Jump to content

User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Redirect for Discussion

Hi I noticed your various warnings at Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) and made a note there. The redirect was actually created by Sjorford (talk · contribs) [here]. I have refrained from leaving a note on his account though as he has been inactive for quite a while himself. Agathoclea (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About clinching scenarios in football articles

A few days ago, you removed the scenarios for teams to advance in the Asian Cup article. Your edit summary said there had been consensus against scenarios in a recent discussion at WP:FOOTY. I did find one discussion on the topic here; is this the one you referred to? If so, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there was consensus against listing the scenarios. It seems to me that no consensus was reached, but the discussion was evenly split (in fact, about 5 of the last 6 comments were in favor of keeping them at least in some form). If there's another discussion (that reached a different conclusion) that I just didn't find, please tell me where it is. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Special education

Just a note to say that your presence at Special education would be particularly welcome, as it's sometimes hard to find people who know anything at all about this subject. Actually, the education-related articles are among the worst on Wikipedia, so let me encourage you to pick out any subject that interests you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Tomorrow's TFA

Heh :) Will have a look. Cheers,  狐 FOX  19:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm keeping this off the talk page of the article in question, but I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at your obnoxious approach to the article and your insulting tone. This particular editor has years of experience, thousands of edits, hundreds of articles, many FAs, and more than one TFA to her credit. To be so insulting and then make tendentious commentary was completely uncalled for. If you had issues, you could have brought them up far more graciously and with a lot less snark. Any article can be improved, of course, but this particular situation was approached with a sledgehammer when a suggestion or two would have probably alleviated your primary concerns. Furthermore, having observed these horse articles go through GA and FA in the past, some of your comments on the article talk page were particularly unhelpful -- you raise issues long settled and apparently only for the sake of being argumentative... There has been the usual wikipedia drama over and over again between the people who want us to say things like "baby horse" instead of "foal" and "father" instead of "sire," it's simply a no-win situation, and some of the phrasing has developed over the years to fend off some of these ongoing issues. In short, you're an experienced user, so I'm not going to throw you a lot of links with [[WP:POLICY]] at you, but you know better than to act this way. I also don't know you well enough to know if you have the sense of humor to accept a trout slap, but I think you really do roundly deserve one at the moment, in my opinion. Montanabw(talk) 06:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider an article to have an author, but to be the fruit of the community. What's that saying: it takes two people to make a child, but a whole village to raise one. To put an article onto the Main Page is to say that this is an example of our best product: it is telling the world that a communiy that I am part of is proud of this. I wasn't, and those who I showed it to agreed that it was unclear, and of poor style. I have no axe to grind with any contributor to the article, but I am not pleased with a process that allows such prose to be labelled as our best and worthy of FA status. If phrasing has become twisted and tortuous over the years through the piecemeal resolution of controversies, then a comprehensive re-write is often necessary: that should have happened before promotion to FA, but is it not better that this happen before it appears on the main page? If there is no discussion on the talk page, and the editnotes are as uninformative as they are on this page's history, exactly how do you expect me to be aware of the details of past discussion?
But the purpose of Wikipedia is to produce articles that present information clearly in well written articles. Do you consider the lead paragraph as it stood yesterday morning to have been well written? Do you consider it better now? That's what my efforts are about, and if I need to be frank about the state of the article that needs improvement, I will be.
You have no knowledge or grounds to make assumption about my motivations, so I will ask you to AGF; I don't think you will find any point in my attempts to improve this yesterday when I failed to do that as clearly as you have here. Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I too was apalled at your various comments yesterday, which included this doozie: "Can you have a quick look and see whether you agree that it is a grammatical and stylistic nightmare. I would tell some of the more able 11 year olds that I teach that they ought to be able to be clearer than this: how did it get through FA?" If you believe that to be an effective way to encourage a collaborative effort then you must be from another planet. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also say that the tone of superiority you adopt sits uneasily with your own writing skills. Looking through your contributions I find this in the very first of them Andy White (footballer): "After going more than two months without another appearance he was sent on one month loans to Margate in October 2010, where he was sent off on his debut appearance ...". Perhaps you might ask your 11-year-olds what's wrong with that sentence. Or this: "The 2010 UCI ProTour is the sixth series of the UCI ProTour: a series of 16 races in which the ProTour teams, considered the elite teams of the sport, participate alongside a number of invited "wildcard" teams", from 2010 UCI ProTour. Or this: "Emmanuel Jacob Erskine (born 13 January 1989) is an English football", from Jacob Erskine. Is that some kind of deformity? I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kev, I'm making no assumptions about your motivations, I hope they were well-intended, but that's not the point I was making. An article may not have an "author," but it does have a "creator" and often a "lead editor." As those are usually the people who do most of the actual work, I like to provide them a certain amount of respect and not insult them by implying that they are dumber than a fifth-grader, particularly those who have a lot of respect from across wikipedia. And I do think that a bit of "people in glass houses" thinking should go hand in hand with AGF. This particular article was not one with a "twisted and tortuous" edit history, but one that reflects the lead editor's past experience with GA and FA runs -- I have witnessed many previous articles get bogged down in the stupidest wiki-wars over silly things (like "baby horse" versus "foal") and various GA and FA reviewers refuse to pass an article until the particular hangup they had was addressed. All of us who write for wiki and occasionally try for GA or FA have run this particular gauntlet and it affects how we write. I've already said that any article can be improved, that's not the point. The point was that you were sarcastic, mean and nasty-sounding. Maybe you didn't mean it (I've sounded snarky sometimes too -- and not intended to be as snarky as I sounded), but then you compounded snark with a lot of really rather tendentious argument on the talk page. So can you at least think about the next time you have a problem with an article, and acknowledge you could start the conversation by saying something like, "gee, while this very interesting article passed FA and is about to go on the main page, I think it would be a stronger article if you considered a few small changes, such as...?" I have helped a team of people take some articles to GA and FA recently, but I got so discouraged by the nasty tone of reviewers that I have only chosen to take one article to GA as a near-solo effort in about two years now. Montanabw(talk) 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't presume to use abbreviations of my name that no-one among my family or friends uses.
If you accuse me of doing things "only for the sake of being argumentative" then you are making assumptions about my motivation, and false ones at that. You also need to distinguish between saying how someone appears to you, and how they "are".
I have experience of serious issues sitting at WP:ERRORS unresolved until the offending article has dropped off the talk page, and then discovered an admin who does demonstrate a willingness to act on notes there. If I then become aware of an item that needs action within hours to avoid something appearing on the front page that is seriously sub-standard (and you haven't commented on the actual improvement to the lead of the article, which was the point of all this), I consider it reasonable to draw that to his attention in a way that makes him realise the seriousness of the issue. If another editor chooses to go through my edit history, and copy that message from the relative privacy of a user talk page to the article talk page that the "author" will see, purely to advance an ad hominem argument with me, then I would suggest that you take up the matter with that editor. Meanwhile, please note that I make no comment about a person, but about a piece of writing, do you think a teacher should not challenge a child who is probably capable of better to investigate better ways of expressing themselves than was exhibited in that paragraph as it stood?
Frankly, I don't thing that we should need to be massaging each others' egos as you suggest: we should be trying to improve articles, especially those that will be given a high profile. So we do what we can to improve the articles, or the main page, or whatever part of the project may have gained our attention.
You have not identified any of my suggestions as having been anything other than an attempt to improve the article, with explanation of why I thought it advantageous: you make no attempt to defend or justify your accusation of me being tendentious. I have no specialist knowledge of this breed of horse, and so was happy to have had it explained that some of my suggestions were inappropriate.
I believe that what appeared on the main page yesterday was a vast improvement on what was scheduled to be on it early on Saturday. I am pleased to have played a part in making those improvements come about. Kevin McE (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended with the abbreviation, people here call me MTBW all the time (and occasionally worse things). But you appear to have missed my point and in doing so proved it. The point never was if some minor improvements could be made to any article, even one that passed FA criteria. The point is that you came across as mean, nasty and obnoxious. And you do not come across as willing to acknowledge this or apologize for it. Instead, you compounded your error of sounding mean and obnoxious by saying things like "do you think a teacher should not challenge a child " as if the lead editor was a child and you the teacher. That is really insulting. You also implied that the article was "seriously sub-standard." Oh please. It benefitted from a few minor grammatical tweaks, mostly in the lead, but it was hardly "sub-standard." That sort of hyperbole also sounds quite mean-spirited. And the person who actually made most of the editing changes called you on this before I did. I'm not going to bother explaining further. Either you get it or you don't. Really, I'm most hopeful your intent was to improve the article and your motive was in no way to be a jerk or someone who was trying to show how smart he was by putting down other people. However, that IS how you came across to others. If you don't agree, well, I gave it my best shot and I'm done beating my head against the wall. If you do agree, you don't have to tell me because I know how much it can be tough on the pride to have to admit a mistake, but I hope you will just do better in the future and not be so vicious to people who do a lot of difficult work on wiki for no pay and little appreciation. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Zdeněk Štybar

