Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) |
School monitor (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{tocright}} |
{{tocright}} |
||
Antony Price |
|||
Look without getting into an argument your statements are not accurate though. |
|||
The silk tonic suits designed by Price were not pastel coloured and they were not in a new romantic style. |
|||
The band shrugged off the New Romantic tag after the first album, Price helping to dismantle it. |
|||
To understand what a New Romantic or Futurist was look at Steve Strange for the Anvil cover and sleeve. |
|||
Definetly not the silk tonic suit look invented for the Rio publicity! - That was also to do with |
|||
embracing the narcistic lyfestyle of Tory Thatcherite values - Rio epitomised it - and it was departure |
|||
from New Romanticism that the suits designed by Price were about. Your statement reads that they |
|||
were New Romantics suits. |
|||
Also: |
|||
The Camden Palace ''Extravaganza'' show was in March 1983. |
|||
The Hippodrome ''Fashion Spectacular'' was in March 1984. |
|||
I have as much right to edit an article as you and expecially as my information |
|||
is more accurate as I lived through the period and have been read up on Antony Price |
|||
for 30 years - you obviously did not live through it so leave it to the experts. |
|||
No worries. |
|||
== The charging bull image == |
== The charging bull image == |
Revision as of 17:50, 30 May 2012
Antony Price Look without getting into an argument your statements are not accurate though. The silk tonic suits designed by Price were not pastel coloured and they were not in a new romantic style. The band shrugged off the New Romantic tag after the first album, Price helping to dismantle it.
To understand what a New Romantic or Futurist was look at Steve Strange for the Anvil cover and sleeve. Definetly not the silk tonic suit look invented for the Rio publicity! - That was also to do with embracing the narcistic lyfestyle of Tory Thatcherite values - Rio epitomised it - and it was departure from New Romanticism that the suits designed by Price were about. Your statement reads that they were New Romantics suits.
Also:
The Camden Palace Extravaganza show was in March 1983. The Hippodrome Fashion Spectacular was in March 1984.
I have as much right to edit an article as you and expecially as my information is more accurate as I lived through the period and have been read up on Antony Price for 30 years - you obviously did not live through it so leave it to the experts. No worries.
The charging bull image
Howdy. With regards to your edit comment here, I disagree with you on the "should have" part. In my opinion, the person who initially put the image in the article in the first place should have added a rationale on the image's page. That being said, I was following the "...the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale,..." part of the NFCC policy. I could indeed have added the rationale instead, but I chose not to.--Rockfang (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- And I disagree with that choice, as it shifted the solution to a problem you had identified to someone else, per WP:SOFIXIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
TCM
My edits on Cat Ballou, concerning TCM, should be OK. The references only lead to TCM.com, not TCM.com. I fixed up TCM as it leads to the disambiguation page.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.
For being a reasonable editor and not just because you acknowkledged what was right about anything I was saying. Also thank you for rescuing the "Charging bull" image by adding the needed rationale for "Fair Use". I had seen that the image lacked a rationale some time ago during a dispute on the Occupy Wall Street poster. I should have added it then. I found the whole subject on how the bull got there and the question of who did it is an interesting peice of art in public places history. So thanks again.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, my pleasure. I hope things at BRD work out to your satisfaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am just happy that there is some discussion going now that looks very constructive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Otto4711
that chap is the biggest (and stupidest (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#Report_date_October_23_2009.2C_14:50_.28UTC.29, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#09_December_2010)) troublemaker in WP history id think. But as for you question the 7... IP i havent run across. Though the 9... IP ive come across different variations thereof. They originated in Madison, WI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/ArchiveLihaas (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Troutwhack
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Trout accepted. Exit stage left with head bowed, suitably chastened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the trout I was asked to open a discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the trout I was asked to open a discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
May I offer an observation, my friend...
