User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What would you like me to do? --Mike Cline (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. That item actually came up during the FL candidature. It's never really been talked about much, but the subject of the list was meant to be the offices (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada) rather than the people (e.g. Elizabeth II). Obviously there's the other way of doing it, but if it were done the other way, the Elizabeth entries should probably be combined. I'm also a little adverse to overhauling it just before Main Page feature. Do you have any thoughts? Nightw 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see you left a note on errors. Will respond there. Nightw 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When using the {{queue}} or {{prep}} templates in section headers, please make sure to subst them (e.g., {{subst:queue|5}}). This makes sure that the section link created in the edit summary works (you can see, for example [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=472530535&oldid=472517557 here], that the section link doesn't work otherwise).

It's not necessary to subst the template in the body of a message, just in section headers.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I tested it: the non subst version seems to work perfectly. What problem do you perceive? Kevin McE (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please go to [1] and try clicking the small arrow link in "(→{{queue|1}} as of 21/01: new section) " (also try it from [2]). You will see that it doesn't take you to the section like it normally would. I know this is a small issue, but having working section links makes things more convenient for people who come to the discussion from their watchlist or from a diff.

I'm not trying to "take you to task". I was merely pointing out a fact about the usage of the template because I assumed you weren't aware of it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind you pointing something out to me: I'm grateful for it. But prioritising that over correcting an error that was heading for the Main Page (yet another error, as quality control at DYK is sadly lacking) seemed an odd choice. That was not intended to be a "snarky response": it was concern that an admin was ignoring an uncontroversial error report. If you think that the set of priorities that you employed was appropriate, explain why rather than attacking me behind my back. Thank you, nevertheless, for dealing with it eventually.

I still don't see the issue though. Is there some option that I have turned off that would turn that "small arrow" line into a link? I have never seen it as anything other than italicised text that merely serves to inform the reader of a differential page as to what section the edit occured in. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't even looked at the error report (I just saw your edit summary in my watchlist), and I don't take responsibility for responding to every error report. There are a million problems on WP at any given moment, and what I choose to pay attention to or not pay attention to is not really your business. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There are millions of errors on Wiki at any given point, but:

• very few of them are scheduled to appear on the high profile Main Page within a matter of hours of you knowing about them;
• very few of them are pointed out in a clear and unequivocal manner;
• very few of them are brought to the attention of the very small number of admins who frequent DYK and therefore have the privileged position of being able to address them.

If you have the rights of an administrator, it is incumbent upon you to use the advantages of that as best you can. What is the point of a facility for drawing the attention of admins to errors that would otherwise appear on the main page if admins choose to ignore those reports? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't understand what adminship means. Being an editor on Wikipedia is not a job and no one has a responsibility to respond to certain messages within a certain timeframe. Just because something is your pet issue doesn't mean I am somehow obligated to pay more attention to it than other things. Now that we have the actual issue here resolved, I have nothing more to say to you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only conclude that you could not care less whether basic errors in English appear on the Main Page. That is the only possible conclusion from the three clear facts: that you have the privileged opportunity to make a correction, that you had knowledge of the problem and its imminent appearance on the mai page; and that you did nothing about it until directly challenged over your priorities. If you have that little interest in the well being of the project, I can only suggest that the most honourable solution would be to resign your adminship. Kevin McE (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the problem with the template, you are still not understanding me. That little arrow creates a link to the section; normally, if you click that arrow (from your watchlist or from the page history) you will go directly to the section, rather than the top of the page. But if you use a template in the section header without subst'ing it, the link in that arrow will not work; it will take you to the top of the page rather than taking you to the section. The problem is solved if you subst the template, as was already explained in the template's instructions. I am not aware of any setting that stops the → from showing up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah: it is the actual arrow itself. Thank you: I had managed to miss that for the last 6 years. That makes sense of the need to include the subst. Will try to remember it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, just got around to reading your reply about the UK vs Britain issue on main page errors. I have no stake in the matter, being Australian, but I'll point out that our article on the

Oh, also the third paragraph in the Etymology section: "The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales.[34][35][36] However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom.[37][38] Also, the United Kingdom's Olympic team competes under the name "Great Britain" or "Team GB".[39][40] GB and GBR are the standard country codes for the United Kingdom (see ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3) and are consequently commonly used by international organisations to refer to the United Kingdom.[citation needed]". This usage appears to be both valid and sourced, do you have sources to the contrary I can read?

talk

) 21:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As an American, I'll note that much of our use of "Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom" stems from ignorance of the distinction. In fact, many of my countrymen are under the bizarre misconception that "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" are synonymous with "England" (and "British" is synonymous with "English"), with no understanding that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the UK. It's quite embarrassing. —

David Levy

22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on that. In Australia at least, there's a distinction between Britain and Great Britain, where the former is synonymous with United Kingdom and the latter refers to the geographic location of the largest island. One of the sources in the etymology section of the UK article is a government source that seems to agree with this (informally at least) so I'm curious what Britain (as distinct from Great Britain) is seen as referring to by UK natives?

talk

) 22:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you add a reference to {{List of current sovereign monarchs|476006922|474047382|this}} please? I don't really doubt it but FL standards and all... Nightw 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MjExMw&LangId=1 is the source for the changes in the world rankings.

