User talk:Beyond My Ken
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 (Hi, Montanabw!) myself in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken's talk page, drama free since 20:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by your revert; none of the changes I did have led to edit warring? There was some minor edit warring yesterday, but I already restored all of the text where the edits were introduced, and it was discussed on the talk page. The article has been frequently blamed for being bloated (I'm the one who brought it up to GA and then FA standard so I keep a close eye on it), hence the changes today, which no one else seems to have minded? I've basically corrected a few facts and then just reworded paragraphs and cut some unnecessary detail. The text is still pretty much unchanged from when I first wrote it, so I know the reasoning behind each choice of words, etc., so I should not be introducing mistakes. Or should I make a sandbox with the edits I did today and then discuss that on the talk page? It would be quite difficult to discuss each change of wording there otherwise. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:OTHERSHITEXISTSEdit
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:OTHERSHITEXISTS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 10 (section). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the , or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"Cancers on Wikipedia"Edit
This is regarding calling Sir Joseph that, which I have now revdeleted. I realize it's a couple of weeks old, but it's just came to my immediate attention now. Anyway, it's important you refrain from calling specific editors "cancers" or anything of the sort — yes, even editors with an especially troubled history. There's nothing wrong with expressing frustration at what you perceive to be editing behaviour that, overall, is damaging to the project, but such an expression needs to be relayed with due moderation. I believe rather firmly that the potency of your point regarding harmful, pov-driven editing can still be conveyed accordingly. So I am asking you to do better in the future. Thanks in advance. El_C 05:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I have to say that while the sentiment was heartfelt, it was at the same time unduly harsh, and wrongly focused on a single editor when it was a class of editors I was actually aiming at -- and that class was not those who work hard to reduce antisemitism and Holocaust denial on Wikipedia (which is a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as some wish to portray it), but that class of editors who operate from, and edit in accordance with, a strong personal political point of view, and not in deference to verifiable and supported facts, whether that POV is right-wing, left-wing, Islamophobic, pro-Israel or whatever. So, as you say, that point can be made, and needs to be made, but the way I made it was certainly inappropriate. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have been trying to turn this water into wine--it was a school assignment, with the predictable result that the prose was a jumble of technical terms in all-too long sentences. The thing is kind of messed up in all kinds of ways, but there are good parts and good sources. What do you think? Can you help it some? You live in NYC, so you know all about this, I'm sure! Drmies (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'll try to take a look. I'm in my last couple of days before I leave town for a couple of weeks, so my time is a bit short, but I'll keep it on the "To do" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for administrative privileges questionEdit
Request for comment and apologyEdit
BMK, You and I have quite the history and Id like to see if we can, in light of the new evidence, put things behind us. On this talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Nazi_Party. I originally made a claim about conflicting dates and the origin of the change in the name from the ANP to the NSWPP. I provided a link to google books where you could have reviewed the pages yourself. To that claim you responded by saying "Nope, you've blown your credibility all to hell." and then forced me to find an alternative source. I have recently uploaded photos of the pages in question to the end of the semi-protected edit request. I thought about re-opening the edit but as you and I have an ongoing disagreement about that issue, decided not to. The images of the pages in question do prove that I was initially correct. The Kaplan source does contain multiple different dates depending on which page you are reading. The Kaplan source does allege that Koehl changed the name, depending on what page you are reading.
Long story short, I was right and your refusal to even look at the material I provided served no other purpose other than to drag out an already tense discussion. That being said, I would like an apology and I would like to see the information I recently provided incorporated in to the article in a meaningful fashion. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:90F:C4B7:3D14:9AD4 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- When I have the time, I will check the pages you uploaded (which, BTW, are copyright violations), and if a correction to the article is required, I will make that correction if someone hasn't already, but when I apologize for something, it's because I feel that I need to do so, and not because it is demanded of me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- 1) The nature and character of my use is to help create something new, specifically, the updated ANP article. Purposes such as research and education may also qualify as transformative use because the work is the subject of review or commentary.
- 2) As the nature of the copyrighted work is factual in nature, and the dissemination of facts or information benefit the public, there is a stronger fair use case when copying material from a published work
- 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken is so small, that the copying is excused as fair use. This is known as the De Minimis Defense.
- 4) The effect of the use on the potential market is negligible at best. There quite literally is no longer a market for the book and those looking to purchase it are not doing so for the pages I copied.
- Now, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, we can do that. If you want to allege, without merit, and in contradiction with fair use guidelines, that I committed copyright infringement, you are likely in violation of multiple wikiepedia rules. Secondly, I "requested" an apology. I did not demand one. A request is an act of politely or formally asking for something. A demand is an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right. You are well within your ability to refuse to apologize, as you have done. I will however, no longer be speaking with you and will instead be filing a complaint with the administrative team. Good bye BMK. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:B5B7:1C72:4EC4:4753 (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)