Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
: {{reply to|Netoholic}} The archiving of the discussion at [[Talk:Interracial marriage]] seems odd to me. The discussion was archived 1,5 hours after the last comment there. In a post just above this section someone who participated in the archived discussion says they are frustrated about the article's poor quality and that the "debate [was] nullified". BMK responded by saying he did not want to get involved. BMK, could you explain that? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
: {{reply to|Netoholic}} The archiving of the discussion at [[Talk:Interracial marriage]] seems odd to me. The discussion was archived 1,5 hours after the last comment there. In a post just above this section someone who participated in the archived discussion says they are frustrated about the article's poor quality and that the "debate [was] nullified". BMK responded by saying he did not want to get involved. BMK, could you explain that? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Most of the threads I've archived have been obvious drive-by editors looking for Nazism, or the Ku Klux Klan or whatever to be called "far-left" instead of "far-right". Leaving these on the take page is useless, as it does not inhibit the next drive0by from doing that same. If I've made a mistake in archiving, it's simply enough to undo it, which I suggest you do. In the future, I will take pains to be sure that a thread is not an active discussion, but I will continue to archive those threads which merely clutter up the page. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
::Most of the threads I've archived have been obvious drive-by editors looking for Nazism, or the Ku Klux Klan or whatever to be called "far-left" instead of "far-right". Leaving these on the take page is useless, as it does not inhibit the next drive0by from doing that same. If I've made a mistake in archiving, it's simply enough to undo it, which I suggest you do. In the future, I will take pains to be sure that a thread is not an active discussion, but I will continue to archive those threads which merely clutter up the page. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: Well, I think what we're saying here is that your judgment of what is "clutter" vs active/valued may be a bit skewed. To say its "simple enough to undo" is not true, especially with intervening edits in other sections, etc.. For the "drive-bys", it may be better give them a space to engage, rather than the constant cycle of edit request-"Not done"-OneClickArchiver-new edit request. Its [[WP:BITEY]] to archive a request before those "drive-bys" have a chance to see your response, and themselves respond. Tt also doesn't give regular editors a reasonable chance to comment or express an opinion that ''might'' just disagree with your own. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:49, 9 June 2020
Salus populi suprema lex esto.
(Cicero: De Legibus)
"The health of the people should be the highest law."
We're here to build an encyclopedia. Anything which helps us do that is useful, and anything which gets in the way of that is counter-productive.
Every decision made at every level on Wikipedia should reflect this basic truth.
(On Wikipedia, the health of the encyclopedia should be the highest law.)
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.
My edit reverted
Hello Beyond My Ken,
I noticed you reverted my recent edit on Fuhrerbunker. It was a rather simple edit, simplifying utilise into use, a simpler and clearer word with - except in certain specific instances - identical meaning. I'm curious why you thought it necessary to revert my edit?
Regards, David12345 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, "use" and "utilize" mean the same thing, but sometimes it's stylistically better to use one of them, and at other times utilize the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Style guides recommend using use in all instances. I'm not aware of exceptions to this. An argument could perhaps be made where use is used a so much that utilized adds variety, but this is not the case in this article. I think we should simply restore my edit because it results in simpler wording. Are you ok with this? If not, can you provide an argument for why utilize should ever be stylistically better? David12345 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fabulous!! I assume you'll be taking care of sending out notifications to all English language dictionaries that they can remove "utilize" from their pages in their next editions, as we won't be needing it anymore? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused about this sarcastic tone you're taking here. I'm just trying to raise an issue in the interest of using the clearest possible language on wikipedia. Your red herring about dictionaries seems quite unnecessary. David12345 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fabulous!! I assume you'll be taking care of sending out notifications to all English language dictionaries that they can remove "utilize" from their pages in their next editions, as we won't be needing it anymore? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Style guides recommend using use in all instances. I'm not aware of exceptions to this. An argument could perhaps be made where use is used a so much that utilized adds variety, but this is not the case in this article. I think we should simply restore my edit because it results in simpler wording. Are you ok with this? If not, can you provide an argument for why utilize should ever be stylistically better? David12345 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Nazi Party