Um, not to play "Gotcha!" or anything, but Štybar's contract with Quick Step begins on March 1. Isn't updating his and team articles now exactly what you have frequently chided others (including me) not to do in the post-Tour transfer frenzy every year? How is a contract signed in August which takes effect in January any different from one signed in January which takes effect in March?

Sorry if this sounds confrontational, it's truly not meant that way. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jorge García (footballer)

The discussion about "Twin people" is underway, once a consensus is reached i will undoubtedly respect it.

Regarding the title of my message, some summary discussion: and they call me the aggressive obnoxious one at the site...Excuse my "poor" English, i am Portuguese, i really thought "to groom" was used in the football world to mention someone who was brought up in a given team's youth system. If it's not well you learn every day, you did not have to make fun...

Regarding the DEFAULTSORT, well i have seen several discussions going both ways, so no consensus there either. Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention to ridicule, but only to highlight the dangers of inappropriately informal language. The phrase is probably used by commentators from time to time, but I would not suggest them as language tutors.
Meanwhile, you have clearly misunderstood the effect of defaultsort in categories. Please do not revert without checking the effect of your edits. Kevin McE (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011


So sorry...

...for the banter. It seems rather poor form to delete another user's talkpage comments nevertheless. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 08:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies again; I didn't see your WP:Errors response before it was whipped away. Just me being a bit prickly! Time to drop it. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 08:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Argentina current squad

Hi, I saw your edit and I disagree with it. Why should a player that isn't part of the 24 players that were officially called up, be added? Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If he wasn't part of the 24 called up, then sorry, no, he shouldn't be listed. The fact that he had been listed, plus the text of your edit note, gave the impression that he was part of the call-up, but thought unlikely to make the bench. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Is okay, I realize what happen after leaving you the message, but didn't have time to better explain. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Non-Fifa

Hi, I was hoping you could give me your opinion on this as you seem to be one of the few who have edited any of these articles and is still active. Also you seem to have a considered view on most subjects! Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen O'Brien (footballer)

I'm happy for the PROD to be removed on that basis, if you want. Although the last time I argued for an article to be kept on the basis of notability in Irish football (scoring in a Champions League qualifier among other things), it was still deleted. —WFC— 10:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Neil Lennon

Discussion here that you might be interested in: --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Singular and plural nouns

I'd be interested to see the evidence on which you posted this editorial gloss in ITN: This is correct in Irish English; please do not change it to "wins". Your note is contrary to the practice of the Irish media. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that I had an inaccurate understanding of the manner in which collective nouns are treated in certain English varieties (including Irish), which evidently is more complicated than I (an American) realized.
Someone wrote the item with the word "win," which seemed correct (based upon past experience with sport-related items, to which I mistakenly believed the same rules applied).
I apologize for the error. I just wanted to prevent the back-and-forth "corrections" that have occurred on numerous occasions. —David Levy 17:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Accepted. Of course, the easiest way of avoiding such "back-and-forth corrections" would be if ITN had the sense to report past events in a past tense... Kevin McE (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've come to agree with you that we should switch to a past-tense format, thereby reducing the section's stylistic similarity to a news ticker (in the hope that people will stop mistaking it for one).
Would you be interested in collaborating on a formal proposal? —David Levy 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

TB TFA

Hi Kev, thanks for the catch on the Thoroughbred article going to main page tomorrow. (Isn't there normally a way that the most active editors get a heads up on this sooner than 24 hours and by chance??) Anyway, I noticed that the summary not only had the mortality bit that is of dubious sourcing, but the way they shortened it down kind of sucks in general. ("The Thoroughbred is a horse breed best known for its use in horse racing. Considered a "hot-blooded" horse, ") Is there ANY way that a new edit can be proposed before this hits prime time? Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just edit it yourself, I've done that before. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I could not edit in the queue. But Kevin, (sorry about saying "Kev" got lazy) I wanted to say thanks for the gracious heads up you gave us on TB and your assistance, especially given that I got pretty snarky with you a while back. I appreciate your help and your patience. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there. You say you were a Priest for 21 years; are you still one or did you leave? I'm very curious. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

No appearance in fully professional competition

This is the proof that it is professional, http://www.pfai.ie — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRPRO03 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Professionalism of the LoI (reply)

Why bother having information on the league or clubs in Ireland, if the players are not included. If the players are have to play in a 'fully professional' game, then the league and clubs are not 'fully professional' and therefore should not be on site either. There is countless articles on players that play in non professional leagues and yet, these pages are not told to be removed, just pedantic to be honest.

