the Polish population based on the anti-Polish sentiment. So i would like to ask you to edit out "Jewish partisans" off this line.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimahagever (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reposted your request, without comment, on Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment. For future reference, the article talk page is the place for such requests to be posted, using the {{Semi-protected edit request}} template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited White trash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerald W. Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Cubomania (Gherasim Luca)

It is simple: see this article ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherasim_Luca Pesimistul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesimistul (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is simple. You replaced "Romanian", a nationality, with "Jewish" an ethnicity, for no apparent purpose then to point out that the person is Jewish. Do it again and you'll be reported. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

United States declaration of war upon Germany (1941)

I'd be delighted to learn why you are so upset over some minor changes to this article, including redirecting a link to modern Japan to the Japanese Empire. Master of Time (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Because, in general, they just dicked around and were unnecessary. The Japan one is good though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Dicking around" or not, it wasted more bytes just reverting me, and you didn't need to be so rude. It's not like changing redirects is something I serially do, and it was included with the minor change to the Japan link. Master of Time (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for dicking around, and I could give a shit about "wasting bytes", that's the WMF's problem, not ours. All I care about is the quality of articles, which are not helped by screwing around where none in needed. There are plenty of articles that need actual, real, qualitative improvement, go work on one of those. Don't make unnecessary edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If it has no effect on the "quality of the article" you hold so dearly, you shouldn't care. "Unnecessary edits" is just a subjective determination, and I pretty explicitly made sure that the housekeeping-type edits were included with the more useful Empire of Japan edit (which is why I originally edited the article in the first place). Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and we all help in different ways (and I certainly have written material in the past). Master of Time (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That's it, I know to avoid you from now on. Thanks for the lovely first impression. Master of Time (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, I could give a crap what your impression is of me, I don't know you from Adam's off ox. In any case, I did you a favor, I put in your Japan change, and took out the rest of the nonsense you put in. If you think your changes were so all-fired beneficial, then follow WP:BRD and open a discussion on the article talk page. This discussion, however, is over as of now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback of edit to Heinrich Himmler article on March 8

Hi Beyond My Ken, If you disagree with my editing of Heinrich Himmler, you can discuss it with me or undo the revision, but it was improper for you to simply mark it as Vandalism. The edit above from Master of Time refers to another instance of an alleged overreaction of yours to an article on World War II, so please make a good-faith effort to elaborate on why you want to undo the Heinrich Himmler article edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff18 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was marked as vandalism. Please read WP:AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The use of metaphors such as "orchestrator" and "architect" only diminish Himmler's culpability, while a straight-forward word like "responsible" does not. We're not here for fdancy lanaguage, we're here to present facts. If you object to "responsible", make your objections known on the article talk page, not by continuing to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've created this section on Talk:Heinrich Himmler for your use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's reasoning for the revert. It has less verbiage and is correct, per the RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Either he thinks we're idiots, or he's just an idiot himself

[1] I say let's wait a while and see what happens next, just for fun. EEng 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted it before I saw your note. Really aaaaa-mazing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nom hasseling editor who voted against deletion.

Just wanted to respond to you comment regarding my input, and to start out with, I'd like to highlight the fact that in the Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany article someone (not me) added a Neutrality Dispute tag. So, my worries that the prolonged content dispute that was originally going on the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland now would extend to the newly created Polish collaboration page, were correct. On my part, this deletion request was not political as you dismiss it as, but stemmed form a legitimate concern that Wikipedias neutrality was being affected with undue weigh. Unfortunately, I was attacked by some (no all) editors, who called my recommendations "whitewashing" or "political". So, in the end, I'd like to say with objectivity and not a disruptive antagonistic attitude that Wikipedia has serious neutrality, which were clearly on display here, against editors who show conservative, patriotic or religious views, as noted on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. --E-960 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If I misperceived your motivation, I apologize, but you must admit that the timing of the nomination, so close after the "Polish concentration camp law" (for lack of a better name -- I know that they were Nazi concentration camps simply located on Polish soil) was passed looks mighty coincidental.