Select 2011 / world tour. Hope that's O.K? Topcardi (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin-- I'm confused by your recent edit to List of English irregular verbs in reference to the pronunciation of the word says. Does this mean that in "much of Britain" people pronounce the word as /ˈseɪz/ ("sāyz", rhyming with "bays", "daze", "faze", etc) rather than with /ˈsɛz/? If this is not what you meant, perhaps you could indicate some different rhyming words to clarify the pronunciation intended. Milkunderwood (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. That's why I said it :@) Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not British, but I've never heard that, anywhere. Just out of curiosity, where does that "sāyz" pronunciation tend to be used? Actually, to prevent someone else reverting you, it might be a good idea for you to post a brief note to this effect on the talkpage there. Milkunderwood (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Irish and Scottish, and North Yorkshire, but I don't think "much of Britain" is at all a useful phrase here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't in the article, only in an edit note. I'm familiar with the pronounciation, but couldn't, and still can't, confidently locate it. Put the fact in the article remains correct. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for a great clarification, here at the guideline WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Good catch! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 UCI World Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierre Rolland (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) 10:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I responded to your comments about the impending

Why did you get the hook changed without telling me for Rated R: Remixed? You have completely mucked up the nomination and the hook. I'm quite annoyed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I raised a concern at the appropriate talk page: an administrator responded. Do you have a comment to make on the concern raised? Kevin McE (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, never really used Wikipedia so apologies if misusing it! Re. evidence of Evans' representation of Wales: It's largely through speaking to him on Facebook but there are the following links showing his involvement at youth level - http://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,10416~1753499,00.html http://www.dragonsoccer.co.uk/players/youngunnews0311.php

No match reports as far as I can find. Sorry, I would show the links myself if I know how! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.207.35 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume that your posts were in good faith, but we obviously can't use your facebook conversations as a

reliable source. The other references seem to prove that he attended training sessions, but I can't see any assertion in them that he actually appeared, or I'd happily restore your claims with the requisite proof. If Jack were to tell you dates and opposition, we'd have a better chance of googling appropriate match reports. UTG Kevin McE (talk

) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I haven't the foggiest what I was thinking as I was typing that. —

• Robert young (1982)
• Robert Young (triathlete)
• Robert Young

I see you've put great work into preventing this article spiral out of control. I don't understand it at all, and as it is a BLP, I'm erring on the side of caution and have CSD ed it. If you would prefer an AfD, please change as you know more about the name confusion in the refs. Widefox (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there KEVIN, VASCO here,

Yes, i am very ashamed of my last summary in Finidi George, clearly saw something that was not there. That's when happens when you have fought vandalism for so long, you start "seeing things"...

However, i am not ashamed for precisely that, fighting the vandals and their "contributions" (not Finidi's case not sir, it was a valuable contribution) with all my might.

Attentively, continue the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin George here,

I noticed that you have edited a lot about Robert Young Pro Cyclist. I am sure that the World Team and Long Course Champion was in triathlon and i know this as I did a write up in a triathlon magazine 2003 and soon to do another one about him in the next week. I also notice that you edited other related items that represent him and i would be prepare to correct the total write up before the piece goes to press.

continue to do the good work but please allow the people with good knowledge on the subject to amend the mistakes.

Best Regards George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.94.174 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that

Thanks for taking the time to review the nominations for April Fool's Day DYK. I expect that your efforts now will save us from a lot of gnashing of teeth around March 31 and April 1. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

	diligence
	Thank you for improving the language quality and precision of DYK, the one person to do so, as it seems, and without getting tired or frustrated, admirable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mrs McE might have another opinion as to whether I do so without getting tired or frustrated. Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Give a hug to her or two! I can only see my POV. For more of that see my talk :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to say thank you as well for your commitment and accuracy, especially in the April Fool's section.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way you could get my The Voice UK nomination to the front of the queue at DYK? It really needs to be there before the show airs (in less than 5 hours), so it would be rather pointless if it were to be on the main page at that time. Situated here Template:Did you know nominations/The Voice UK, its is the DYK which is:

... that The Voice UK? presenter Holly Willoughby (pictured), reportedly cries more than the contestants on the show? - With the picture of the lady at the top. Many thanks if you could do this. — M.Mario (T/C) 13:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there KEVIN