For instance, the Scottish Football League is not a professional league and their is many examples there of players that did not play in SPL and they have their own pages without any problems. Exactly same thing as Ireland but treated differently and thats only 1 league !!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRPRO03 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"so talk to me"

You can consider this a first and final warning for edit warring. Not that it was necessary, but I've removed all wording that anybody could possibly interpret as a wish to compare the two things as if they were remotely comparable. As for nobody wishing it, why exactly do you think Platini was asked to comment on it? Nobody had challenged that information for months on that basis, and certainly haven't felt they had the right to edit war over it. If you think you do have that right, then you'll be explaining it at the AN3 board next time. I'm frankly sick to my back teeth with certain WP:FOOTY members, who seem to think this is remotely acceptable behaviour, as if you've never heard of BRD in you lives. MickMacNee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find trying to accuse people of arrogance/aggresion works better when you haven't just tried to force through a change with arrogant and aggresssive edit warring. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And where did I say BRD was a policy by the way? If you really need to be pointed to a policy, the relevant one is WP:EDITWAR. Which btw does not have 'did not provide a meaningful rebuttal' as an acceptable justification. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"BRD is not an accepted policy". I'd say your meaning was pretty clear. Especially when followed by "you imply that I (and, for some reason best known to yourself, the membership of WT:FOOTY) should consider ourselve constrained by it". You, and the other users I'm thinking of that try and edit this way, should be constrained by it, in the same way that members of the public should feel constrained by the (hopefully) embarrassed feeling they get when caught pissing in the street. Again, you'll find it more convincing when accusing people of being arrogant, if you weren't trying to wikilawyer your way out of being pulled up for edit warring. And again, no, 'I was providing "clear reasoning" as I did it' is again, not an accepted justification. By all means if you want to test that logic, go ahead. I've done my bit, per policy, which is as you say, something you feel theoretically constrained by, if nothing else. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

RE: TFA notifications

I personally do not do that unless I know that the main editor is not active (1, 2). It is unfair to notify the FAC nominator(s) or persons mentioned on it instead to the article. Also, that day I was not active and that's why I didn't even tried to notify main editors. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gold cup "OR"

You keep reverting back to an unsourced and even more arbitrary OR table. At least the "OR" table I put in place has some basis. The ranking numbers used as the default sort in the version of the table prior to my edit are meaningless. I spent several hours trying to come up with any model that explained them.

I don't think that creating a table based on exactly the same accepted model, which is sourced, for the World Cup is original research. However, if you can not agree to my table then I propose that the the meaningless rank column and the default ordering be alphabetical by Team name or largest to smallest based on wins. Marcaudy (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing. I was bothered by the bizarre rankings in the table and endeavored to maintain the information but in a more reasonably sorted manner. If the standard is to not include such tables, I have no issues with it. Marcaudy (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Mêlée

Your observation on the Main page discussion is, in my opinion, correct. According to my copy of the Oxford dictionary the correct spelling is as above. It further states the melee is the accepted American spelling. Keep up the good work!! Denisarona (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Iranian National Football Team Coaching staff

plz check:England's Coaching staff, Germany's, Australia's, Spain's, Scotland's, South Korea's and etc...
Shahin (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin McE. You have new messages at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup.
Message added 03:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

...

Please

  1. stop taking everything personally
  2. assume good faith
  3. be civil

Also, even you know that your explanation was completely wrong, as even Laurent Gbagbo was not convicted yet on the front page, so stop giving unreasonable explanations. Also before pointing a finger on me and telling me to read newspapers time to time, I expect you to read the front page time to time so that you know that our usual trigger for court proceedings is conviction. To have arrest, arraignment, opening of case, conviction is overkill. This is not an arrest after a long hunt for someone who has been on the run for many years: his whereabouts for the last few months has been a matter of public record, and an arrest could have been affected at any time. Remember pointing one finger at others points three back to you.

JustinSpringer (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about socks and sockmasters who ought to have been blocked longer than they were, Kevin. :) StrPby (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again?

Hi there KEVIN, VASCO from Portugal here,

again, i fail to understand your feelings towards me, really, this judging by your last WP:FOOTY comments (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#More_football_vandals_than_User:Zombie433.2C_you_know...). I only wanted you folks to be on your toes, given this is about football vandals, so that you would know how to operate when coming across these "users"' "contributions"; in other words, i WANTED TO HELP THE PROJECT.

Your reaction (again, my title was a bit over the top i admit it, but i did not insult anyone): "yes we know, we are not like you, hiding behind your summaries, we play by the book". Again i remind you (don't know if i have discussed this with you, i might have) i am not proficient at all in WP technicalities, and the few times i have "tried" ANI or akin, i have come out empty. I prefer the "community" outreach much better. Also, i am fully aware of the fact that i am not posting my queries in the correct fields, but i have longsince (almost five years here now) learned that vandals can be blocked, that does not stop them the least.

I have just recently been blocked for disruptive summaries (24hrs, highly deserved in the light of WP guidelines), but that won't change my utter despise for the vandals lurking, no siree. Wished the well-intended users such as yourself would think better of me regarding this, feel bad to see you don't...

Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the reply Kevin, really appreciated it. Yes i am not confident at all with the note-leaving process when it comes to talking to vandals but hey, always learning! Keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kevin - this is not really my business, but "just to supplement the record" => I was one of the main parties involved in Vasco's recent short-term block. At the time I complained, I was already upset over something else, and I let that get to me, which resulted in me "pulling the trigger" on him (arguably) too soon. He was nice about it then, and has been very nice about it since.
Q1: Has Vasco made mistakes, maybe been too aggressive at times? Arguably, yes IMO.
Q2. Has he been a good-faith, hard-working, valuable contributor and class act 99% of the time? ABSOLUTELY YES.
Q3-Q4: Am I an idiot, and should I just STFU and go back to my own business? Arguably, YES (times two) ... but I just wanted to supplement the record since he himself mentioned the recent block, and that was more-or-less my doing.
Best regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cas

Nice :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Your rename suggestion on Offside (association football)

Sorry, I just don't understand your latest contribution to that thread. What is it that you believe either does or does not make consistent sense? Kevin McE (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consistency in using "association football" to describe a sport commonly known as "football" or "soccer" and "rugby" to describe a sport commonly known as "rugby". Turkeyphant 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe that as a matter of consistency. Apart from the fact that there is not one sport called rugby, the sport that the offside article in question is about is known variously by three names: football, soccer, and association football. Of these three, consensus was reached that the last mentioned is the appropriate disambiguator, after many debates, of which this is just one. As I've said, I don't agree with it, but it was the consensus reached after discussion, which is how things happen here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand all that - all I'm saying is that the consensus should be re-evaluated as obviously it's very inconsistent. The fact that there's not one sport called rugby merely strengthens my point. Turkeyphant 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Peterborough

Hello, small linguistic point. "Stands on the River Nene" doesn't capture the full meaning of "stands athwart the River Nene". "Athwart" here means the city is on both sides of the river. Cf. Hull, which stands on the River Humber but not athwart it, as all the city is on the north bank of the river. One could instead say "astride" but that sounds to me a bit anthropomorphic. Incidentally, the latest Concise Oxford Dictionary doesn't think "athwart" is archaic. -- Alarics (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Wouter Weylandt

Hello, I do not see other Belgian cyclists in both Category:Belgian Vuelta a España stage winners and parent Category:Vuelta a España stage winners. Can you explain Your edit? --Gumruch (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Lacandon Jungle

Sorry that it went that way. I was hesitant to remove/change the hook because the fact was not unreasonable - that jungle is vast, and there are simply not many other left in Mexico, and that is the only place in N America where jaguar is currently found. Its range is constantly and rapidly shrinking, thus many data are simply obsolete - jaguar does need untouched, large free forests. Your other hooks were reasonable, but not easily verifiable (Ah, and my revert on reference in Lacandon Jungle was due to my stupid mistake in referencing naming - ref. was valid, but got masked, fixed that). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

DYK

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, but I wanted to let you know that you can actually suggest changes to hooks before they enter the Queues and Prep Areas at Template talk:Did you know. Thanks again for your comments. OCNative (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tema Harbour and Takoradi Harbour

