User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Indeffed. Clearly a troll and very probably a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, good call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I get that. There actually is an "imagesize=" parameter in that template, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to note for TPS - closed with no action. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's an awful lot of literalness swirling around me right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not here for a debate, just made a comment. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

• No problem, always glad to help out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for inadvertent delete. Mouse drag! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was something like that. Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @El C: Thanks for the notification. It's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. El_C 07:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was grammatically awkward. Beyond My Ken (talk)

According to OED it is perfectly correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]