User talk:Beyond My Ken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that.
There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:
  • BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
  • When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.
Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.


Given the concerns that have been raised about my blocks for edit warriing — i.e. 13 blocks in 14 years of editing, an average of a little under one per year, which also happens to be on average one edit-warring block per every 19,300 edits (my current editing total being 250,859) — I have decided to try to limit myself to 2RR as a means of attempting to prevent myself from going to 3RR and over.

I'd appreciate it if any friendly editor who sees me going over 2RR would drop a note on my talk page or ping me. We'll see if this helps rein myself in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already broken my own rule, on Reinhard Heydrich, but -- in my defense -- I provided 17 sources on the article's talk page to support the contention that "murder" is an appropriate word to use in relation to the millions of people who died in The Holocaust. User:Newzild wanted to change it to "killed" in that article and in Hei+nrich Himmler, because murder is to them a legal term, and to use "murder" is a pejorative and not encyclopedic.. Of course, the Nuremberg Trial showed with finality that the Nazi crimes against humanity were not legitimate simply because they were state-sanctioned.
I do hope that Newzild accepts the sources as showing the appropriateness of "murder", but if he doesn;t, another 17 sources can be found, and 17 more, and 17 more and so on until he understands that one cannot trifle with the immensity and illegality of the Holocaust. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, BMK, I am getting very concerned about your edit warring recently. Reverting vandals, trolls, Nazis and other obvious POV pushers is an unavoidable part of building an encyclopedia, but edit warring with longstanding, productive editors such as User:Beyond My Ken, who you've reverted in recent weeks here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (sometimes without even an edit summary!), is troubling. It seems your disagreements with this editor go back years. I know you think that you're right and he's wrong, but how do you think he feels? Instead of reverting, please start a discussion on his talk page and try to come to consensus. I hope you can be more considerate of BMK in the future, and that you don't take all this too seriously Face-smile.svg An encyclopedia is, after all, just a big book that nobody can read from start to finish. Cheers, Levivich 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
My sincere thanks for making me aware of this, as it had somehow escaped my attention. Please believe that I will do everything in my power to treat BMK better in the future, even when he is terribly, amazingly, totally and incredibly wrong. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


I disagree with your edit and your edit summary. The term Moors does not generally equate to Arabs. In origin, it means Berbers and only later does it common to include Arabs and even all Muslims of Spain or North Africa. The article should deal with the use of the term and if it has nothing to say on the use of the term in or connected with Sicily, then that stuff should be removed. In my experience, the term is not commonly used in reference to the Muslims of Sicily. This paper in the European Journal of Human Genetics says explicitly, "Referred to either as Moors (in Iberia) or Saracens (in South Italy and Sicily) . . ." Srnec (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Were not talking about professional usage in genetics, we're talkg about colloquial usage. Also, I have little doubt that the facts in question are correct. If they are, simply put a "cn" tag on them, do not delete them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the facts. I'm disputing their relevance to a page titled "Moors". Neither am I talking about professional usage in genetics. That paper was just an example. (1) In Alex Metcalfe's Muslims of Medieval Italy, the only reference to Moors in Italy is a quote from Pope Leo IV referring to "Saracens and Moors". (2) The term doesn't appear in his Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily. (3) Nor does the term appear in William Granara's Narrating Muslim Sicily. (4) No references to Moors in Sicily in Hiroshi Takayama's Sicily and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. (5) Likewise no references to Moors in Sicily in Where Three Worlds Met: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean by Sarah Davis-Secord (who happens to cite the genetics paper). Srnec (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're not disputing the facts, please don;t delete the information, since doing so doesn't improve the encyclopedia. At most, tag it with "cn". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm removing the information. It doesn't belong on the page Moors. It's in the history if you think it needs to be added elsewhere. There is a page on the History of Islam in southern Italy, which is already extensive. Srnec (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Srnec: I've restored it, because you said above that you don't doubt that the facts are accurate. As such, deleting it is not helpful. Please read WP:BRD, and do not revert again. Instead, lay out your arguments for the removal of the information on the article talk page, where other editors can consider them, and a consensus can be reached. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Maybe you described your opinion, but it seems that you don't understand the meaning of this word, and who it may concern. The Ashkenazi is never a Semite. So the meaning has no sense in that case, because anti-jewish is not the same as the word anti-semitism. Rosenfurz (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Rosenfurz (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC) (UTC).

