Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 08:59, 30 December 2011 (→Can't see the point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Irvington, NY

I know we got off on the wrong foot but I do appreciate what you contribute. I reviewed the original reversion from last week and saw that you were absolutely correct. I then saw that you went on from that edit and significantly contributed to the article in question. I bookmarked that one to use as a case study in how to edit. I appreciate what you did there. Please take the time to look at the edit you recently reverted and let me know what was wrong with it. I truly am trying to learn here. Thanks in advance. UnbelievableError (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

References and notes

Since when have we had a subhead when there's nothing else in the section save the citations, when it's pointless to make a distinction? See WP:REFGROUP. "Notes" are for aspects of the text that require clarification. "References" are for the citations. I have done it this way in many other articles.

I usually appreciate your edits to articles I develop, but I can't figure this one out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Refrerences" is a class of things, among which is various kinds of "notes" -- call them "citations", "end notes", "footnotes", "explanatory notes". "References" also includes "sources", "bibligraphy" and other items. The subhead is there to identify what kind of references is being provided.

You're quite wrong that "no other article does it this way", many, many articles do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And just as many articles do it the other way, including many, many I've worked on. I'm not going to ask you for examples—I trust you—even though I've never seen any, and this is the first time I've seen someone make this distinction and I've been on Misplaced Pages for six years and worked with uncounted other editors.

But the fact is there is no consensus on doing it either way, and to impose it unilaterally in the absence of consensus that it is to be done one way or another (and the usual rule in the absence of consensus or clear policy is to stick with the way the article creator did it ... for instance, I prefer to arrange categories in the order of most to least relevant rather than alphabetically, but when someone has done it that way that's how I do it). Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I always like being able to resolve this sort of thing collegially. It's how we're supposed to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, BMK, are you still adding this idiosyncractic whitespace to articles? Please stop doing this. There is no provision for it in the MoS and you've been asked nicely to stop doing it for years. I do thank you for at least refraining from doing it after the lead section these days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stop, simply quote a policy that forbids it. As an admin, you should be aware that that the MoS is a guideline and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to stop under threat of blocking; I am asking you to stop because it is a waste of your time and that of others, as editors will inevitably come across your changes and undo them when they find no rationale in the MoS or elsewhere. You have been asked time and again to propose that your own approach to article whitespace be incorporated into the MoS, or even at least discussed there, and you have declined to do so. What is the purpose of this pantomime? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You can forgo future comments along these lines, since your understanding of the realities of group dynamics on Misplaced Pages seems quite conventional and limited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Multiple people over multiple years, and it is always the other people who don't understand. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

...still waiting for a policy ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science church

Please don't be so hasty next time; I did not have time to insert new references to all three related articles and simultaneously reply to your message. I was also unable to respond at the WP Notice Board because the notice was withdrawn while I was writing the following:

I've provided additional resources at your request. More are available at Google Books. I did not revert you "without comment"; I made an in-line comment (as you had also done) that I had provided an additional reference. Thank you for drawing attention to this because WP needs reliable sources. Incidentally, the tourist brochure happens to be the most detailed source.

If you would like to contribute more information about Oconto and the Christian Science Church, a great deal of reliable information is available in various published sources. Doremo (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your ultimately providing the references requested, but I think you should have realized that adding the second source (the history of Oconto) would not have been an acceptable answer to my request for something authoritative. In this respect, it was you who was hasty in not waiting until you had done the necessary research before reverting my removal of your material. Also, "in-line" commentary of a pro forma nature in the edit summary is hardly a sufficient response to a talk page comment. You should have answered me there, saying "I'm looking for more sources" or something to that effect, and I would have been quite satisfied to wait to see what you came up with. Your silence there and the addition of a second non-authoritative source misled me into thinking that you were blowing me off. I'm glad that was not the case, and that the articles in questions have been, ultimately, improved by being better sourced. Yours, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bard College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Werner Wolff

Mayflower Transit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Baltimore Colts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you - and Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Festive Solstice, Good Kwanzaa to you, my friend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bayard-Condict Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:The Man from Planet X.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Man from Planet X.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z137 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrected Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the point

This is regarding this and this edits. While I understand that you are trying to make the image layout better, and you are doing something that is not explicitly prohibited, I really can't see the point. For one, putting images in relevant places in the article is advised in the guidelines, and all these years and all across Misplaced Pages most of the editors used the method of putting them after the relevant sub-header. And, also consider that putting images that way unnecessarily carry the image across the line of second-level headers, messing up the standard layout of articles. All that stepped over because one editor believes it looks better, especially when it actually makes no improvement! Really, how is it better? Please, respond to the article talk page. Aditya 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it's a much better-balanced and more visually pleasing layout, and all images are quite near the sections they refer to. Check out the layout of any magazine which is primarily text, and you'll find that noone slavishly puts images exactly next to where their content is referred to -- placement is determined by many factors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me what browser you're using, so I can see if there's a difference between what you're seeing and what I'm seeing -- perhaps that's where the problem lies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Would have been much better if you replied on the article talk page, because no one is going to come here to check the discussion, in case somebody wants to see what's it with so many reverts. Now for the answer - newspapers and magazines are not trying to build an encyclopaedia with millions of articles, and they have little reason to make all the content information oriented. Fashion magazines often print random images without a text article, while the Economist prints symbolic images with any caption. For Misplaced Pages, it's called standardization, which makes access easier by elimination unnecessary surprises. Lastly, how is it much better-balanced and more visually pleasing, especially when it's messing up the layout? BTW, I've check the articles (yes, all three of them) using chrome, firefox and explorer. It's not about the browser at all. Aditya 04:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you post it here?

You know what, do whatever you want. The bikini articles were visually a mess before I worked on them, and you seem intent upon returning them to that state, putting in inferior images in which the subject is not as well presented, and sometimes can't even be seen at all. You've done it to Bikini and Bikini variant and Thong (clothing)-- which I didn't revert because it's already garabage. You apparently think you know what a good image is; you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to tutor you about what is a good image and what is bad, so just do whatever you want to do. Just have your way, you win, go ahead and make the encyclopedia just that little bit worse than it was -- but please do not post on my talk page again, I'm not interested in hearing from you, since your interest seems entirely selfish and not focused on improving the encyclopedia. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:JJAstor3.jpg needs authorship information

The media file you uploaded as File:JJAstor3.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Beyond My Ken}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.