I am currently compiling a page Robert Young (Pro Cyclist & Triathlete) and still in the process of editing it. I noticed your citation needed have already enlisted on the page however this will be completed. if you have any questions as to the information what is being compiled at my status within the sport then you are more than welcomed to e-mail me.

you have also stated "If he is not a Spanish national, I will not accept claim of participation in Spanish national championship withut a source" ..... I will also add a source and you do get invited and/or can take part in national championships without being of National Birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclingnews (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Attentively, continue the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclingnews (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not in Road Cycling you can't. You must be clear at least as to what sport you are talking about. Many of your claims are demonstrably untrue. I will not e-mail you for the info: if you want it to remain on Wikipedia you must provide verification on Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

my apologies i will state what sport more clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclingnews (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits you make ar enot AGF and are vandalism when starkly against consensus backed by nothing but your personal opinion of bias. WP guidelines dont let an editor assert his whim as the encyclopaedic fact. Unless you provide a soruce for your claims it is invalid and vandalism when repeated without consensus. You have a history of unilaterally monopolising and vandalising for your whim. Per BOLD and BRD you need consensus and in this case it is STARKLY against you. if you dont like whats been said then take a break from the page.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience with him, Kevin claimed he had consensus when he was in the minority. This is not something new for him. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have actually reviewed the consensus that Lihaas claims, extraordinarily, that he has, your comments here are uninformed and irrelevant. I can't remember the detail of the disputed text I had with you, but the strength of argument in that instance was clearly against you. Maybe you have failed to distinguish between numbers and consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

False. Your thinking was unclear and poorly formed, you were in the minority and you pretended you had a consensus. When you were asked if you intended to follow the policy on consensus, you declined to commit to it. So, it is not surprising that you would repeat the same mistake in another case. I hope you improve your editorial habits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! Good twinkling on that update. I have no idea what happened on that one (I think a lagging work computer is behind the issue). Good catch. Achowat (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Achowat's talk page.

Thanks for spotting the sockpuppetry. I opened a new SP investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Milram2010, but see you've already got there, so I'll merge it into your existing one. Scopecreep (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 UCI World Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Martin (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) 11:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with Zanzibar women's national football team.

LauraHale (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Saw the deletes on his talk page. That seems typical, he did the same to me - launch an insult/attack, then refuse to back down, and refuse to talk. I don't think you'll get any further, I'd suggest ignore. --KarlB (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin McE. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral Calculus.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iran - North Korea, a match I listed, that you took off. No surprise that it's going ahead then. Sometimes my friend, you just need to discuss. Druryfire (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And it still might not be a UFWC match as more friendlies could be organised. The fact is, a match was comfirmed, FIFA or not, and should be written into the article. If later it was pulled, and we would only ever knw this after the match took place then we could discuss this. As for the uncivil attitude, let's just call it a way of getting your attention as many other people who edit on here blatantly ignore. I do apologise and hope you don't take it too seriously. Druryfire (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you choose to assume that I will follow the poorer standard of editors that you might encounter. It is now the next scheduled UFWC match: if another game is introduced in the interim, that will then become the next scheduled match. Until it was sanctioned by FIFA, it was not the next UFWC match, even if it was the next North Korea match. As to the idea that any scheduled match should be discussed even if it is not recognised by FIFA, I would refer you to Czech Republic vs Greece in Feb 2008, and Japan vs "Japan As One" in March 2011. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I bided my time, as what would a discussion prooved at the time? Nothing. There was nothing in the English speaking media that would ever have worked. I decided to keep out of the article, rather than start a editing war. But now it's true, and sweet it is. Druryfire (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that a discussion would have proved nothing, why did you come here telling me that I need to discuss? Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for listing previous CFDs and the DRV. These were helpful in making a close. I have now listed them at Category talk:FIFA Century Club. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, can you please give a more precise link for the consensus discussion.

can you please give a link for the consensus discussion as well,you seem to be full of shit and you did curse at me ,you say How ****ing dare you suggest that it was vandalism?on the aiden mcgeady talk page you can't delete that.I want you to stop annoying me and move on ,you have no power.I don't want you talking on my pages anymore ,i want to meet different users in charge,please move on ,Are I will report you. you are being watched by other users ,the amount of time you talk back to me ,its in the history ,you either stop or I will get you charged --86 D (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Asterisks are not a curse, they are an indication that I was angry enough to feel like cursing, but had the discretion and self control to avoid doing so, unlike you in this thread.

I am free, as is any other editor, to comment on any page that I choose so long as my contributions are not offensive, libellous, malicious or disruptive. I do not consider calling an editor to account for his contributions and comments to be any of those things.

It is intriguing that you suggest that you will get me "charged", partly because you have not identified any breach of policy on my part, but even more so because you have repeatedly made unsubstantiated accusations of my having threatened you.