Hi, thanks for the review, I have changes the definite article in both DYKs. Can you re-ok the DYKs. Thanks.-- CrossTempleJay  → talk 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lilin-Lilin Kecil and Chrisye

Hi Kevin, I finally tracked you down (you forgot to sign your comments at the DYK). I have replied to your concerns there. Would it be possible for you to give me some feedback? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I replied to your comment and was wondering if you could sign off on the articles if you think they are ready. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I was using signing off to mean "give approval". Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, thanks for letting me know about the ambiguity of my question. I was so used to using it to mean "give approval" that I never knew it could also mean "withdraw". Cheers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL, I was assuming that RP and Can Eng had different meanings for sign off or something. Dictionary.com only made more confused, as it has both definitions. :-s Anyways, thanks for your constructive input. Both hooks look great now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there is something. To make it easier for whomever is building the queues, could you add in front of your comment? I don't know about other editors, but I find it much easier to select noms with that or the green tick in front of them. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Vehicular inclined plane

If I may, how is an inclined plane that carries vehicles not a vehicular inclined plane? The Johnstown Inclined Plane's website [1] infers the same thing as in the article (carring vehicles makes it a vehicular inclined plane). Though if that is not the correct definition, what is the definition of a "vehicular inclined plane"? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Favour?

Hi. When commenting back on the footy discussion, could you please follow the regular/normal indent procedures? You inserted comments ahead of mine and it may appear to the casual reader that I am responding to you when I am not. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Oh, and I too could represent either Ireland or the US, but I also doubt I'll get called up to either national squad at any point soon.  ;) Erikeltic (Talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to make it clear that I was responding to Dirigami, not to you. How should that be indicated? Kevin McE (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No apology necessary. I actually thought there was two entries, but it was one. I jumped the gun a bit there, so it's me who should apologize. I generally see people place stuff below and offset (and sometimes directed)... I think it's up to the editor. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Criticism

Constructive criticism is sometimes necessary but I've encountered an unusually high number of critical comments at DYK from you of late to the point it is verging on being disruptive and impeding progress. Some of your comments are enough to make some editors not bother from contributing to DYK and contribute so this persistent opposition has got to stop. Its almost as if you are being paid to criticise the articles people are nominating. As the saying says "if you got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all". Please try to dial down the comments and try to focus on something which doesn't seem to intentionally belittle the work and efforts of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I say, constructive criticism is good, especially if you identify major prose issues , typo, plagiarism, and other issues. I haven't seen you be "rude" as such but I've got the impression from several of your posts that you are nitpicking over certain issues and making minor flaws into something more substantial than they really are. See my talk page, multiple comments of yours have come across to many as snotty. For instance if an editor makes several efforts to correct issues you identify and still its not good enough then the likelihood is that they'll become exasperated. There are several regular contributors who are not happy with the way you are going from DYK nom to nom picking holes in them. I suggest you try to find a balance, to offer improvement suggestions but try to not to seem like you are issuing ultimatums and intentionally putting down people's work. While DYKs do need to be of basic quality and structure, they don't have to be of particularly quality you'd expect from GAs or higher.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I to assume that the "many" to whom you refer is in fact one editor, Iridiscent? I would argue that anything appearing on the Main Page should indeed be of the highest quality, even if the target articles need not be. Is improvement, whether of minor or major issues, to be denigrated as nitpicking? Should we deliberately leave minor errors to appear on the Main Page? Is this characterful or quaint in some way? Is there a threshold of error size that I should ignore? Kevin McE (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I'd add my own name to Dr. Blofeld's comments, and I'm sure you've been able to tell by the responses to your DYK comments that I'm not alone, either. I admire your dedication to these fixes, and I think you've really improved several hooks. At the same time, I wonder if you realize how negative your curt and uncompromising comments about small errors make you come across. It's particularly noticeable in a section devoted to supporting and promoting editors in the creation of new content. I don't mean to suggest you should stop commenting there by any means, but I too would wish, for what it's worth, that you start moderating your comments by being more accepting of the views of other eds, by mixing positive feedback with the negative, and by letting some of the smaller points go. Khazar (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So am I really being told that it is the opinion of the community that errors in fact, grammar, referencing, semantics and style are to be allowed to be displayed on the main page? This is the ony consequence of a lack of rigour in checking hooks. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you're "really being told" that others think you need to work on your tone. Your re-translation of my words above is a good example. What I really said that I thought you had made a few useful contributions, but that you ought to lay off or be milder in some borderline cases; you treat me as if you're finding repeated glaring typos in a hook and we're blocking you from editing it. Whether the issues you had at A. Forward, Luis Durango, Black Bishop, or the bonnets of the Scottish paratroopers constitute "errors" is actually quite debatable--as you saw by the fact that many DYK editors disagreed with you there--but your comments come across as if you felt you had absolute right on your side and that the rest of us are all idiots, rather than as if you were working with a team of editors to produce the best product. While that attitude is ugly anywhere in Wikipedia, it's particularly so at DYK because of its unique role in encouraging content-building. Again, I'd suggest trying to mix some positive in with the negative and making more of an effort to recognize that others may have legitimate points of view here; I've been trying to do that with your edits there for some time now. If you have an idea, what's wrong with saying "I suggest..." or "I wonder if it would be better..." instead of presenting a command, and then leaving it at that if others disagree? I make wording and grammar suggestions on a regular basis for hooks myself this way, and it gets the job done without any sense of nastiness.
To put all this another way, you've just been told by three editors in a row that you have a serious manners problem in your postings. Other editors at DYK have clearly indicated their frustration as well in responses to you. Why not make a good faith effort to change this instead of arguing with us all?Khazar (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I've had several people mention your name in emails I've received as posing a new threat to DYK progression and causing a stink. You don't just silently go about fixing errors and minor edits like somebody like Material Scientist does, you make a big song and dance about it at DYK and make patronising or bitchy comments about people's work or choice of subject matter. There is a difference. If you continue with the snide comments then it is only a matter of time before others take action and open up an RFC on you as the amount of examples of your critical comments in relation to your approvals are alarming. Its almost as if you are here solely to pass judgements on the work of others and prevent them from reaching the main page. I suggest you spend less time with the criticism and do more article work, or at least address minor errors yourself without complaining about them. You objecting to every DYK hook is not going to dramatically improve the quality or change anything. If you are too persistent the likelihhood is that some editors with real potential and who produce generally good content will refrain from bothering with DYK or even be deterred from future editing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I'll just ignore DYK as an element of the Main Page that doesn't seem to care about standards, give in trying to improve it, and keep an eye out for any proposal that others might start to have it demoted, and pile on support as the body of editors there are apparently unconcerned with making the main portal of Wikipedia look even remotely professional. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you take it that way; obviously if you're posting another round of insults to our professionalism and ethics, our message about tone isn't really getting across. I hope with time, though, you might come back and re-read some of this and take a little more away from it. Good luck in all your future editing, and no hard feelings. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Edit to the 2022 FIFA World Cup article