What opinion are you talking about, Rosenfurz? What's your previous interaction with Beyond My Ken, and whose sockpuppet are you, please? Bishonen | talk 20:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC).
And what they are saying is pure poppycock. The Asshkenazis are Jews, and antisemitism is about all Jews. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly "Rosen" (German for "roses") is the beginning of a number of German family names, such as "Rosemberg" and "Rosenstein", in particular, that of German Jewish families, while "furz" is German for "fart". I am unable to find any instances of "Rosenfurz" as an actual German surname -- so perhaps this brand-new account chose this made-up name for a reason? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeffed. Clearly a troll and very probably a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Scopes Trial page[edit]

I saw that you undid my revisions on Scopes Trial. The thing is, there is a category of pages using said deprecated image syntax. The current guidelines say to use |image=Example.jpg for images in infoboxes (particularly where Module:InfoboxImage is being used), not |image=[[File:Example.jpg]]. Just letting you know. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, here's the thing. Once upon a time, almost all infoboxes had an "image_size=", or "imagesize=", or "width=" parameter by which one could adjust the size of the infobox image. Then someone, or many someones, got it into their heads that all infobox images should be the same size, or that the size of the image should be capped at some semi-arbitrary number. Since many infobox images are headshots of a person, or a picture of a record label or book's cover, this didn't cause too many problems, but every now and then, an infobox image is too visually complex for the reader to take it in unless its large enough to do so -- but without a parameter to make it the needed size, that's a problem.
For every problem, there is (often) a solution, and one of them is to use the format that you saw for the infobox image on the Scopes Trial article, were one uses a version of the standard image format, i.e. [[File:Imagename|325px]] (or whatever) to make the image big enough for the reader to see the image clearly. This is done under the auspices of WP:IAR, which allows us to say "The hell with that", and fix a problem to improve the encyclopedia.
And that, as they used to say, is the name of that tune. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I get that. There actually is an "imagesize=" parameter in that template, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

About your behaviour on Talk:Fascism[edit]

Hi. I think you are being disruptive and violating the talk-page guidelines by archiving ongoing discussions on this talk page. You also violated your own 2RR rule. Could you stop archiving discussions that you personally are sick of (I understand)? Just don't look at that page if it bothers you. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am following the consensus of the editors on the page, and I will continue to do so. It is you who is being disruptive by continual raising a subject which is settled. Iif you continue to do s, I will ask that an admin block for for WP:Disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There's no such a thing as consensus about editing a talk page, what are you talking about? One needs consensus to insert a discussion topic? --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is, consensus rules pretty much everything on Wikipedia, except where policy limits it -- and even then consensus often decides how to interpret policy. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that 3,148 edits in 3 1/2 years of editing hasn't exposed you to every aspect of our rules, policies and behavioral norms? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Such a disappointing reply. I see no valid arguments here. You did not refer to the specific rule among "[y]our rules" (probably you feel like you own Wikipedia?) where it is stated that one must build consensus in order to merely discuss on a talk page. Consensus is about article content, not about the talk page. And even if you think that there are violations on how the talk page is used, nobody gives you permission to archive ongoing discussions on your own. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The last RfC was closed with "weak consensus". It wasn't as black-and-white, never-talk-about-this-again strong consensus that you are portraying it to be. I agree with Ritchie92, stop archiving ongoing discussions. Galestar (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus is consensus - a "weak delete" consensus at AfD will end in a deletion, a "week keep" will wind up with a keep, so it actually is kinda black-and-white. In any case, another thing that consensus can't over-rule is WP:Verifiability. As long as there are no reliable source that supports Fascism being "left-wing", that is never going to appear in our article, no matter how many drive-by IPs and new accounts !vote for it to be. Again, maybe 627 edits in 9 1/2 years hasn't been enough to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Going off on random tangents about AfD and then other editor's edit counts are pretty weak arguments. Maybe try to stick to the actual subject at hand. Galestar (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, you show that you fundamentally don't understand what an analogy is. Please don't post here again, you have caused me trouble, you're annoying, and you're not worth my time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to note for TPS - closed with no action. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually the result is that I have been warned, because according to the admins there was evidence that I am a right-wing POV-pushing vandal... (Then they removed "right-wing") Nothing is further from reality than this statement, and I hope you agree with me on this, but okay. Happy editing, and I hope the problems of the Fascism and Talk:Fascism pages will be solved soon once and for all! --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I never really thought that you were trying to push a PoV, although I'm not sure I can say the same thing for the other editors who were chiming in to support you. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I Appreciate the explanation[edit]