There is no-one "in charge" of Wikipedia, and you are free to send messages to any editor you wish, although you may be embarrassed by some of the statements and false accusations that you have made that would be revealed by doing so.

As to the link, I am tempted to say that your total lack of co-operative attitude and repeated refusal to answer questions leaves me ill-disposed to your request. However, I don't want your ill advised edits to lead me into becoming a less helpful editor, so I will refer you to

the thread that lead me to look at McGeady's article, and some of the many previous discussions that have taken place, as well as this proposal to which RashersTierney has referred me. Kevin McE (talk

) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be an odd apology that sets requirements upon the person apologised to, however, I'll respond here rather than on 86 D's page if that helps to keep the peace. I look forward to him becoming a conscientious and respectful contributor, and hope he has learned from the experience of the last couple of days. Kevin McE (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin I have responded to a thread on the Footy proj talkpage. I dont like the current set up but raised a couple of issues and a point that might be overlooked. I understand why you feel it may be simplifing something but I think if we go the otherway it migth be making it more complicated of a guideline. I throw up an edit Adam made, I feel this may help the situation more if we can use it or a form of it. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cycling for a Signpost article scheduled to coincide with the Tour de France and the start of the Summer Olympics. As part of our special "Summer Sports Series", this publicity could give you an excellent opportunity to draw attention to the project's efforts and attract new members. 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. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why when I include a source talking about a 35 year old footballers retirement from international football, it is ignored?

Please explain why Ireland is the only country in the world that doesn't have a subcategory for it's footballers? Ie. "North Korean footballers", "South Korean footballers", "Northern Irish footballers", "Zambian footballers".....

Why, when I make a request to edit Conor Sammon's stats (because his page is locked) it is ignored yet every single edit I make is changed, source or not?

I thought Wikipedia was free to edit, a collaborative effort?

I think this is heinous!

But there is nothing I can do about it because I amn't a member, so I don't get to abuse privileges and whatnot, nor am I particularly inclined to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.15.58 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, to come across you twice in one week! We must do lunch sometime ;) Anyhow back to serious business, I havent updated it properly in a while, this might throw a bit of light on the IP editor. Any questions feel free to ask, not the IP he doesnt have a Scooby-Doo. He hops IP, ignores warnings and edit wars (not to mention POV PA and NLT violations). Murry1975 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read thier contribs, 86D and Dermot80 , I think they are User:Woody ty/User:Danny 80y the same person and blocked for socking. The IP hopper edits in opposite directions (well in some cases). And indeed the IP claims not to porposely hop, which I believe. Here is a link to the SPI of Woody ty [3], it might give a better inclineation that the 4 are one (I do believe thge diffs you have given are a pretty large qauck and the fact that they both edit out of the same city, I am thinking Dublin). Hope it helps. Murry1975 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to have a civil debate on Mcgeady situation,If the sources are correct you can't delete them,thats wikepidia rules if the links are fake then thats another matter.So whats your final opinion on this,I can't keep wasting My time ,changing Aiden back to being Irish.--86 D (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The consistent policy at WT:FOOTY, and the clear result of the RfC on the talk page of his article, is that when the nationality of a footballer is complex, then it should not be reduced to a single adjective. Journalists and other writers might choose to do that: Wikipedia strives to be more accurate. There is no rule that says that references must not be removed from articles. Nobody has denied that McGeady can be described as Irish, but no-one considering the reality of his parentage and upbringing could serious consider that to be the whole truth. We do not look for a particular angle to emphasise, although that might be in keeping with the goals of journalists looking to cater to the preferences of their readers: we look to present the whole picture. The debate has been exercised time and time again, and I do not intend refighting it here. If you do not accept the long held consensus, challenge it at WT:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Aiden shouldn't be called Irish Footballer because of his upbringing.--86 D (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I dnt need to read it, i did takea quick glance on it, but wikipedia article are that articles, my blanket statement stands true because it is that bold i suggest you go do a bit mroe research into nationally and oyu will find country of birth is your nationally you can claim nationally of another country but your true nationally is yoru ocuntry of birth you can never get around this, and i really suggest you look at nationally regarding someoen ona boat in open sea ora plane in international air space you will find the nationally is a big problem and parent who have to register there birth havea huge problem on itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine as long as someone updates it all the time.

For one example, you can say "Don't worry, we'll keep an eye on it". It becomes a problem when there's "current" and "recent" things dotted all around Wikipedia. Each one seems reasonable when added, but the end result is a maintenance burden, some out of date stuff, and for what benefit?

An informative name costs nothing and saves maintenance for everyone.

And what's the "current" squad in 2013? The Euro 2012 one? The one that lined up for the last match (World Cup qualifyer only? or friendlies too?) And how can a reader confirm that the "current" team is up to date? Is there any source that can be used as a reference for the "current" squad in 2013, or is it a concept that's just made up on Wikipedia? The "Euro 2012 squad" is a thing that exists.