In regard to this revert, I find it funny because I usually added many information like that to those Infobox, like all the years, historical ideologies/political position, colours (both customary and official), etc. (see also my proposal); and while I still wish there was a way to incorporate all that without making the Infobox appear awkward, too large, etc., I have come to the conclusion that the Infobox should be like a lead, i.e. a summary, not to make it as fat as possible. In this specific case, aside from reverting other unrelated edits (some of which you previously wrote were good), there is no need to add all the years (the template parameter only makes reference to the name; there is nothing about years) which can be easily made as I did in the main body; but I guess they can stay since they do not actually enlarge the Infobox (I would just remove the unnecessary small template which should be avoided in Infobox and that I see being used way too many times and in an unneeded way). Why change National Socialist League of the Reich for Physical Exercise --> Nazi League for Physical Exercise
or National Socialist Women's League ---> Nazi Women's League
? Again, we should use the main link, which in this case use National Socialist, but it is not a big deal, just wondering why. Do you prefer using Nazi? Or did you want the link to be shorter so that it would not look awkward? Finally, we should simply list the colour we use for the colour code (again, ironically I was the one to put that in the first place and I did it on other Infoboxes). My compromise is to leave only the brown colour and put the official Imperial colours in a note. Just one last thing, is Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer really an unofficial slogan? There is no mention of unofficial at the linked page; indeed, it reads as [o]ne of the Nazis' most-repeated political slogans
, that doesn't sound like being unofficial. Thanks for your time.--Davide King (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Sorry, this got deleted when I cleared out my talk page. I haven't had the time to respond to it, but I will do so soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
DS alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 SarahSV (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Thanks for the DS alert. Can you specify my editing to which article was the reason for it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the other editors you dropped a DS alert on, I'm assuming it's Nasim Fekrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ken, that's correct. When a BLP subject removes material or asks that the article be deleted citing security concerns, it's never appropriate to respond by immediately doing the opposite. The subject requested help from an admin on 20 March. You began editing it on 21 March, and on 25 March you restored the text the admin had removed. SarahSV (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was privy to exactly the same information that the admin was, and the admin later apologized for removing the material inappropriately (see the AfD}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- He didn't say that, and that's anyway not the point. These issues should be taken seriously and examined with as little public discussion as possible. All that went out the window. I'd prefer not to say anything further until I know more. SarahSV (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- It went out the window when the subject posted publicly on Ser Amantio's talk page, and when Ser Amantio brought the issue to AN, and started the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: You are aware that Ser Amantio sent the request to ArbCom, who (I believe) passed it through Oversight, and the decision was -- if I understand it correctly -- that the article shouldn't be deleted on policy grounds, which is why Ser Amantio took it to AfD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- He didn't say that, and that's anyway not the point. These issues should be taken seriously and examined with as little public discussion as possible. All that went out the window. I'd prefer not to say anything further until I know more. SarahSV (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was privy to exactly the same information that the admin was, and the admin later apologized for removing the material inappropriately (see the AfD}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ken, that's correct. When a BLP subject removes material or asks that the article be deleted citing security concerns, it's never appropriate to respond by immediately doing the opposite. The subject requested help from an admin on 20 March. You began editing it on 21 March, and on 25 March you restored the text the admin had removed. SarahSV (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the other editors you dropped a DS alert on, I'm assuming it's Nasim Fekrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Esther Howard.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Esther Howard.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) 17:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Climate change denial
The current discussion is bound by the earlier discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive289#RfC:_Category:Climate_change_deniers. Please join the current discussion if you have some constructive suggestions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Baloney. If that August 2019 discussion was definitive, you wouldn;t have had to nominiate the categories for discussion now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum
User has been a problem in the past, see talk page history. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've had past disputes with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Re Music Producer Joe Thomas
Good Morning! I am writing in regards to music producer, Joe Thomas. His BIO includes inaccurate and false information. I saw that you were also editing the platform. Would you be able to help to get his correct BIO with true and factual information added to his WIKI page?