Hey @Beyond My Ken: I Really appreciate the explanation, I have been trying to do better then I did in past that is why I have been reporting Harvey carter when it does edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talkcontribs) 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SlaterSteven can be very literal about RS requirements[edit]

I've encountered SlaterSteven a lot in political articles, and they are very literal about applying RS rules. So while you or I might not really distinguish between far Right-wing and Radical right as link targets, they'll see it as an issue. That said, they try probably harder than most to be extremely neutral with their edits. So, *shrug* it's probably not worth getting annoyed over. I really don't care. The radical right are clearly right wing, and it'll mollify the "but I'm a conservative and I think nazis are bad too" set. If it keeps "but the nazis were sooooooooooocialists" off the page I'm fine with it TBH. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciated your recent comment and almost jumped in to agree with you - I may still. I'm going to check the sources I have at hand, just to see what shorthand they use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There's an awful lot of literalness swirling around me right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Instead of edit warring over your edit which is against the help guideline and other issues, please participate at Talk:William_Joyce#Column_issue. Widefox; talk 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Widefox: Please read the notice at the top of this page, Ken is not editwarring. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I've already seen it, edit warring isn't 3RR or 2RR or whatever, see WP:EDITWAR. Where's the discussion or attempt at accommodating both consensus (of the help page), and another editors concerns? A statement about being allowed to 2RR is not a licence to 2RR, is it?! Widefox; talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
FlightTime, if you're going to pronounce about what edit warring is and isn't, you're not helping BMK see his style of trying to force edits through isn't helpful to him or the project, especially when they're bad edits! Widefox; talk 19:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Not here for a debate, just made a comment. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI I got a thanks for my comment, and if editors like myself don't stand up to edit warring (over accessibility!) whilst having to endure "shitty" [2], and "aggresive" [3] then what have we become here? Widefox; talk 07:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Some people just can't take blunt evaluations: your formatting of the columns was shitty, and your taking such a tremendously trivial matter to the talk page was aggressive. I woudn't read too much into the thanks you got -- there are editors out there who would thank Beelzebub if he criticized me. One makes a lot of enemies when one stands up for what is right for the project and best for the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Blunt is OK if right, but it seems you haven't yet realised you're not right, so this isn't going away is it?! Are you inviting me to be more blunt with you until you understand why you're wrong? You say trivial, but accessibility may be trivial for you, but not for others eh? Also, if trivial, why did you start it then [4]? As you're restricting yourself to 2RR, you realise I don't have to discuss with you, as I'd just win a 3RR edit war, showing you how confident I am about you going directly against accessibility guidance which you have not yet mentioned or replied to here or Talk:William_Joyce#Column_issue. I note the layout fix edit I originally did was also putting the image in the appropriate section [5] which you also seem to get wrong per the top of this talk. Was that error also you? Widefox; talk 08:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's already gone away. I've disengaged, and you're banned from my talk page. *Poof*. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Soviet casualties in the battle of seelow heights[edit]