I've noticed that you like to add white space to articles and this is causing a lot of distress to other editors. As I don't see a policy justification for it (and using WP:IAR for this reason is clearly misusing the spirit and letter of that policy) I would suggest you refrain from adding this type of content unless there is a consensus that it is required, or a better justification that falls within WP:MOS. Otherwise, unilaterally injecting these spaces where there is a clear consensus to not include them may be construed as being intentionally obtuse and disruptive, which is not a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, I'm sorry that I cannot comply. MoS is a guideline and not a policy, and is not mandatory, and there is no policy forbidding what I'm doing, which is, let us not forget, adding a single blank line above the navigation boxes, which improves the visual balance of the article. The coterie of editors who object to it is small and vocal, but does not represent the broad cross-section of the Wikipedia community, and I feel no obligation to concede to their belief that MoS must be followed no matter what.
Many thanks for your well-mkaning concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis:
- Since my observation from reading AN/I is that you are a level-headed person with good instincts, and since you have not been one of the coterie of persons who have bedeviled me about this issue in the past -- one of whom followed me around to revert my edits until an admin told him to knock it off -- let me go through the counter arguments to the complaints a little more thoroughly then I did above.
- The starting point is that a policy describes mandatory behavior, whereas a guideline is a suggestion as to best practices. Guidelines like the MoS should be followed whereever and whenever possible, since they represent the collective wisdom of the Wikipedia community over the years, but they cannot, and should not, prevent editors from improving the encyclopedia when the opportunity arises. To allow it to do so irradicates the difference between a policy and a guideline, and makes Wikipedia much more restrictive than it needs to be -- or, indeed, should be, since such an extremist interpretation prevents the MoS when evolving and improving, which actively harms the project. A strict-constructionist interpretation of the MoS is not helpful, it is harmful and reduces our ability to grow and improve.
- One of the primary aspects of my editing has been to deal with the visual presentation of Wikipedia articles, an area which has been, to a large extent, overlooked. Even well-written and informative articles will frequently be a visual mess, crammed with duplicative or unnecessary pictures, or missing images at all, formatted in ways that are difficult to read and missing any kind of visual rhythm or balance. I have taken many articles and improved them visually by improving these aspects, and I think my doing so has been actively helpful to the encyclopedia.
- The specific issue that has raised the current ruckus is not that I'm adding generic "whitespace" to articles. As a good Wikipedia editor, I routinely remove blocks of unnecessary or interruptive whitespace. Instead what my "spacing" edits are intended to do is to provide the navboxes with exactly the same visual "breathing space" that the system automtically provides for top-level section headers. If the system didn't provide a blank link above the section title, it would butt up against the text of the section above it and be difficult to read and unpleasant on the eyes. The same kind of "breathing space" is needed between the end of the "External links" sections and the first navbox, or the area because crowded and more difficult to read than it needs to be. Sometimes this breathing room is provided by a Commons box or other sister links, but without those boxes to push the navboxes down, the result is unpleasant.
- So, let me repeat again, the focus of the complaints of a small number of misguided Wikipedians is the addition of a single blank line of space which does for the navigation box what the Wikipedia software automatically provides elsewhere when it renders the page.
- Allow me to sum up:
- It's not forbidden
- It improves the article
- The whole thing is a mountain made out of a molehill.
- Given this, perhaps you can see why I find the complaints of a handful of MoS hardliners to be less than a matter of extreme concern to me, especially when I look at the editing records of some (but not all) of them, and see much more egregious violations of policy. I would dearly love to be be able to just say to your request "OK, sure, why not?", but there's never been a valid argument presented in support of their complaints, other than that they think the MoS must be followed no matter what. That's just not the case, and will never be the case as long as it remains a guideline and not a policy.