[copy of IMDB bio redacted]
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:501:53F1:E46C:5FF6:88B4:A111 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not interested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
My username
Hello, could you please explain what is wrong with my username? I talked with User:AlanM1 and they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. You can see the discussion on my talk page (I don’t know how to link my talk page, I’m still fairly new). If there is a problem, I will be glad to change it, as I’ve said to AlanM1. Thank you. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
- Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bacondrum (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Welp, time to reset the "days since BMK reported to AN/I" counter, I guess. creffett (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Bolded link
Sorry, but I don't quite seem to understand your reversion rationale with regards to this reversion on the article Toplessness. My edit summary mentioned MOS:BOLDAVOID, in which it is stated that Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead
. Granted, "barechestedness" isn't the article title itself and should still be bolded as a synonym, but I don't think that it's really necessary to add a link from the word, considering that (a) it's not considered good form to link a bolded term and (b) the link is to a section in the same page, which seems unnecessary given that it's near the top of the article. Would you mind clarifying your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A claim of hounding by another editor
An editor made a claim against me on AN/I:
- BMK has started turning up on various pages I edit and reverting me recently. Check his history. [4]
So, indeed, let's check the history.
As far as I'm aware, there are two pages in which the editor in question and I have crossed paths recently, Far-right politics and Black Sun (symbol). Let's take a look at those two articles.
- Number of edits to article by Beyond My Ken: 19 [7]
- Number of edits to the article by the other editor: 19 [8]
- Number of edits to article by Beyond My Ken: 51 [11]
- Number of edits to the article by the other editor: 38 [12]
Clearly, any claim by the other editor that I am "showing up" on pages that they edit is incorrect. In both cases, I actually edited the page before they did, in one case four years before. Our contributions to each article are equal for one, and I have more for the other. Neither of us, of course, has any claim to "ownership" of these two articles, although the other editor appears to be verging on that with the claim that because they edit an article I shouldn't edit it.
So, I know some admins read this page. I am making no claim of any kind of violation against the other editor -- except that they're filing frivolous AN/I reports against me -- in regard to these articles, however I would like those admins to be aware that the implication made by the other editor that I am hounding them by going to articles they have edited is totally false. If the step up their aggressive posture regarding me, I want this to be on the record: I did not go anywhere in order to revert the other editor, I simply edited articles I have edited in the past and will continue to edit in the future, and done there what I thought was necessary to improve the articles.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- My final edit to the AN/I thread referenced above [13] was reverted by the other editor [14] immediately after they posted the accusatory comment quoted from above [15]. Except under the reasons given at WP:TPO which I do not believe apply to the reverted comment, removal of one editor's comment by another editor is not allowed. I have not restored the comment -- since it was a request to close the thread, which Black Kite did bery shortly afterwards -- but I do wish to register an objection to having my comment removed by the other editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for collaborating
I am not sure that there is a significant difference between universal health care and universal access to health care, and I am also uncertain that we should let the specific framing of the issue that U.S. Democratic Party politicians prefer dictate how we write the article. Anyway, your wording works too. Nice working with you! RedHotPear (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Same here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
My edit to TURNER DIARIES
Hi there, BMK.
I didn't mean to try to make The Turner Diaries "more compelling"; I thought my summary made it clear that it's not compelling, only just barely readable. And the information I added to the summary is important to the plot. (Did you read the edit before you reverted it?) Turner's assignment to the final suicide mission is his punishment for failing to resist his interrogators, and that is kind of a central point.
I don't much care whether my edit stays or goes, but I don't want to be mistaken for a fan of this book or of similar garbage.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
langan
Would you edit the Bible's wikipedia and cite an amateur source that says it is a repackaging of judaism and in the same source insult Jesus multiple times? I'm sure you wouldn't. It would look unproffesional. But for some reason. You have allowed this on Langans page. Unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- So, you think that CTMU is the equivalent of the Bible?Go away, do not post any more nonsense on my talk page. I have a very low tolerance for people like yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Dear BMK,
My edit (disputed by Beyond My Ken) to the Soldiers of Odin was done in order to remove politically motivated vandalism that framed the group in a highly biased light and explained this using language common to far-right discourse[1] (ie. "fake news media"). The version had also removed cited information revealing the groups white supremacist views. It is in obvious violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view.
This page has been subject to regular vandalism. I expect it is an attempt by this extremist group[2] [3] to alter Wikipedia's neutral explanation of their motives, beliefs and actions.