Hastings and beevor claim that more than 30,000 soviet soldiers were killed in the battle. But both of them don't write what is the source of this figure. Both of them are western researchers, so it's fair to say this figure is western estimation. The russian researcher Alexi Isaev gives the number 20,000 total casaulties. but this number represent only the casaulties of the 8GA and the 69A, that were directly involved in the battle for seelow heights. Other Armies of the FBF (Zokov) were also involved in the battle. Acording to Isaev data, the total casaulties of the FBF in the breakout battle (16-20.4.45) were around 60,000, including 10,000-13,000 killed (see first discussion in the talk page of the entre of the battle). I think this number is closer to the real figure of soviet casaulties. it's still much lesser then the figure used by western researchers, which is very exaggerated in my view. איש שלום (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Many thanks for fixing my cock up,

Without fail each time I either reply or move all to the talkpage that issue always happens!,
Anyway thanks for quickly fixing that it's much appreciated, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertent delete. Mouse drag! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I assumed it was something like that. Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation on Zionism[edit]

Please take this opportunity to self-revert. El_C 07:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @El C: SHIT! Yet another example where DS gets on the way of actually protecting the encyclopedia from harm. The other edir'tos first edit was clearly a revert of someone's edit, so are you sending them the same warning regarding their second revert? I think that would only be fair in this circumstance, where I smell the stench of anti-semitism.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not looked at the edits themselves to tell what's what. Anyway, it is my understanding the Committee will be consulting the community in their revamping of the ARBPIA DS. I encourage you to participate in that process if, indeed, you are finding the current modality is not having its desired effect. El_C 07:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm sure I'll be looking into that when it happens. I do think something needs to change, but I'm not sure exactly what. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Anytime. El_C 07:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Congratulations. Seriously - I can't believe how many Wikipedia edits you have made. It looks like you edit Wikipedia about 15 hours a day, and have for years. Wow. You must be retired. Or do you edit Wikipedia full-time? Can you get paid to edit Wikipedia? BattleshipGray (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My wife wishes I could get paid for editing Wikipedia!! (Actually some people do, but they usually get in trouble for it, since paid editing is highlydiscouraged, for obvious WP:COI reasons.) I describe myself as "semi-retured" - I still work enough in my field to keep my hand in, but have a fair amount of down time to read books, watch TV, and edit Wikipedia. Thanks for the barnstar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deborah Lipstadt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emory College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind comment at WP:AN. It's always nice to have someone reinforcing the idea that all animals are created equal. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume you thought that was a very clever remark. Unfortunately, the facts are as I presented them, regardless of your wit, or lack of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Reinstating a typo[edit]

Hello! Just wondering why you undid my edit fixing a typo on the page ‘Atomwaffen Division’. ‘Youtube’ is incorrect and inconsistent with all the other spellings of ‘YouTube’ on that same page, I edited it to be fixed but you undid it. Could you explain why? Thanks. Iokerapid (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, "YouTube" is correct. Look at their website, there is no space between the "e" and the "T". Or, look at our article, which you'll find at YouTube. You Tube will redirect you to YouTube, because that is the correct spelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, “YouTube” is correct. So, on that page, I edited it to be ‘YouTube’, from ‘Youtube’. You reverted my edit to make it back to being “Youtube”. I did not change it to be You tube or anything like this. You seem to have missed what I was talking about, or maybe you’re just trolling me? Iokerapid (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Genocides in history[edit]

Just curious, was there a problem with my restoring original text edit to the above article? Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It was grammatically awkward. Beyond My Ken (talk)
According to OED it is perfectly correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That fascism template[edit]

Thinking about typical human behavior, I suspect it is counter-productive to slap people in the face with a contentious but technically true statement and then demand they don't discuss it. That's what your template at the top of the Fascism talk page is doing as the first thing everybody sees when they visit the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you honestly harassing me or is their a reason behind the edit warring[edit]

Do you have a thing against me? Did I offend you any way?