I like your edit. However, you didn't mention the capacity of the stadium versus how many fans were able to attend the game. You also didn't mention the use of riot police and the woman who was injured. Could you please add that somehow? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAroom (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't feel at all inclined to post those details. A single anonymous person making an unverified claim to a journalist has no direct relevance to an event 11 years hence. We know that there were police involved: do you have evidence of a separate organisation in Qatar of a separate force that is the riot police, or that they were not simply "regular" police dressed as a large number of police are regularly dressed for major events with tens of thousands of people present? Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The newspaper article clearly said "Al Jazeera English sports correspondent Andy Richardson described how supporters who had travelled halfway around the world were confronted by riot police as they waved their tickets at the locked gates". The newspaper is called Al Jazeera English, which is an English newspaper operating in Qatar. Have you read the article? -CAroom (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did, but I read in the knowledge that selling a story is a higher priority to a journalist than precision. It is touching that you are willing to believe that an English sports correspondent is an authority on the security services in Qatar. They are policemen, enough said. Their clothing is irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Look at this picture(which was taken on the night of the incident) and then tell me that their clothing was irrelevant. http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/imagecache/218/330/mritems/Images/2011/1/29/2011129211742691368_20.jpg I also take into consideration that newspapers will be sued if they make false claims, especially if their headquarters are in the same country. It is touching that you are willing to believe that an English sports correspondent who works in Qatar would risk his career and just LIE to sell a story on an online newspaper. They are riot police, enough said. Look at the picture. -CAroom (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.8.54 (talk)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Regarding copyvio on 2011 Tour page

Hey there; I was wondering if we should stick a little notice on Vlad's talk page to deter him from doing the C&P action from Cycling News. I probably unknowingly did it for the Farrar Independence Day ref as I tried to put it into my own words as much as possible. I know I should have read both the articles that had been referenced upon, to notice the larger-scale of the affairs, rather than let it go unnoticed. For that I apologise, and I shall look more closely next time. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually, I limit myself to do the results on the pages; what with doing stuff in relation with the F1 articles and portal, Current sports portal and other bits on the side, I usually don't have enough time to write some prose on it. I seem to remember there was a big case regarding C&P, and there was a mass blanking of pages. Oh no, it was something on last year's Vuelta about stage 12; I think you had lost track of the stages by day – which I undid with an appalling edit summary, which I apologised for here – nothing outlandish. Edit summaries don't bother me at all, so type whatever you want and I won't make a fuss out of it! Cs-wolves(talk) 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

WP Cycling in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cycling for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Match in progress

A tag has been placed on Template:Match in progress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a polite note to advise that its up for TFD following discussion. I tagged for speedy by mistake using twinkle whilst looking through tags therefore removed myself and tagged appropriately. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal

Please do not make the TFD personal as you did by calling me Arrogant in your edit summary. I know you created it and therefore have a strong feeling its needed but do not make anything on Wiki personal.Warburton1368 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are making this extremely personal whether comment or person its the same thing. Any articles on my Watchlist are monitored as i assume the Copa America articles are on yours. The best thing would be for us both to step back from this there is no point in this becoming personal wikipedia is a community and nobody has the right to attack other users or feel they own anything. I will continue to warn users and revert when i see it. as as WP:NOTNEWS says breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. this is justification enough on any project. But as i say i will back of on the subject on the discussions Warburton1368 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian NFT

Mr. Kevin, Seleznyov plays for Shakhtar (http://www.transfermarkt.de/en/evgen-seleznev/profil/spieler_59908.html) and Nazarenko for Tavriya (http://www.transfermarkt.de/en/sergiy-nazarenko/profil/spieler_24043.html). Yours reversion are wrong. Please, leaves in http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ukraine_national_football_team&action=history--Noel baran (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD

Thx, so how does one know when the cascade protection has taken place? Tony (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

A kitten for you!

¡Bien de alguien que se la come! Greetings.

Sgorbalan (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A note

Just to let you know that I do not appreciate this edit at all. You can attack DYK as you wish, but then don't expect friendly attitude to you from others. I did not say it is impossible, I said I can't think of how (I speak Dutch but not as first language). Old Dutch used archaic constructions and there is me (= mede = "middle", "intermediate") in that meterm word. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn

I notice you claimed I'm stubborn. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to buy a good mirror. You are equally stubborn. The three of you claimed a consensus when you were in the minority. When you stop being stubborn, you will admit that you made a mistake or at least confirm your commitment to the policy on consensus. That's what I'm asking you to do. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not falsely label edits as vandalism as you did here. You need to engage with the other editor towards a compromise. Let me know if you need more help. --John (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to work against a consensus that one is aware of is usually construed as vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. Please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND which I already linked above. --John (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't vandalism - yes editwaring against consensus is sanctionable (any editwaring is) FWIW the whole flagicon issue is moot as no logged in user needs to see it (I never see those flags) Agathoclea (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It isn't moot, its the MoS! Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Editing in non-compliance with the MoS is irritating and sanctionable if it is a pattern but it is not vandalism. --John (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
To explain why I think the whole issue is a moo point look at the following picture . Personally I never liked the flags but did not want to get everybody else round to my opinion so the introduction of the css flag back in '08 at least postponed the editwaring on the subject until that option got forgotten. Nevertheless when someone consistently edits against consensus a differnt type of approach is needed. Anyway you already saw my other reply. Agathoclea (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Re: This afternoon

Yeah, absolutely. I doubt it'll need tweaking, but if the shock does happen, it will be amended accordingly! I imagine the Aussies will try and get it done even within the final few kilometres of the race, when time loss won't be possible. Yeah, I'll lift the stage profiles from there as I'm doing the rest of the refs on that page at present. The only thing about the final stage I like is the finish. That said, don't want to see another Abdoujaparov on the line. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely up there with one of the better Tours over recent years; the unpredictable nature of the last week alone, made up for a below-average Giro. The Vuelta and world championships will be around sooner than we know it! Cs-wolves(talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011


DYK issues

May I humbly suggest that if there are that many small issues on a set of hooks, that you put them in one list? It would be tidier and mean that I or another admin could just work through the list. Otherwise it looks rather messy. Of course I could be full of it, but I thought that would be better for next time. P.s. Not sure about the crab thing, I thought it was fine, but I'll leave that one up to others to decide. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that as they are discreet issues, it would make following any thread of discussion arising to keep them distinct. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Discrete, not discreet. Sharktopus talk 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Dammit: I always get those two the wrong way round. Kevin McE (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My favorite typo is even more embarrassing -- "it's" for "its." Sharktopus talk 17:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed your good work in highlighting issues at DYK (I think it's funny that Panyd asks you to keep them in one thread, since they weren't very happy when I continued the same thread for a week about the daily errors :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Downgrade of USA's Credit Rating by Standard & Poor's

I'm not sure that my suggestion regarding the link for that news item counts as the correction of an error rather than a mere suggestion for an improvement. I'm not fussed either way, but there'll probably be someone who'll throw a WP:hissy-fit over that fine distinction. Deterence Talk 16:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Once an item is on the Main Page the best chance (but by no means a guarantee) of changing it, in my experience, is via WP:ERRORS. WT:MP tends to deal with longer term issues. If you want, you could flag it at WP:ITN/C, once a header is flagged as posted, it tends to be ignored. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right. Let's leave it where it is. Deterence Talk 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Diego Maradona