- Again, thanks for your concern, and for allowing me to bend your ear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I remember a line from the movie Antz that basically was the creed of the ants "Everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory", demonstrating a very narrow life view of the little boogers. Just because something isn't forbidden doesn't always mean it is the best option, or compulsory. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case? I have no idea, and I'm not going to jump in and make content decisions here. You may very well be right, but being right isn't enough. WP:MOS is more than a simple guideline, however, and I would be careful not to dismiss it so quickly. There are valid times when ignoring it makes sense, but it is almost as enforceable as any policy here. What I am saying is that when there is a strong backlash and/or consensus against something, you have to rethink your actions. WP:IAR is not for unilateral actions, it applies when there is a consensus of many that clearly see that the rules are getting in the way. It isn't a "get out of jail free" card, and should be used when the group agrees, not the individual. There are templates for blank lines (a better option) so obviously there are times when they are a good option. This time? I don't know, and again, not my role. What my role is, however, is to get editors talking and building consensus so admins aren't needed to referee. Sometimes, even when you are right, you are outvoted, and you move on to other issues or move it to dispute resolution and get outside opinions. In other words, you have to resolve the issue within the structure provided by Wikipedia, or you are being disruptive to the process. You can start an RfC, go to WP:DRN, but you need to do something besides continuing to add them at this stage. As you have noticed, many other admins are much quicker to block a user than I am in these situations, and I'm trying to save you the hassle here. Use the process, don't ignore it, or someone else will come in with a less generous attitude than my own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis: Thanks again for your comments and advice. There is certainly a balance to be found between my desire to improve the project, my desire to edit collegially, and my preference not to be strong-armed by a small band of MoS hardliners. I'm going to seriously ponder that balanace, which, given my current work schedule, will probably take some days or longer. (I'm basically only going through my watchlist these days.) While I am giving the issue this consideration, I will not make spacing edits, and I will post here my thoughts about how to reach that balance when they have crystallized. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds perfectly fine. Again, I don't know what is the right or wrong way on spaces, I just know that when there is controversy about them, it is good to seek clarity and consensus from the community. Sometimes this means slowing down during the consensus process, and isn't a reflection on whether you are right or not. I appreciate your refreshingly open minded attitude about the issue. I know seeking a "documented consensus" sometimes takes time and can be frustrating, but it does eliminate the potential for someone to knee-jerk reaction to a situation, and is consistent with our overall goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 05:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis: Thanks again for your comments and advice. There is certainly a balance to be found between my desire to improve the project, my desire to edit collegially, and my preference not to be strong-armed by a small band of MoS hardliners. I'm going to seriously ponder that balanace, which, given my current work schedule, will probably take some days or longer. (I'm basically only going through my watchlist these days.) While I am giving the issue this consideration, I will not make spacing edits, and I will post here my thoughts about how to reach that balance when they have crystallized. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right of course!
Howdy,
I asked on my talk page if you wanted a reply by email but having had no response, and given the totally innocuous subject matter, feel I can bring it here. I assume you took it to email in the first place cause you were worried about embarrassing me or similar, in which case I really apprecaite that thought, but don't worry about it in future - I'm very used to being corrected of my delusions in public
I was rather careless when I typed that. Having said that, I had always been taught, right back to reading something from Horrible Histories as a kid (and it's worse when I'd been taught it, no excuse!) that it referred to the Irish Pale.
On a more general note, while I was completely wrong (I don't think it's appropriate to apologise for it, unless it is offensive in some way?) over time if enough people like me get it wrong then it may be... right! Like double dutch instead of double deutsch, and so on.
Anyway, thanks again - it's always fun, at least for a nerd like me, to discuss this sort of thing
Cheers,
Egg Centric 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's interesting about the possibility of it referring to the Irish Pale, something I hadn't even thought because I've always heard it referred to as being about the Pale of Settlement. Either way, thanks for your gracious acceptance of my note, which I appreciate, since I was a bit worried about having stuck in my nose where perhaps it didn't belong. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- May I stick my nose in where perhaps it does not belong? I assume this discussion relates to the expression "beyond the pale". As a child I was taught that this referred to the English Pale in Ireland, but I am doubtful whether it is that specific. The expression is certainly older than the Pale of Settlement. See this website, which gives an account of its history. LynwoodF (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable agrees, saying that it refers to the Irish Pale (or the "English Pale", as it calls it), the area of English domination in Ireland. It gives the derivation from Latin palum, meaning a stake, so metaphorically a fence or a territory with limits. So "pale" in "Beyond the pale" or "Within the pale" refers to within or outside the boundaries of civilization or civilized behavior. Thanks for the correction! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that Brewer is the ultimate source of what I was taught, but, being a sceptical old man, I am still doubtful about it. It feels like a post hoc rationalization. No doubt we shall never know for sure. My background in linguistics makes me suspicious of such explanations. Incidentally, I notice I used the Oxford spelling sceptical, whereas it strikes me that the Webster spelling skeptical is etymologically better. You can tell I am fussy about these things! I prefer the Oxford ending -ize to the -ise which the majority of British people regard as normal. LynwoodF (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader for the main ANI header code. I set autocollapse as the default to tone down the header clutter on ANI. It seems like overkill to have such a large nav always displayed there, and takes focus away from the ANI instructions, which are more important. I think people tended to ignore everything at the top due to it being too confusing before. Equazcion (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I've reverted the change, and opened a discussion on the talk page to see if there's a consensus to autocollapse. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Overkill?