I'll leave it as is anyway :-) Gronky (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made a mistake. But I'm not sure if it's Aras instead of Araz because several articles write both. - User:Hovhannesk September 16, 2011

Hey stop deleting about the King of Toraigh, he is a true king even search up yourself!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.140.94 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting the text about the King of Torraigh, he deserves to get known more as he is a elective King of the Island and this is recognized by the world as it is the tradition of the island and it's not going against irish law as it is a part of there culture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.140.94 (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The user was already on the last warning before you issued a warning. An AIV report should've been issued. Thanks. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a website proving he is real http://patsydanrodgers.littleireland.ie/KingofTory.htm this website was created by islanders and his followers, another http://patsydanrodgers.littleireland.ie/ on the same site, read the wiki on Tory Island in the recent history section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_Island plus read http://www.toryislandferry.com/index.htm

Here is also an interview with the King himself http://vimeo.com/15567696 and here is another article about him http://tory.wikia.com/wiki/Patsy_Dan_Rodgers-_The_king and here is a photo of the King with his Car http://www.flickr.com/photos/11287317@N04/4039896353/ which says 'Rí Thorrai3h' moreless meaning King of Tory (Toraigh is the real name and Tory is the English name)

Here is another article about the King going to a high class art event with President Mary McAleese and Lord Bannside being there, http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/5467-King-of-Tory,-by-James-OFee.html he also had to give a speech.

The King on BBC Radio 4 doing an interview, The King of Toraigh is also mentioned in this news report on BBC Newsline http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7495997.stm

There was also a mistake made making The King the new Liverpool Manager as this news report tells you: http://donegaldollop.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/clerical-error-sees-patsy-dan-rodgers-take-over-as-manager-of-liverpool/ and visitors from Germany do a video about the King http://wn.com/king_of_tory_island as lots of Europeans and Americans come to Toraigh Island to see the great King.

I hope this proves he is real, if you search more you will find him at special events and on TG4, more BBC and you can find books about him to. Please stop changing it as it is a fact he is a King! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.140.94 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I misunderstood the voting process on this when writing the Eduard Streltsov article a while back. Thanks for fixing it. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop the attitude, there is no need for it, you have also clearly failed to read whats there as nowhere does it state it was a friendly? why would we play Torquay in a friendly? it was a game last season in september. If its relevant to the Reuben Hazell article, why is it not relevent to the Rene Howe article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salopian123 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, Ive re-worded it now, hopefully it meets your criteria. I feel it is of benefit to the article, not because it happend to a player of the club I support, but because it was an act of petulance that the player is somewhat re-knowned for. I understand you may not agree, but its in the Hazell article and that hasnt had an issue.

Like I say, ive re-worded it to sound less "moany" as you say. Its referenced Its factual it happend

Like I say before, It wasnt a pre season friendly it happend in a league game, so it has a little more validity I hope in your eyes.

Cheers Kev Salopian123 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I bow down to your superiority. I'm not one of your students, Kev. Remove it, While the initial draft was slanted heavily from a POV angle, the re draft was not. As I say, remove it, but I suggest you pay close attention to other articles on of similar biographies as these have been written in the same way, with similar stories.

I would sign it with four tides, but it's somewhat tedious on a phone.

Have a good day, Kev. X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salopian123 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix the incorrect edit to WP:MOS. Your edit contradicts the last bullet in

*If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization (It turned out to be true that "a penny saved is a penny earned").

Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am starting an RFC since lesser forms of persuasion seem unavailing. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You consider arrogant imperatives to be persuasion??? Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No more than revision of a long-standing guideline to retroactively support your edit. I leave it to you to search the archives to find the discussion that lead to the version of the guideline that you so casually changed. I recall this point was given considerable consideration, but frankly, I can't be bothered to look for it for you. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case don't expect me to be bothered about your demands. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed what I said about Monaco, but the rest of what I said stands. It really doesn't help when people pick up on one tiny error in what you say that doesn't even affect the crux of the statement. –

I'm sorry, but it's not clear. There are two sections and speaking of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, that's what this ridiculous edit war is. You have stated that the article isn't worth it and yet you insist on edit warring of the matter. Why are you insisting on following the wrong half of the MOS? I have explained that the nationality of the teams is not pertinent to the purpose of the list since they are not representing the countries, they are simply located in those countries. You have yet to show how they are pertinent to the country of the team is pertinent to the purpose of the list since they are not selected by country, but by the popularity of the club itself. In other friendlies, it may right be said that the countries are the important thing: they don't want to play teams from their own country for various reasons, however this is simply a list of popular clubs from Europe and so the European flag would be appropriate, but even more again the MOS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to confuse asserting with explaining. If something is in MoS, it is not "the wrong half" of that element of MoS simply because it permits that which you don't like. They do not have to represent a country to have it as their nationality. None of those clubs have Europe as their nationality, so that would be a patently inappropriate flag to display. Pertinence is a judgement rather than an absolute: 12 people have now judged them to be pertinent to that article, one has expressed an opinion that they are not. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to confuse like and state. They do have to either represent the country or the flag has to be pertinent to the country and since their nationality is not pertinent to their appearance in the tournament it's not at all relevant.