Im sorry im new to wikipedia didnt know how to talk here. Im from south america and the south american wikipedia both pele and maradona have their recognition as the best player of the century at the top of their pages so people can see it 1st hand(which is what most ppl read). The recognition for maradona from different sources, players(mostly brazilians surprisingly), Im brazilian(livin in us), DTs , polls, maganizes, countries etc is not listed here but thats okay. But this wikipedia is very towards Pele and he has all top recognitions at his top page and some things are not true, like he was the best player of 1958 worldcup etc...when it was vava the golden ball winner which is not posted here or 1962 garrinchas best player and golden ball winner etc...I noticed the english wikipedia is very biased to the side of Pele, i only wanted to give maradona one line of credit with one source( as opposed to many many sources and lines in the south american wikipeda) but I guess its too much to ask in the english wikipedia i apologize. Anyway, this will be my last attemp, its up to you, wether you think its fair or not. But I know already...

still Good luck and wish you best

bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIFApoll (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

UEFA European Football Championship

No, no. You are making a vandalism. Take a look to the UEFA official website. This is the source, it is written Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union.--87.17.239.30 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi, Kevin! Could I ask you to explain why you removed the ready tag in this discussion? Swarm u | t 11:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For the reason I gave in the post I made as part of the same edit. Kevin McE (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You said that the event falls short of long established principle for posting. That's a valid opinion for not posting the event, but you give no mention as to why it's not "ready". Swarm u | t 19:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The only justification offered for marking it ready was a dismissal of the arguments opposed to the posting. If that was justifiable as a WP:BOLD action, than WP:BRD condones its reversal in the course of rebutting that dismissal. The criteria for placing a ready tag were never discussed or established, ergo there is no established consensus about when it can, or cannot, be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

DYK (Perseverance IV)

Hi there - just a quick note. Regarding this edit, the idea is that it's a pun, of sorts. Perseverance (the barge) weighs 32 tons, and as a result 32 tons of Perseverance were required when hauling grain from Surrey to London. I know some people might have a problem with the hook, but I think it really 'hooks' the reader to what is otherwise a rather dull subject, and as a result it will hopefully get a lot more views and generate more interest in a historic vessel that most people sail past every day without realising. I'm hoping you'll reconsider your edit in the light of this explanation, and keep the 'measurement' in. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even a pun needs to have some semantic integrity to work: the previously proposed version lacked semantic sense whichever interpretation was put on it. It is still a pun without the measurement, although other editors have used a totally different hook now. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks for replying. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Toast to a Worthy Toastee

Toast to a Worthy Toastee Award
In gratitude for your helpful corrections to DYK items before they hit Main Page. Thanks for making Wikipedia better. And therefore, .. "Drink no longer water, but use a little whiskey for thy stomach's sake ..." Or something like that. Sharktopus talk 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Doubt

Hi there KEVIN, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding the WP:FOOTY discussion i started per se, i won't add one word besides the fact that i have already re-replied, you can add any further comments if you like. Please don't take offense when reading it, i'm only venting my frustration at trying to help - in not the best manner, no sir - and getting scolded, getting a bit annoying...

Also regarding the discussion, but in case you don't want to add anything there, could you please tell what "threats" did i make "beyond my authority"? Is that when i say to people in summaries i will get them blocked (only one i can think of seriously)? I never said i could block anyone, where did you imply it? I'm merely saying (in other words) i will get in touch with an administrator and see what they can do. If the admin replies "This does not warrant a block at all, are you insane?", i can live with it man...

I would really like for one reply, especially regarding the second issue please. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And the edit summary at WP:FOOTY was again one of a few you have directed at me when i have done nothing to you: "as you asked", meaning "you want a suggestion, here's one", may i ask why all the - seeming - hostility (and please don't ask me the same, i have no hostility towards well-intended users as yourself, i should just learn how to work better as a team, especially regarding the WP:MOS aspect)? Regards --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the specific: "Stop removing player position in INTRO!! Or i'll protect page!!!!" Unless you have been made an administrator, that is an action beyond your authority.
As to the more general: Excessive use of capitals is considered tantamount to shouting at someone, and so is not conducive to getting the response you wish for out of anybody. You consistently use insulting, aggressive and obscene language to those with whom you disagree about content, and you seem to confuse disagreement about content with vandalism on a regular basis. Vandalism is deliberate disruption of the project, not a disproportionate desire to include detail in a particular part of an article. You frequently conduct heated editwars with intemperate edit notes in apparent preference to the prescribed use of talk pages (two out of your last 1000 edits have been on article talk space, not a healthy proportion). You have admitted, repeatedly, that your use of edit notes is often inappropriate, but I see little attempt to moderate them. You resort to WT:FOOTY inordinately frequently, apparently to seek reinforcements for your editwars when you have made no approach to the party you are in dispute with with an attempt at reconciling the issue amicably.
I bear you no hostility: you are clearly well motivated and highly diligent. But I will have little tolerance of editwarring as a choice over discussion, given that the project is founded upon cooperation and consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, my hat's off to you (and no sarcasm here), your point is made politely, and i agree with almost everything you say (and yes, TWO in 1,000 edits in article talkpages is VERY LITTLE, and yes too, i certainly must have - albeit not deliberately - mistaken disagreement with vandalism)except this: what's the use in engaging in article talkpage discussions with people whom i know don't write edit summaries, especially bad when removing portions of good content, and therefore have little "chance" of being caught engaging in said discussions. Please understand my frustration and sorry for the hostility misunderstanding (i am not asking for understanding regarding the edit summaries antics, you are 100% right, if i (keep) say(ing) i need to improve on that, i need to put my money where my mouth is).

Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

FIFA Ranking - Regional Strength

Hi Kevin!

"blog not a RS for blogger's claim of his own influence"

I won't add the text again since I don't like edit-wars.

But you should check these Twitter links:

http://twitter.com/#!/JohnSinnott/status/106315405605339136 http://twitter.com/#!/JohnSinnott/status/106315912721858560 http://twitter.com/#!/JohnSinnott/status/106316318818578432 http://twitter.com/#!/JohnSinnott/status/107067652949811200

John Sinnott is the BBC journalist that helped me contact FIFA regarding this error.

Edgar (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to believe that it was your prompting that moved FIFA's hand, and congratulations for that: I don't think that it is either encyclopaedically relevant or verifiable to Wikipedia's standards. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well then. To me it seems encyclopedically relevant to know that FIFA's error was found by a mere blogger, but we'll leave it at that. --Edgar (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've given my opinion: I can understand yours although I don't share it. Feel free to raise it at talk on the relevant talk page, as consensus might need more than two people to achieve it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Lavarnway timeline

From the timeline of edits, "tools of ignorance" was in the article on August 20 before it was submitted to DYK; the review didn't start until August 26. I had never heard the phrase either, but it is clear that it suggested an interesting contrast both to the sportswriters who used it and to the article's creator. Sharktopus talk 04:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely: it was only present in the article to enable the hook, and not for any encyclopaedic reason intrinsic to the article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for the civil replies here and elsewhere, most especially the one to Crisco. As I said above, I really appreciate your lending your excellent talents with language to improve the project. I don't always agree with you but perhaps somewhere in heaven Miss Mary Jane Marchand is shaking her head at me for not always doing so. Sharktopus talk 20:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"American footballer"

Hi, Kevin. For future reference, the term used in U.S. English is "football player."  :) —David Levy 18:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Foreign prisoners

I don't normally do this (leaving notes on user talk pages like this), but it is rare to see three editors completely miss the obvious while arguing about something (well, actually, it is more common than you would think). I'm also not sure whether any of you are likely to look back at that talk page, so I'm dropping notes off on all your talk pages to point you to Talk:Lancaster Carriage and Wagon Works. In truth, I came close to missing the obvious myself, which is probably why I'm going the extra distance to make sure the old standby trick of putting square brackets around something isn't missed next time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Reply

Again, another friendly input from you to me, what on earth is happening (judging from the very last lines, again you refer to me as a COWARD)? The only thing where i agree with you 100% is that i have to stop belittling other people's English skills, even though i'll never be caught dead writing in a WP whose language i have no idea about, everybody is here to help (well the well-intended users that is). Here's a story regarding different WPs: last year, on Festus Agu, i told a user this was not DE.WIKI, his edit summary answer: "Fuck off", only received a warning after i complained to an admin, but i see User:ArtVandelay13 - the "perpetrator", don't worry, he's since apologized, all's cool now - has another reputation here, one which i can only dream of...