I honestly don't think it is. If someone gets convicted of that sort of thing then potentially, at least, they could be looking at ending up on the sex offenders' register and were a future Megan's law type of stupidity to arrive in the UK (something very easy for a few populist politicians to get passed, especially given the surveillance state instincts of UK.gov) we could seriously be talking about ruining peoples' entire lives here. It is one of the few cases that flashing lights and sirens are justified, from a cost/benefit POV - of course it's everyone's responsibility to look after what they're doing on the web but just clicking on those links could make a browser download the material. Frankly it's a big enough issue, and the UK is big enough a readership of Wikipedia, that I believe some kind of voluntary, by-passable on demand filter should be implemented by Wikimedia for UK viewers. I may make a formal proposal of this at some point (but not in the next 48 hours!)
The laws are of course disgusting but that's a separate matter. There are a hell of a lot of disgusting laws. Egg Centric
- Well, Im a little more sanguine about the situation, since the probability of prosecution absent other factors seems exceeding small to me, but if you feel strongly that it's necessary to use that kind of formatting to attract attention, feel free to revert me, I won't beef about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I shall do. I hope it's alright if I direct folk in edit summary and in a comment to your talk page (for want of a better place of having this discussion for the time being) - I promise if a proper thread develops I'll have it moved*! I really do need to get some sleep though...
*and of course if something bizarre happens and this becomes super important, of course I don't mind you doing anything whatsoever to stop being annoyed by "you have new messages" messages, including reverting my revert! Egg Centric 05:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Go for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You said you thought the article should be AfDed again. I've done just that pbp 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Brown Memorial Baptist Church windows
The information was added by an unknown, who might very well never come back to discover that you had deleted their addition, because of lack of reference. Under such circumstances, being interested in the subject of the article, as well as being aware that most of the buildings on the list are unreferenced, even though they are linked, I opted to go looking for a reference. What I discovered is that Brown Memorial Baptist church is located in an 1860s building, previously Presbyterian, and indeed with Tiffany windows. Well, it is Brooklyn, not Kansas. :-) Amandajm (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was thrown by the fact that there was no listing for it on the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission site, and I was pretty sure any church with real Tiffany glass would be listed. It turns out to be part of the Clinton Hill Historic District. Clearly it's a historic building, and I was in error in deleting it without doing better research. Sorry about that, my bad, thanks for following up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
See also
Hello, Beyond My Ken. Although I don't have the slightest interest in reverting you at any of the several articles where you've reverted me recently, I'd like to note that WP:LAYOUT states that, "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." The reason you gave for your reversions was, "See also is for the convenience of our readers, no reason to force them to scroll up looking for a link when we can provide one where they will likely need and want it", but I see no reason at all to think that any readers will be likely to either want or need links in the see also section that are already linked in the lead of an article (the first thing nearly all readers will encounter). Incidentally, if you're going to do this kind of thing in future, it would be a courtesy to tell me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- My concern, as always, is serving our readers, and while I agree it's generally unnecessary to list terms that have appeared in an article in the "See also" section -- and I do not do so the vast majority of the time -- we can sometimes use our judgment as editors to provide them with links they would most probably want to access when they've finished going through the article, even if those links have occured earlier in the article. This is a matter of convenience to them, and is even more true when the previous occurence happens in the lede, since many folks will generally want to read the article they're on before they move to another, and not access the hyperlink while reading the lede. (And those who want to can.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Uranium
Please reconsider your deletion, Rosie and I have moved it to Uranium mining in Namibia and removed most of the essay. Best solution would now be to delete the capital letter original title and close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)