A dozen people have judged them to be pertinent? I don't understand your math. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If by dozen, you mean editors have added the flags or commented, that's not an accurate representation because you're attributing cause to editors when you don't actually know their motivation. You could use the same argument about editors adding live scores to pages like that. It's generally agreed that live scores should not be added, but to state that the editors who do so because they've seen it done elsewhere know that they're breaking that agreement is overstating the case, which is what I believe has happened here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nowhere used the word "like" where it could be replaced with "state", so that is meaningless. I'm glad to see the first evidence in your discussion that you acknowledge the validity of pertinence clause. Clearly we disagree about its application to this situation. Can you prove that it is not pertinent? Of course you can't, it is a matter of perception. You perceive it to be irrelevant: I and 11 others have perceived it to be relevant. It's called consensus. That is how Wikipedia solves disputes over the application of MoS. I would suggest to you that the only other recourse open to you is to bring this to dispute resolution. If you choose to, I will defend my position there, a position in regard to which I will refer to the website of the event in question, which considers nationality pertinent for all non MLS clubs, but they, as you have repeatedly said, have vested interest in promoting the MLS, and I am confident that we agree that that should not be a factor in Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing people's edits on the summary page. If you bothered to read the whole talk history of the summary page for 2008, you will know it was supposed to describe what simple numbers could not. It is NOT supposed to be a robotic summary of gold medal winners.Angry bee (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And exactly where do you claim that that consensus was established? Read what it says on every edit page (If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.) before you presume to tell me not to edit. I would also suggest that you read

wp:BRD: if what you wanted to see on the page is deleted, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article in question. Kevin McE (talk

) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing lots of my mistakes on the pages I created. Please at least one of us knows how to use Capital letters correctly! :) (GsyFootball (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Hello Kevin, hope you are well. I have responded to your comment at Talk:List of Olympic records in athletics about the defunct events. I did quite a bit of research to find if any genuine "defunct" "Olympic records" exist, but could only find anecdotal stuff. As I said on the FL talkpage, even the IOC don't seem to keep records for defunct events. What's your opinion on all that? All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. Since you're removing this template from numerous pages, declaring it to be a "meaningless shape", wouldn't it be more useful nominate it for deletion, since it is used on thousands of pages on Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on the template's talk page, it is meaningless in isolation. I can understand its perceived value in a keyed list. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting at

WT:FOOTBALL (and any other projects with articles that use these common symbols in an infobox) that you're removing them all? (Oh, and I've replied at that template page, but without its counterparts, the up and down arrows, the discussion is somewhat .... isolated.... ) The Rambling Man (talk

) 18:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm addressing their use in one specific context: FIFA rankings have been listed on nft articles without triangles and bars for years: this is some recent innovation made without discussion, without explanation. Icons are discouraged from infoboxes (wp:icon), unkeyed symbols are not helpful. What's your take on it? Kevin McE (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm just used to seeing it. I look at a lot of company and business pages, it's common in those infoboxes and its meaning is obvious. However, I think in this case, where it's not quite so obvious, more explanation is required. I've seen it used in tennis navboxes for the movement of rankings of players (which move weekly) and that's clear to me too. I've asked

WP:ICON, so I'll trot over there and take a look. Might be I'm flogging a dead horse, but if so, I'd like to see consistency with these icons being removed from the many-thousand business articles in which they're currently used as well. (Also, you left a note at {{steady}} but not {{increase}} or {{decrease}} and you've removed those symbols under the same rationale, perhaps a centralised discussion somewhere would be useful, as I noted earlier?) The Rambling Man (talk

) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The steady symbol is the worst of the bunch (in isolation); the others are poor designs, being triangles rather than arrows. I don't like the idea of hover over text, as I suspect that most users use pop-ups (I assume they do: I can't imagine anyone aware of the tool choosing not to use it). Basically, Icons in infoboxes are advised against as they draw undue visual attention to one field. I did raise it on FIFA rankings talk page 5 weeks ago, as the nearest there is to a central discussion for those likely to be updating nft pages, but no reply. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, the vast majority of our readers aren't logged in (or aren't even registered editors!!) so pop-ups don't work for them, you need a monobook.js for all that jazz. A hover-over would be exactly the same as leaving your pointer over a picture on the BBC website, it'd give you some info as to what you were looking at. Sure, steady is not good without explanation, but you've removed ups and downs too and I think you really ought to do that en-mass with consensus, perhaps at WT:FOOTY as I suggested. The minor pages, such as the template talk page itself or some FIFA rankings page will probably get less than one page view a week, so that's ineffective. Finally, I've had a quick check on the use of icons in infoboxes per