The rest (the human wastes, the joy in reverting this or that edit) is dedicated solely to VANDALS, yes i know it's against WP policy, but i cannot control myself. On top of my bipolar condition, i have been harassed in a vile manner - do i hear you say "well deserved"? - by a punk after an edit war in Quique Flores where EVERYBODY said one thing as to what the article's name should be, he told another, and has been destroying my user page and sending me horrible messages every since, i get really wound up by that, i tell you. Should i leave WP for a couple of months and cool off? Maybe, but if i want to contribute/improve articles, how can i do it OUT of WP?

Also, i know that WP:FOOTY is not WP:AIV, but since 99,9999% of the vandalism i come across is on football and have had MANY situations in which i played by the book and received - go figure - ZERO feedback, i opt for that variety quite often. Again, i stress the following: how am i going to get in touch with users that: 1 - have dynamic IPs so chances are they'll never read the message; 2 - even if the IP is standard and/or there is an account, i don't talk to vandals because i am fed up and there are people here at the site much more equipped than i to do that.

And now, for the surprise that will make you loath me even more: i'm not 12, not even 22, i'm 39 years old. Obviously, besides the bipolar situation i am not going to go into detail on my personal life with a person that has no intention of being on good terms with me, beats me why. I can only add i am here to help, and right now (i have to respect you and not perpetuate a lie) i only wish to stop writing those summaries and play 100% by the book, so that i can avoid receiving any messages as this one - no friends in the real world, still have time to make enemies in the virtual one...

I have been blocked once - ah, another cool story, once User:ECanalla reported me for my summaries and did not even have the courtesy of notifiying me, not even a bonafide vandal gets that treatment - so if you feel i deserve another (obviously you do), activate the due procedures, i'll take it like a man as i took the first one. But please stop with this attitude towards me, i have not been playing by the book at WP on numerous occasions, i'd be stupid to deny it, but what have i done to you personally?

Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


More than one teacher in China

No, there's only one: Confucius (whose birthday is September 28). :) howcheng {chat} 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honey vs. nectar

You made a valid and excellent observation when you asked "why would a reader assume that a honeyeater eats nectar?", since the bird name is honeyeater, not nectareater. That's a valid observation regarding people who see the word, but know nothing about the bird. However, people who know about those birds would assume that honeyeaters eat nectar, because that's what most honeyeaters eat. I didn't delete your "honey," from the hook; I merely restored "nectar." By including both "honey" and "nectar" in the hook, it can stay interesting to people who know about honeyeaters and people who know about the meanings of words. Sorry that I didn't make myself clear in my edit summary, as I think we are on the same page here... --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmpphh.... The passage you quote, from the article lead, is rather equivocal about the bird's food habits. In contrast, the "Feeding" section of the article (what I read to check the hook information) clearly says that the food source is "primarily insects." Most of the sources cited are inaccessible to me, but this one supports the insect story: "The Striped Honeyeater feeds mainly on insects and spiders, but will also eat nectar and other plant sugars, along with seeds, berries and fruit." That's the only source I've looked at that mentions food. IMO, the article creator needs to resolve the internal discrepancy in the article. We may want to pull it out of DYK until the article is fixed... --Orlady (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I left a message with the article creator. --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

FIFA

What's in there now makes no sense. You have "The" followed by an open bracket. At least try and make it grammatical. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland society..."

Kevin, just curious – does this really sound correct to you? I just can't get my head round it. Indeed, I always think it sounds very strange when anyone mentions the Northern Ireland Assembly... if something's of Ireland, the word is Irish, surely? Mary McAleese isn't the "Ireland president" – she's the president of Ireland, or the Irish president. Isn't "society of Northern Ireland" or "Northern Irish society" better? JonCTalk 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is why I cited the parallel (which you rubbished) of New Zealand, where we don't say New Zealish, although the language usually replaces the -land suffix with -ish for an adjectival form: maybe its because of the modifier. Institutions in Sydney are not called New South Welsh. Maybe, of course, its nothing to do with the NZ similarity, and the disinclination of some in Northern Ireland to have anything to do with the word Irish, but there is plenty of evidence that, when not in direct relation to people, the phrase Northern Ireland (like United Kingdom) can serve as an adjective. Kevin McE (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Francesc Vilanova

Hi there KEVIN, VASCO here,

i guess the redirect is for keeps (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_9), i give up trying to see the logic in this, especially when the person who requested the move vandalized Vilanova's article, thanks for your assistance though.

Keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moaning

Well OK, but only because you asked for it. The word "pathetic" is as good an example as any. But note my preferred phrase was "some negative comments", Joseph Fox's was the vaguely pejorative "moaning", and yours was "not been intended to improve the encyclopaedia". Three different things.

Was the memorable word "pathetic" (rather than a more strictly descriptive phrase like "very bad") intended to help the encyclopedia, by attracting editors to fix the problem? Probably, but I'm not so convinced that that intent actually helps. Hmm, it says you were a priest, so you must have a lot of experience thinking through such issues. But when I put myself in the place of someone reading that word and deciding whether to obediently go look for errors, here's what I imagine thinking of:

  • "Pathetic" means mainly that Kevin must have a philosophy that strongly emphasizes stylistic trivia. It tells me more about Kevin than about the Main Page (DYK in this case).
  • The Main Page is Wikipedia's most visible page, so I presumably already have an opinion about its quality. If I need someone else to tell me it's pathetic, then that proves I can't see the problem, and therefore I can't help.
  • It might even make me think that calling it "pathetic" is a very easy way to assert stylistic superiority.
  • If I'm already proofreading the Main Page, which is probably true of someone reading WT:DYK, calling it "pathetic" is more likely to make me disassociate myself from something that will be considered pathetic, than to redouble my efforts to please someone calling it names.

I recently made a similar negative comment about Simple English Wikipedia (search for "errors, which I can find almost everywhere I look"). But the context was explaining my edit, not expecting others to hop to it at my command.