My general feeling is that Poles and people of Polish backgrounds are, for some reason I don't quite fathom, carrying chips on their shoulders, and acting as if the mainstream world had started claiming that Poles were unusually collaborationist during WWII. I simply don't see that being the case. I see some far-right wingers and neo-Nazis looking (as they always do) for ways to ameliorate the guilt of the Nazi regime for the Holocaust, but I don't see the world buying into it -- and certainly I do see Wikipedia editors working overtime to rid the encyclopedia of edits made by those people that create that illusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what happened a few weeks ago on the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland, is that some editors probably promptted by the IPN law, started to massivley edit the original text, and in no time a full edit war broke out involving about a dozen editors. Then when the article got blocked by admins, a completely new page was created on the topic, and the band wagon followed. That's why I suggested the deletion, but in any case, the vote is now closed and the article is staying. --E-960 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• As for Poles and how they perceive WW2, many in the west do not know how this German occupation really, really looked like. The level of pure sadism exhibited daily by the Germans was astounding, but folks in the west think of how things were in Holland or France during the war - some of the details are found on pages such as Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, etc. Also, the other thing that really gets to Poles is that everything is simplified and attributed to the Nazis, while you must remember the NSDAP (Nazis) were a registered political party in Germany just like today's SPD, the Germans voted for them in large numbers, hearing Hitler's speeches and reading his book Mein Kampf (thus knowing what Hitler and NSDAP were planning, this can only mean one thing they also though in a similar manner), so it's not just Nazis but Germany. --E-960 (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I very much doubt that you are correct that people think of Holland or France when thinking about the occupation in Poland. I mean, the ignorant don't know any of these things anyway, but those who are at all conversant with history understand that the Nazis intended Poland to be crushed and its people turned into slaves, a subservient population to serve the new, German, settlers; that they intended to kill all Polish intellectuals and elites to prevent Polish culture from ever arising again; that Polish Jews were crammed into the Warsaw ghetto under appalling conditions and that the Jews fought back when the Nazis tried to take them all away to extermination or concentration camps; that the Home Army managed to hold back the Nazis for a significant period of time as they waited to be aided by the Red Army, which never came, under Stalin's orders; and that Polish Brigades operating out of the UK performed bravely in many battles. All these things are, I believe, well known to people who know anything about the war in Europe, which is why the new law confounds me, as it seems to be aimed at entirely the wrong people, and provides legal shelter for that small number of Poles attempting to evade their (or their family's) culpability. As I said, it really reads to me as if the Poles have a chip on their shoulder that is totally unnecessary, and, worse, that helps to disrupt the current peace in Europe by unnecessarily stirring up anti-German emotions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks for clarifying your reversal on Audrey Munson. I wasn't aware about that issue with using semicolons. 137.132.22.253 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Walter Stennes

Hi, I recently transwiki Walter Stennes from de.wikipedia. Would you be interested in helping me improve the article. I remember you worked on Hans Posse and did an excellent job. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I will be glad to take a look at it in the next day or so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

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

Spring Fever (1927 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Robert Montgomery, Frank Sullivan, Joseph Harrington and Dorothy Jordan

White Zombie (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Voodoo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI close

Admins here cannot decide the consensus for you. Quite correct, which is why I didn't ask them to. Legacypac was the only one who tried to make it about the content issue. I asked admins to help restore normal dispute resolution process to the article. Bus stop's last revert stood all DR best practice on its head—at an article under DS, no less—and that's DE by definition. But I have restored status quo ante per your close, and that's all I wanted in the first place. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss—you should not be reporting me to WP:AN/I for trying to improve the article. You started this mess here by initiating a make-work section of the Talk page. I call it "make-work" because there was virtually no issue from the outset. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You claim at AN/I "Further, they changed not only the word in question but also the text that was the main thrust of the prior discussion."[2] How much sense does that make? The wording previously read "The seventeen people who were killed included fourteen students and three staff members. They were:" and I changed that wording to read "Seventeen were killed. Fourteen were students. Three were staff members. Their names and ages are as follows:" Did I really change the main thrust of the prior discussion? No, I did not. All I added was the word "ages". I did that because you and one other editor felt that the reader wouldn't know what the number was after the name. Why did you bring this up at AN/I? Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the ANi about content - I pointed out it is a very stupid pointless content dispute over one word. I'm shocked that both of you are acting so badly over a trivial word. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Its stupid pointless characteristic has its origin way back in Archives, in which a Talk page discussion is initiated on 27 February about virtually nothing. This is not a section of a Talk page that answers a need. That is a byzantine recipe for problems. It is a multiple-choice question for a problem which is not a problem. Another way of stating this is that consensus applies to disputes. In the absence of any disagreement you don't have consensus. You merely have the meandering meeting of minds. User:GreenMeansGo and Mandruss agreed with one another. So what? I respectfully opened up a discussion on the article Talk page with Mandruss. My attempts to interact with Mandruss can be seen here. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, do you think you could find some other place to carry on this discussion rather than my talk page? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Führersonderzug