You are constantly following my every edit and reverting it.

I am not trying to harass you but it seems like you are harassing me.

Even when I back up sources with citations, you keep reverting.

You are giving vague answers why you are reverting, like saying 'nope' or 'retalitatory edit' when you are the one deleting my edits without a reason Nashhinton (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not "followed your every edit." When you made an edit to Adolf Hitler that showed very poor judgment (adding "artist" to the lede sentence), I looked into your other edits, where I found some which were problematic, and which I dealt with in whatever way was necessary. Most of your edits were unobjectionable, and I did not touch them. One I reverted, then changed my mind and restored (the one to Loony left. The others I maintain were not good. You added unsourced material to Black Death, for instance, so I reverted it. You restored it with sources, but only 1 of the 4 sources your provided was a reliable source, so I removed those three sources. That left one statement unsourced, so I removed it. You had added the information to the lede section, but the lede is intended to be a summary of the article, and since the subject you added was not in the body of the article, your addition should not have been in the lede, so I moved it into the body. If you get reliable sources that support the one statement I removed, then you can re-add the statement to the material -- just be sure that the source is reliable by our definition, you can't use just any old thing you happen to find on the web.
On the other hand, what you did you my edits was unconscionable - you simply deleted the first 4 or 5 article edits you found in my contribution list, using whatever criteria you could make up. That was retaliatory editing, as I told you on your talk page, and as an admin confirmed. I don't know you, I've never run into you before. I have no animus against you. I simply want Wikipedia's articles to be improved and not made worse, and for our policies on sourcing to be followed. If you do that, if your edits improve article, and your sourcing is good, you'll have no problem with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
What previous edits did you find problematic? Nashhinton (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The ones which I edited, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Nashhinton, stop trying to personalize this. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. El_C 05:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment above that was snarky.
  • Great Recession - you wikilinked "demand", El_C reverted you, saying it was overlinking, you restored, asking "what is overlinkin", and I restored El_C's version, because it was overlinking. See WP:Overlinking
  • Evil - you added an image of Kali, with the caption "Although it is seen as an 'evil' incarnation of Brahman, it creates chaos and war to re-establish harmonious dharma". That information is not in the article, so I deleted it as being unsourced, which it was.
  • Revolution - You added the communism sidebar and the libertarianism sidebar. The communism sidebar is somoewhat defensible, because it was (at one time) a revolutionary ideology, but libertarianism has never been revolutionary. If we add the communism sidebard, then we have to add the sidebars for every ideology that could be considered revolutionary - including fascism. This would not improve the article, it would just clutter it up with unnecessary sidebars, so I reverted your edit.
I think that, and the ones I wrote about above, is the sum total of your contributions I edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I've also done some copy-editing and re-formatting of your contribs since then, but I've also removed your addition to the lede of Premillenialism, because it repeated something that was already mentioned in the lede. Also in the article on the Four Horseman, "Prophetic interpretations" is very much better than "Futurist interpretations", given the context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Please stop edit warring at Dark Enlightenment, you've exceeded 3RR. I don't want to report you, it's nasty and tit for tat, I also don't want to spend my time getting into personal insults etc...I'm sure you're a perfectly nice fellow, just take it to talk. Please stop accusing others of being this, that, and the other. This is supposed to be fun, not a cluster of accusations and endless edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I could easily accuse you of vindictive editing, you've been turning up on my watchlist nonstop since our little spat. Just stop it. Bacondrum (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: BMK has edited Dark Enlightenment exactly three times in the last week, so it's hard to see how he could have exceeded 3RR. That said, BMK, please don't let that user bait you into edit warring. Note, I'm not referring to Bacondrum, but to the user now showing his competence at ANI. I remind you of the yellow banner at the top of this page. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC).
Bishonen: Thanks for the reminder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"exactly three times in the last week"??? Seriously? Look at the page history, that's clearly false.