I usually save this speech for those who aren't doing anything to solve the problem. That doesn't include you (although I am usually unable to determine if your opinion outweighs the original author's opinion, and I leave the issue for others). But, well, you asked for it. Perhaps there is a consensus to make you an administrator, just to fix Main Page problems, which is what happened to me when I was narrowly approved in 2006. But I normally avoid that level of Wikipolitics. Art LaPella (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I described as pathetic was the amount of attention that nominations receive, which I went on to characterise as non-objection by three people, which I believe to be a fair analysis of the situation. I did not use the word to make any observation on the content or stylistic presentation of the hook in question, or of the Main Page in general. Given the dictionary definition of pathetic as arousing pity or sadness, I think that was more apt than very bad, which would be more judgemental. I apologise for any unclarity in my posting that lead to your misinterpretation. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Task Force

Hello. I see your name all the time on national football team articles. So how would you like to join a task force on that subject? To signup and see why I want such a task force, go here. Cheers, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Kirkman

Hi. You edited the Thomas Kirkman DYK hook to change "no mathematics" to "no algebra or geometry," based on you reading of a cited source. DYK requires that hooks be supported by the article, which still said "no mathematics" and did not mention algebra or geometry in that context. I checked the sources and edited the article so it would support the hook. Now the original article creator has removed the mention of algebra and geometry from the article, and I've pulled the hook out of the DYK queue so the contention can be resolved at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Kirkman. Please come by and have your say. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK Peter Beck

You commented on Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Beck the other day and I believe that it's been all good for the last few days. If you've got a moment, could you cast your eye over it again and confirm things with a tick, or let me know if there are outstanding issues? Much appreciated. Schwede66 23:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. What those who assemble the hook sets look for, though (and the table on the queue page analyses the page for that as well) is the that you achieve with the {{subst:DYKtick}} code. The code is above the edit window when you work on the nomination template. Schwede66 02:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all the hard work you do related to DYKs!

LauraHale (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kevin McE. You have new messages at Panyd's talk page.
Message added 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

UNSC

OK, what does it mean that it was known informally as "West Germany"? Because the actual name was the "Federal Republic of Germany"? (It seems in the same category as the USSR being known as the Soviet Union.) And did the modern nation of Germany really occupy a "smaller area" back then, or was it in fact, two countries? StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jobsw...

Hello Kevin, Apologies for my disparaging remarks some months ago. Unwarranted. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. Just my tetchiness. Keep up the good work. Ericoides (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For all you hard work on Main Page/Errors

The Main Page Barnstar
For picking up so many errors, major and minor

All your work there and especially at DYK is appreciated. I'm glad to see that you are a self-described pedant - if we can't be pedantic on the Main Page, where can we? Of course on many occasions others will disagree with you (I certainly do sometimes), but you are very much a net positive. Mikenorton (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Your Welcome

Hi Kevin McE. Thank you for your Welcome. I've already read a lot since I started a couple weeks ago, and therefore I was pretty sure I edited that article properly (references were already there). Also, I didn't want to seem rude, but there is so little space in the edit summary line, so there is no letters left for friendly banter ;) I now started a dicsussion on the talk page as requested by you, but I also put the order that you reverted back in, I hope that's okay for now. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, good wikiing to you too. I was not aware, that changing the order of scorers is considered controversial, well, live edit and learn. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, tbh I didn't really take your first reply serious, you argued the positions of the top scorers should not reflect the top scorers positions, which I found irritating in a "how can someone say this"-way. I will now take that matter serious. Obviously we have a different understanding of this, i made my case on the talkpage. :) Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! Yes, Top Scorer and Golden Boot winner isn't that the same? I don't see the difference. The Golden Boot is the prize, Top Scorer is the ranking or the competition. At least I thought so... Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again^^ So I went and looked it up again, I was really sure about this, but three opinions indicating I am wrong made me doubt myself. But everything I read supports my point of view. Top Scorer competition and Golden Boot competition are really the same. To clarify that, I posted a quote from the official Fifa website. So it is impossible to rank one and not the other. Also I'm wondering, why are you so certain that you are right but you admit you are not really sure how things are handled. I am sure about this, I already told you the 4 creteria, if they fail Fifa will let the lot decide. In earlier comtpetitions they gave multiple golden boots, last time to Salenko and Stoichkov in WC1994 I think (too lazy to look it up now), but Salenko sold his one and now Fifa are trying to only have one competition winner. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Halloween nor'easter DYK hook

You know, the pun hadn't even occurred to me when I wrote it (at the time, my own 31-hour loss of power during the same storm was very fresh on my mind, and there were large parts of Connecticut still in the dark). It was nevertheless appropriate to edit it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Removing my comments

If you have a problem with anything I say, ask an uninvolved administrator to look at it. Don't ever remove or change my comments, you will find it quite futile. Parrot of Doom 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree.
Also your edit summary "Remove comment that is irrelevant to the discussion, and illustrates ignorance of the person making it" stated a falsehood and personal attack, and so was harmful rather than helpful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is rendered futile by the stubborn insistence of the poster to editwar on the matter. That does not mean that it is inappropriate.
If an editor does not know what subjects are taught at primary school, that is pretty much the definition of ignorance. On what grounds you consider it a falsehood, I have no idea. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Siegfried Strohbach

(prep 3) You removed his birth year. That's okay, it was there when the nomination was intended for his birthday (27 November), but it was reviewed to late for that. On the other hand, it's more astonishing that he (still) composed knowing his age before the click to the article, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The hook said nothing about when the piece was written or whether the forthcoming performance is a premiére. Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

GFC @ TFA

Hi Kevin, apologies for not responding, I am currently sans internet at home so haven't been on WP since I left the office on Friday...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

DYK for Count Grog

I provided a direct quote from the PWI article and backed it up with an online reference from Count Grog himself. This is also stated on his official website. I believe this user can verify the offline hook if necessary. Is this enough to solve the BLP issue? 72.74.217.99 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Turning against" is less judgemental/accusatory than "double crossing": there is still a difference between saying "they called him this because he is like this", and "they said that he is like this, and so named him as this". We can report the magazine's opinion of him, we can't repeat it as though it were our opinion. But to link "turning on" to a wrestling move looks highly interpretative, and not explicit in the sources. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK Q6

Hm. No one seems to have acted to your comments. Do you know any admins who might be prompted to act in the next 30 mins?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Havel/Kim

Thank you for your comment re the Dec. 19 discussion. I feel the action was censorship, and expressed that opinion on User Tone's talk page. Sca (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Karol Hubert Rostworowski

You observed that the article doesn't mention the son being biblical, I also don't find "filicide" in the article, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The concept of filicide is mentioned: a son is killed by his parents. I'm not overly keen on the word, but it is not inappropriate. On the otherhand, there is nothing directly relating to, or even in close parallel to, the biblical story in the tale as related. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

United States

There may be a difference in UK and US grammar here. In the U.S., "United States" is most often used attributively in frount of other nouns, without taking the possessive enclitic. That is, a publisher would write "United States economy" rather than "United States' economy". I suspect that the reason behind this was the lack of an adjectival form of "United States", so that it came to be used synonymously with "American". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Show Boat

FYI: Talk:Show Boat#True/truly. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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 "Improper renaming of six articles". Thank you.

Sorry if I didn't properly describe issue there. I guess if something satisfactory to the community can be worked out on the one article, it can be applied to all. But one does have to worry in these issues about an influx of people who may not always reflect the whole community. (Of course, that's true anywhere one posts. Sigh...) CarolMooreDC 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Twafotfs (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_McE/Archives/2011&oldid=1252154225"