WP:ICON (as you directed), can you show me where "Icons are discouraged from infoboxes (wp:icon)" for anything other than flags? I may not have seen it but the dominant theme there is to avoid flags, not up, down and steady icons. The Rambling Man (talk

) 19:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The introduction of triangles (which point in three directions, not only up and down) was never raised at WT:FOOTY. I'm simply restoring what is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams, the (not well updated, I admit) WP:FOOTY MoS. Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, perhaps it's just me, but the decrease arrow points downwards. It's very very clear to me. It has a flat horizontal surface at the top of the arrow. How could that be mistaken for anything other than a down arrow? (Incidentally, using that WP:FOOTY MoS opens its own can of worms, it's riddled with issues, so not a good starting point)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The shape in that template is not an arrow. That you interpret it as such is perhaps what the originators of the template hoped, but it isn't one. It has two other, equally flat surfaces. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, so you're now talking about accessibility and usability, so please continue this discussion at the template talk page itself. You've changed from "using icons" to the "shape of the icon", so your input would be useful at {{steady}} etc to improve things rather than just removing them from a minor sub-section of articles in Wikipedia where they are commonly used throughout. Let's take this chance to improve the whole place rather than just remove one or two icons here and there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of usability and accessibility experts to take a look. I think the issue with the up and down triangles is a little odd (flat base up green and flat base top down seems abundantly obvious to me, at least) but the key thing is to engage all facets of our readership, including those with

Hey! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. If you have the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I put a POV tag on Nabeel Rajab, fiddled with it for a while, then removed the tag. But after working with the article for a few hours I may be getting blind to it. Do you want to take another look, too? Thanks for rightly putting the brakes on this one, good call. Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there,

You mentioned that you've kept an eye on me and my edits on the Giro d'Italia page, or that's just the impression that I got from what you said. I have a slight ambition to bring the article to Good Article status. I know that it seems as sort of a stretch right now, but I feel like I've gotten the article closer to being worthy of GA nomination. There's still a lot of work to be done to the article, but I don't know what else to do/add. I know I need to completely rewrite the history for the 1.5 - 1.9 sections of the article, but that's all I have in mind that I can do. Do you have any ideas of things to add to the article? Or things to change around in the article?

Note: I'm not asking you to work on the article, I mean you can if you want to (like you've been doing). I'm not trying to pressure you into editing or whatever it may seem. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Take your trolling and bad faith elsewhere.

You really need to learn the difference between trolling, and expecting people to be mature enough to take responsibility for their own postings. Of course, if you ignore requests that you do that, then some may conclude that you also lack the maturity to make that distinction. If you want to change other people's opinion as to your maturity, then the door is open for you to respond on the page that you were referred to. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States Anti-Doping Agency, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. If you think it's biased, you should discuss it at the talk page. DaL33T (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing: 11:11, 27 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Ecuador ‎ (→‎Sports: sport is part of the culture)

The original sectioning placed sport under culture however, when i reviewed its main article, other than stating football as the most popular sport, it redirects to another main article Sport in Ecuador. The paragraph summarizing sports doesn't talk much about culture or the impact of sports in culture either, which was my reasoning not to include sport in culture. Giving it is own sectioning for a rather vague subject seem more proper. Now excuse me if i am wrong but i don't mind being proven wrong. Hanzon (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's patently untrue. It discusses football, both club and international, tennis, volleyball (including distinctive local version of the game), bullfighting (far more a matter of culture than competitive sport), rugby and participation in international athletics. It treats issues of national pride and identity, internal rivalries, mass participation and class. Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Protecting article Ramil Safarov".The discussion is about the topic Ramil Safarov. Thank you. --Chaojoker (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What I do isn't to be judged by you or someone else. Look at

I'm glad you care that much. Could you please point out the exactly which part says that flags aren't to be included there?--

talk

) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not an advert. The web site gave the project their complete contents - see announcement on WMUK web site. Can you please reconsider your edit? Surely projects can name their own partners? Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They get a namecheck in exchange for services rendered? That is advertising space bought. Would they have got their site posted if they had not rendered a service? I can only assume no from your comment: it is a form of payment. Kevin McE (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I've had some time away, and realize I was totally out of line. I had actually written a long explanation of what went wrong, after I had sat down and analyzed the entire situation with the benefit of time. I erased that explanation, however, because any explanation here ended up looking like an excuse, and what went down was inexcusable. You didn't deserve the reaction you got, your analysis was spot-on, and I was out of line. If you'd like, we can discuss this further, I am fully open to that, as I have done a lot of thinking about the situation. Or you can delete this and call me an asshole, which you would be fully within your rights to do. Either way, I felt the need to get this off my chest, and let you know that you were right, I was not behaving rationally, and there is no excuse for my actions. Good luck, and I hope when we do interact in the future, it doesn't go down like it did earlier tonight. --Jayron32 02:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly,