Excellent work with Walter Stennes, I just split the Furher Special train. While watching the documentary Hitler's Bodyguard, there are some extraordinary claims that this train was attempted by Polish resistance to be bombed. The alleged plot was to put remote controlled explosives to blow the train up, however a passenger train carrying civilian was instead mistaken for the special train, as a result 430 Germans were killed. I can't find anything about this bombing anywhere. If you have access to Netflix this claim was made in episode 10 of the series. This series also claimed there was a group called "Rohm's Avengers" which killed upward of 150 SS guards as revenge for Rohm's death. As far as I can tell that claim is purely fabricated. Do you have any information regarding these? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I watched that series when it aired, but I don't recall the claims, nor do I remember the supposed incidents from my reading. TV "documentaries" -- unless they are rigorously overseen by a bona fide historian -- can play fast and loose with facts, in favor of showmanship and spectacle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Things can be true even if they appear on the History Channel. While almost all mentions of "Röhm's Avengers" are dated after the History Channel series, I found a mention in a compilation of 1950s-60s writings by Allen Ginsberg (which makes sense if you think about it). See here. The Ginsberg compilation in turn references a 1950 book by Eugen Kogon. So the existence of "Röhm's Avengers" may have some historical grounding. I don't recall any mentions elsewhere but will look through my books in the next few days. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that most things mentioned on the History Channel are true, but it's those other things that concern me. (I actually watched the series on American Heroes Channel, probably back when it was the Military Channel, but the same thing goes.) Interesting that you've heard of "Rohm's Avengers" -- if true, it would make an interesting addition to Night of the Long Knives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, if true I think an article is warranted, @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: do you have any information regarding the Polish resistance attempted bombing of the Special train which resulted in the death of 430 German civilians? I'm on episode 11 right now, episode 13 suggests some kind of poison gas attack in the Furher bunker shortly before his suicide. This is also the first time I've heard of this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

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

Peter Collier (political author) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Commentary

Thea von Harbou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rolf Hansen

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your final edit looks good.

Of course, I think it looked good before your first edit, too. Parens look a lot more encyclopedia than em-dashes, to me. And you did some edit warring in restoring your em-dash version twice. But, your final version avoids the issue entirely. I like it. (I'd still add parens, but will compromise on this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuRat (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits restored the status quo ante. Please sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"LGV"?

Can you please fully explain when undoing edits instead of putting incomprehensible acronyms like "LGV" and "b.s.", like you did on Atomwaffen Division? 85.164.238.62 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"LGV" means "Last Good Version", an abbreviation often used on Wikipedia, and "b.s." is just that good old American "bullshit". There are no reliable sources in regard to the garbage about Atomwaffen and Satanism. In this context The Daily Beast isn;t a reliable source, and Wonkette is never a reliable source. The Satanism crap is just us being played by the rest of the alt-right, which is trying to delegitimatize (in their eyes) Atomwaffen, and convince the mainstream that they're Satanists - and we're not going to fall for it, are we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times was among those sources. The chat logs obtained by ProPublica as well, which are as clear as day. Your own personal perception of it doesn't matter. A quick look at Atomwaffen's (and their associates) social media accounts quickly debunks your little theory of it being an alt-right hoax. Here's a brief extract of an article written by the New York Times: "Mr. Hankes said that recently the group had also embraced ideas associated with the occult and Satanism, ideologies that have further estranged its members from other white supremacists." 85.164.238.62 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources said that AW was Satanist, they all reported other people as saying they are Satanist, which is not the same thing. If you don't know the difference, then you shouldn't be editing here. In any case, the discussion here is over. I've reverted your edit again, as you have no consensus to describe AW as "Satanist". Start a discussion on the article talk page and get a consensus from the editors there, otherwise, it doesn;t go in the article, period. Anything else you post here will be deleted, unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Beyond My Ken, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits to Bowery

Was there something in particular you didn't like about my edits to Bowery that you reverted? — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You made a lot of totally unnecessary changes. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Also read WP:BRD - your restoration without discussion was a violation of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your tone isn't appropriate for Wikipeida.

Hi there,

Your tone isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, and in addition you have a (self-proclaimed) drive to disregard rules and conventions, which is generally unhelpful in a collaborative situation. As a result you end up wasting other editor's time and insulting them.

Perhaps you're in a bad mood today, I don't know. But maybe tomorrow you could re-read this and apologise to me?

InternetMeme (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)