That's four reverts to preferred version, also made other edits - clearly more than three. BMK edit wars constantly and regularly insults other editors. He seems to be given a pass by admins where no one else is. How many times has he been blocked for edit warring? He's clearly an aggressive and highly disruptive editor. I've found all my encounters with this editor to be adversarial and extremely unpleasant. Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if the other editor is not competent, there is no need for BMK to be so uncivil. Why is it okay for BMK to behave the way he does? If any other editor was so frequently uncivil and edit warring they get an indef ban. Well, we all may as well throw caution to the wind and start insulting each other and edit warring as the guidelines clearly don't apply anymore...or is BMK a special case? Bacondrum (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bacondrum: I'm quite serious, yes. The diffs you have given are to edits by other people, sometimes reverting BMK, sometimes not. Here are the three edits by BMK during the week in question: [10][11][12]. (He has also made a small copyedit today,[13] some 22 hours after I posted my count above.) If you're not sure how to read a page history, it would be better not to "correct" others so aggressively. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC).
I apologize if I came across as aggressive, this was not my intent. Look at the pages history, you are wrong, he has been edit warring, and insulting other editors. In fact, if you look at BMK's history you will see a pattern of combative, disruptive behavior. I'm not asking for a block or anything, I just want him to stop the constant insults and fighting with other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Seriously dude, if you don't have the competence to count the number of BMK's actual reverts (which clearly never exceed WP:3RR on that article) or even provide WP:DIFFs of them, then you should not be commenting or complaining about him, and should leave this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for talking it out BMK. I believe we got off on the wrong foot and I hope we can be more civil towards each other in the future. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like that. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, what was wrong with my edit? What was wrong in adding to the lead anti-statist and libertarian? What was wrong in adding that another thing that distinguishes anarchism from all other ideologies, besides opposition to the state (which is also shared by other ideologies like communism), is opposition to authority and hirerachies? Indeed, it could be argued that anarchism is both the most consistent form of left-wing politics and the total antithesis of right-wing politics. Or adding As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy to clear why it's considered a far-left ideology? All anarchism is (libertarian) socialism, but not all socialism is anarchism, or even libertarian. Economically, communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc. are all different variants or flavors of (libertarian) socialism. Anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism; it didn't even originate from it (all influences from so-called individualist anarchists were minor since Rothbard turned them upside down), but rather originated in the United States from European liberalism and is considerated New Right liberalism, or stateless liberalism, rather than anarchism. Free-market anarchism is actually part of anarchism because it's (libertarian) socialist. If a philosophy support undisputed, permanent or absentee private ownership of either land or industry, it cannot be considared anarchist or even socialist; as it would be a form of authority and hierarchy that deprive people without it of their liberty. Anarcho-capitalism also support wage slavery, one hierarchy all anarchists have fought against. This is not to be confused with wage labour, which certain anarchists like collectivists and individualist anarchists like Tucker support; they support wage labour not because it's "voluntary" (it cannot be voluntary in a capitalist society), but because in their philosophy it would guarantee the worker the full value of his or her labour. Either way, any property rights that isn't based on possession and use, but rather on absenteeism and receive income by the simple virtue of "owning" something, cannot be considered anarchist. Can you help me find reliable sources to add in the page? I'm not an expert and I don't know how and where to find them, or even how to start and how to make sure that the source is actually reliable, because finding a source may be easy but find a source that is realiable is another thing; I found out about Google Scholar only now. I also removed the Libertarianism and Revolution sidebar simply because they were disruptiving the images below, but they could be added in another sections, for instance the Libertarian one in the Schools of thought and Revolution on anarchists thought about revolution, violence, pacifism, etc. I also re-ordered alphabetically the Post-classical and contemporany anarchism section because it didn't seem to be ordered in any meaningful and I moved anarcho-capitalism in a sub-section like Anarcha-feminism. Thank you for the attention.-- (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Several editors have reverted your edits, so you need to discuss them not here, but on the article talk page. People get nervous when an unknown editor makes a lot of edits without first discussing them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I was about to do exactly that, but first I wanted to personally explain my reasons to you since I forgot to put some edit summary (I honestly didn't know what to put).-- (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


.... Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62#OpenStreetMap..--Moxy 🍁 14:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For wading into the toxic waste quagmire that our notice boards so often are, and bringing reason, reasonableness, and common sense to such places so sadly bereft of these qualities. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. A well deserved barnstar and my thanks to Dlohcierekim for presenting it. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Der Stuermer[edit]

Had somehow overlooked the characterisation of Streicher's style as 'inconsiderate'; was vastly amused when I saw your edit. 'Vituperative' would certainly have been a propos! Hushpuckena (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Or "pornographic" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "sub-species"[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Regarding this edit, I just checked, and of the dictionaries searched by OneLook Dictionary Search, only the Glossary of Entomology lists "sub-species" as an alternate spelling, versus twenty-five for "subspecies". (For "subspecies", three dictionaries give no direct links, WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper does not respond, the online medical dictionary ( times out, the UltraLingua English Dictionary, Botanical Terms, and Botanical Terms ( give 404 errors, the Online Plain Text English Dictionary gives no definition, and the Encyclopedia of Graphic Symbols gives a nonsensical response (the symbol for Aries)).



In light of this to me "subspecies" is the correct spelling. Would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion of my edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Request unarchival[edit]

[14] discussion on the closure is currently unanimously contested and discussion ongoing. Buffs (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Where? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
As you can see at the bottom of the thread, there is a ongoing conversation in which every participant besides the closing admin has agreed that the close needs to be overturned. Therefore, I have restored the thread. Lepricavark (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not see that. My bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Honest mistake! :-) Buffs (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Saulte[edit]

Hi. Could you explain your latest reversion [15]? I think its grammatically correct. Am I incorrect? You mention wp:IQ. Did you revert just because you don't like me? Thanks.---- Work permit (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry I was trying to point you to WP:LQ. We can use logical quotation on Wikipedia. Depending on the circumstances, the period can either go inside the quotation mark, or outside of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. The link and associated essay was very helpful. And I'm happy to know you don't dislike me :).---- Work permit (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Clara Bow article[edit]

Hi, BMK. I see you reverted my removal of what seems to be link spam from Clara Bow. The fact that Bow died as a result of atherosclerosis is, in the article, spun into a citation of a how-to book on preventing heart disease. Whether her disease might have begun in her earlier years is both irrelevant to the article as well as speculation, and, to me, "looks like" an attempt at linkspam. If you disagree, please let me know. The edit which introduced the medical material is here--Quisqualis (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I'll revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Hitler's death[edit]

Beyond My Ken, it would be much better if you engaged in the discusion at Talk:Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death#Bariloche_nazi-guía_turística_and_Abel_Basti, instead of purely deleting material on the basis of an alleged "consensus". Dentren | Talk 09:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, what would be best is if you did not edit against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


By the way, I saw this statement. I just wanted to let you know that:
(1) I had to trim my apology to Arbcom to avoid going over the word limit.
(2) I am involved.. which isn't exactly clear by the request, I agree.
(2.A) I previously filed this AE report that went nowhere.
(2.B) In this case request, as well as this previous AE statement, I gave a snapshot of what it was like for me to contribute to Cotswold Olimpick Games.
(3) Despite what you may think about me, I still enjoy having worked with you on Deep state in the United States and Andy Ngo. When you requested this of me, you'll notice that I did heed that advice (despite my own disagreements with it).
Please don't view this as me "defending myself" or anything. I just wanted to give you all the facts relevant to me. Whatever opinion you hold of me, I will avoid taking it personally and will still work with you in the future. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 18:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for my ban[edit]