OrlaNiBradaigh (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Farhall, K., Carson, A., Wright, S., Gibbons, A., & Lukamto, W. (2019). Political Elites’ Use of Fake News Discourse Across Communications Platforms. International Journal Of Communication, 13.[1]
- ^ Castle, T., & Parsons, T. (2019). Vigilante or Viking? Contesting the mediated constructions of Soldiers of Odin Norge. Crime, Media, Culture, 15(1), 47–66. [2]
- ^ Soldiers of Odin USA. (2016). Retrieved 3 June 2020, from [3]
- You are correct. Unfortunately, I read the edit backwards, for which I extend my apologies. I have self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello I have a question.~~
Hello I have a question.~~
single-purpose account : Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16 , 41.232.35.139 , Buzinezz
They damaged and distorted the document. So I opened the debate.
Most of them were blocked.
and The debate ended because 'single-purpose account' excessively tainted the debate.
The debate ended in the end. I have a question.
Should I reopen the debate ??
Can I reopen the debate ??
or Can I edit the document right away? thank youBablos939 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia article talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion of the subject. In addition, the "debate" was largely incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply.Currently, the document is full of false information caused by malicious users(single-purpose account).I opend talk and proved it to be a lie. Suddenly, single-purpose account appeared and made the bulletin board dirty and confusing.I will normalize the discussion without single-purpose account. thank you.Bablos939 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
My edit to Proud Boys
I simply changed the link in the Proud Boys article describing the group as “hipster racists” to redirect to the section in the hipster article about “ hipster racists”. If I screwed something else up in the process of doing so it was by accident, but the article didn’t look any different when I submitted the edit. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've fixed the problem by correcting the redirect at Hipster racist to point to the "Racism" section of the Hipster article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Reporting user Bablos939 for racism and anti-Chinese agenda
Beyond My Ken, can you help me. I'm also here to report apparent anti-Chinese and racism. After learning about him from a forum, I decided to intervene. After analyzing Bablos939 contribution, I couldn't agree more. I take great offense on what appears to be blatant anti-Chinese actions for months. He is also someone with a history of disrupting with dishonesty for his anti-Chinese agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bablos939
The only person accused of single purpose account is Bablos939 which is shown in sockpuppet investigation. He clearly lied about most of the accounts being blocked when only 1 is blocked for evade vandalism. I'm sure he read my message to John B123 and just decided to again post in the sockpuppet investigations against me. I've checked, only 1 of them is blocked for Vandalism. Buzinezz, was never part of the conversation and was blocked since the beginning of May (check the date). He included Buzinezz in sockpuppet investigation on purpose to make it seem like that somneone helped you checked. As for the other account 41.232.35.139 (check the date), he is only blocked only for 72 hours for trying to evade vandalism.
Mz7 wrote this " From what I understand, Maomao4321 is so far a single-purpose account that has only participated in the discussion in support of Bablos939. On that basis, I checked Maomao123 and Bablos939, and they are Possible related to each other " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti
The fact that he has to lie about the sockpuppet investigation in his favor and ignore that this single-related account Maomao4321 (which is confirmed to be possibly related) due to supporting his anti-Chinese agenda. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I advise you to contact an admin. I am not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Whos is this admin though. He reported two sockpuppet investigation in the page of User talk:Yamla and than in the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watersinfalls. Could it be that one of them is a admin ? I really don't know.70.77.154.228 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, none of them are admins. You need to find one. Put this: {{Admin help}} on your talk page, followed by a description of the problem you're asking for help with. An admin should answer at some point in time.Please do not post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Whos is this admin though. He reported two sockpuppet investigation in the page of User talk:Yamla and than in the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watersinfalls. Could it be that one of them is a admin ? I really don't know.70.77.154.228 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback regarding my edit. However, my original contribution was in line with the consensus on the article’s talk page. If you review the most recent section in the talk page, you’ll find that at the time of my edits there was a unanimous agreement that the intro sentence was too specific, and that the mention of “social equality” and “social hierarchy” did not belong there. Regardless of whether there is a consensus or not, this is not a justified reason to revert an edit. There is no bias toward the status quo. If you disagree that there is a consensus, then the place to settle that is in the article's talk page, not by repeatedly reverting another editors contributions. You appeared to have reverted my edits (twice now) unnecessarily and in bad faith, so I reverted your first edit, and then attempted to discuss the dispute on the article’s talk page. This is not engaging in an edit war as currently defined on Wikipedia (see Edit war).