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


It is not necessary to use DEFAULTSORT at all if the article or page should be alphabetized according to its title (true for most articles). (Source) Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Spencer RFC/AN addendum[edit]

To add to my note at AN: Reading the RFC and all the cited sources, I was actually surprised how thin the sourcing was for calling Spencer 'neo-Nazi' directly especially compared to the mass of words written about him overall. Essentially, among the cited non-opinion pieces only Vanity Fair and Newsweek do it in the article text. I am guessing, based on the "if the sources say it" conditional that many participants used, that like me several of them presumed that the available sourcing for something that seems so obvious would be stronger. On the other hand neo-Nazi association seems to be well-supported and I could see easily support something along the lines of "white nationalist and white supremacist who is closely linked to the Neo-Nazi movement."

The above is obviously not a "summary" of the RFC itself, and not meant to draw you into a discussion either. Just an fyi expansion to my reply to you at AN, which I didn't want to place at AN itself since it was likely to derail the discussion there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PS General Slocum[edit]

Hi - I'm confused by the revert of my edit yesterday on PS General Slocum. I had separated the Notes and References, as I believed they were separate things, and WP:REFGROUP seems to show recommended examples that do just that. You didn't offer an explanation when you reversed it, so I was wondering what the concern was. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way organize references and notes in an article. The one you changed has been in that article for quite a long time and functions well. There was no need to change it. Please note that REFGROUP is a guideline and not a policy, and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi! I just wanted to discuss the Unite the Right rally article and illustrations on it. I spent some time digging for appropriate media, and am of the philosophy that each separate section could probably be illustrated in some way. I found the promotional footage for the May 13 rally, and used it because there was nothing illustrating that in that section. It also bears a huge resemblance to the other footage that was reused by mainstream media over and over later, and was likely used by neo-nazi circles to promote the larger rally, and because of that and the fact it wasn't illustrated before I believe the video has great merit in the article. Please let me know your thoughts, I've dug for images for this event quite a bit and would like to keep it well-and-appropriately-illustrated and I realize that it's not just my opinion that counts!

Victor Grigas (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Each section does not need to be illustrated. See WP:NOTGALLERY: Wikipedia is not a photogallery. Add a promotional POV video simply because there is no image in a section is not a very good choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC) You've made some other image additions which I think were poor as well. I think you might want to back off from doing that particular task until you have a better understanding of whatis appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
What do you think if we migrate this conversation to the article talk page? Victor Grigas (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I already have. You should restore the article to the status quo ante (see WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD) and remove the video while discussion is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic#Aftermath - sourcing[edit]

Ahah! Sources! Do you have access? Thank you for stepping in on this. Would you be willing to check through the two paragraphs of the section and attach references to the individual sentences?

At present references appear only for the final sentence of each paragraph. It’s my experience tht when referencing is like this, other contributors regard only the last sentence of the paragraph as at all firm. They treat the earlier sentences as, in effect, editor’s opinion which they feel they may modify freestyle; and I’m fairly sure that’s what’s happened here. I’ve tried to engage with the relevant editor,, but the answers I’ve had are brief. I’m very aware he hasn’t replied directly to my question, "Can you provide any [sources]?"; and I’m left with the feeling tht his later claim tht the emendations are "consistent with the sources" is speculation - that is, he hasn’t checked - and in fact incorrect.

Opinions are likely to be strong about the particular topic, and the only way to prevent similar difficulty recurring in future (probably with other contributors) must be to cite for each sentence. I can’t do that in good faith, as I don’t have sources. (And of course maybe the text as it stands has already suffered freestyle modification, and no longer reflects the source anyway!) Are you able to deal?

- SquisherDa (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sutro Baths[edit]

Hello. Since historical building articles generally should have an image of their exterior, let's remove one of the 3 redundant images of the ruins of Sutro Baths, to make room for this. The last image of the ruins is a good candidate for deletion. How does that sound? -- Max Paxman (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Max Paxman: I think it would be better to remove the aerial view, which is hard to read visually at that presentation size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)