To clarify:
- An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. (Edit war)
- When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page. (Edit war)
- Revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. (Revert only when necessary)
- Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. (Bad reasons to revert)
My override of your revert is what established a dispute, which is why I recommended discussing further edits in the article's talk page first, in order to avoid an edit war. I have also intentionally refrained from overriding your edits a second time for that very reason. I should advise that as you have now repeatedly overridden my contribution without attempting to resolve the dispute first, this may be viewed as an attempt to engage in an edit war, as defined above and in the linked article. To avoid an edit war from starting, I will continue to refrain from overriding your revert again, until a resolution is agreed upon. I will respond to your comments in the article's talk page as soon as I get a chance. If you still believe your revert of my edit was justified afterwards, we can continue the discussion in the article's talk page, or use one of the other methods of dispute resolution, which you have already mentioned. Mikwehttam (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't notice that you had given the same advice to The Cat 2020 about an hour before I did. We agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but they'll never follow the advice, I'm sure, no matter how many people give it to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Dapperheidgrotepier crop.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Redundant to File:Dapperheidgrotepier.jpg which is hosted on Commons
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your help on the King Youngblood page earlier last month! I didn't really understand the "draftify" option and have been drafting two other pages too, but I'm a little confused about the process of publishing from there and as much as I'm trying to read about it within Wikipedia, I'm still just a bit confused.
Once something is in the draft space, what are the normal steps for publishing it? Is it better to wait for someone else to edit it and do so?
Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylynBuckley (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that you submit it to WP:Articles for creation (AfC). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
D. B. Cooper {{Years or months ago}}
Thanks Beyond My Ken! I knew there was a way to do this, but didn't quite read enough on the template. I was planning to return to figure it out. Your edit solved and also educated. 👍😁 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
- It was new to me too, so it took a couple of tries to get it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
hello I'd like to ask for your advice.
Hello I'd like to ask for your advice.
I'm sorry to bother you. But I'm so immature that I need your help.
The current version of this document about Latin America and China is contributed by blocked users. Above all, this version is full of false information.
1. I opened the debate. 2. but only improper user attacks or disrupts it. 3. Sockpuppet investigations 4. The debate is already nullified.
It's a vicious circle.
What should I do?Bablos939 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have no interest in getting involved with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Overuse of OneClickArchiver
I've noticed that on several pages, you have been using OneClickArchiver to remove very recent, and active, threads from talk pages. These pages already have an automated archiving schedule and removal of threads early could be seen as a means to silence discussion. WP:TALKCOND suggests archiving talk pages when they go over 75k in size, and its very typical for most pages to not archive threads earlier than 30d since the last post, to allow fresh perspectives. I am going to revert some of your archives and check that the bot configs are set to reasonable amounts. I suggest you limit use of OneClickArchiver, particularly on talk pages of divisive subjects where one could interpret such actions as trying to quell discussion. -- Netoholic @ 09:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Netoholic: The archiving of the discussion at Talk:Interracial marriage seems odd to me. The discussion was archived 1,5 hours after the last comment there. In a post just above this section someone who participated in the archived discussion says they are frustrated about the article's poor quality and that the "debate [was] nullified". BMK responded by saying he did not want to get involved. BMK, could you explain that? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the threads I've archived have been obvious drive-by editors looking for Nazism, or the Ku Klux Klan or whatever to be called "far-left" instead of "far-right". Leaving these on the take page is useless, as it does not inhibit the next drive0by from doing that same. If I've made a mistake in archiving, it's simply enough to undo it, which I suggest you do. In the future, I will take pains to be sure that a thread is not an active discussion, but I will continue to archive those threads which merely clutter up the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I think what we're saying here is that your judgment of what is "clutter" vs active/valued may be a bit skewed. To say its "simple enough to undo" is not true, especially with intervening edits in other sections, etc.. For the "drive-bys", it may be better give them a space to engage, rather than the constant cycle of edit request-"Not done"-OneClickArchiver-new edit request. Its WP:BITEY to archive a request before those "drive-bys" have a chance to see your response, and themselves respond. Tt also doesn't give regular editors a reasonable chance to comment or express an opinion that might just disagree with your own. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)