So, your edits have been challenged. Justification has been given for that challenge. Yet you continue to plough ahead with similar unilateral changes without entering into a discussion, oh dear. Pyrope 23:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to get to S or T yet, so thanks for the head-up on those ones. Death means the point of extinction of life, not onset of the cause. Cause of death is not death. Before certification of death, death cannot be asserted. It is nothing to do with me thinking anything about "what a category should contain": you are applying criteria to the category that are defined absolutely nowhere, least of all in the self-description of the category. A category includes articles those that unambiguously and verifiaby belong in the category, not those that are related to the cat by some unspecified extrapolation and elastic interpretation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, for all your verbosity, you are wrong. Death is defined as "the action or fact of dying" (NOAD). The instances you are currently editing are most certainly the action of dying. That's why burning at the stake is often described as a long and painful death. I'm working off both a dictionary definition and practical usage. You seem to be determined to force through you own blinkered and limited understanding of the English language. Pyrope 17:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OED: Death: the final cessation of vital functions in an organism, the ending of life. Your dictionary is not very helpful without cross referencin the definition of dying. No-one will verifiably assert that death has occurred before the medical pronouncement, therefore all these claims are erroneous. I have, however, taken in good faith the presence of cameras at all these incidents, although in a very large proportion of the events, the articles have no verification of that. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That def is also given in the NOAD, being as they are both Oxford publications, but it is not the only one. Many words in the English language have multiple meanings and senses, and you seem wedded to a single one. If you claim this category is inappropriate, please do suggest more more apt one. Pyrope 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I used the principle definition: if you chose a different one, then it seems that you are the one being selective. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that OED ranked their definitions, the one I gave is just as valid. Pyrope 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You weren't? Try reading the pre-amble. Kevin McE (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading dictionaries for fun... there's a joke in there somewhere. Nevertheless, restricting your interpretation to just one selective choice of definition is unhelpful and limits what is otherwise a rich and expressive language. As I asked before, if you don't consider those articles to fit within that category perhaps you should recategorise them into something that you find more appropriate, rather than simply deleting material and not offering anything constructive. Pyrope 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They are already in plenty of categories, which I assume they actually meet the definition of: I'm not removing any material from the encyclopaedia, I'm simply removing individuals from a category that inaccurately describes the audience to their death. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But you are. As I said above, having any part of your death be recorded for posterity by broadcast television and film cameras is a highly unusual and notable event. The purpose of that category is to gather all these events together, and you have removed that from many of the articles without replacing the functionality of the category. That's not constructive and is not making Wikipedia a better reference resource. Your opinion and limited use of the language is just one point of view. Clearly the editors who included those pages in the category originally, and I, have a different point of view. Why do you think you are in the right here? Pyrope 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very simple: if the article says that someone died in hospital 4 days later, and there were not broadcast cameras at the hospital, then the death was not filmed for broadcast. Cause of death is not death, loss of consciousness is not death, receiving a blow that later proves to be fatal is not death. How, other than medical certification, do you believe that death can be verifiably ascertained? Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been though that already. Reputable dictionaries give multiple definitions, and the term is used more broadly than you'd apparently like in common language. People talk of long, lingering deaths. People talk of miserable deaths. If somebody in the middle ages was stoic and brave in the lead up to their execution they were described as having had a good death. Clearly death, in common usage, often refers to the entire process of moving from alive to dead, not just the instant that life winks out. The very fact that some editors have included these articles in that category shows that as well. Why shouldn't the category reflect real usage of a term, and not just one selective choice of a number of different academic definitions? Pyrope 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia: if people chose to use technical terms loosely in general conversation, that is one thing, but in an encyclopaedia we use language precisely, and where it what it states is verifiably true: it is patently false to say that someone's death was filmed if they died 4 days after the filmed incident in hospital. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Death" is a solely technical term now? Yes, it does have a technical meaning, but it has many other meanings too. This is a general interest encyclopedia, not a medical textbook, and your proscriptive use of language simply isn't appropriate or helpful. Pyrope 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That might be your opinion, but accuracy is not a matter of opinion, it relies on verifiable fact. Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, dictionary definitions aren't opinions. The verifiable fact, as shown by those definitions, is that there is a spectrum of meaning to the word. You are the one making unsupported deletions here. Pyrope 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Any cases that I have removed from the category for which Reliable Sources state that the death was covered on film could of course have the category restored: barring that, I wish you like in getting anyone to verifiably affirm death several hours, or even days, before death is certified. Kevin McE (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Diego Maradona". Thank you! Electric Catfish (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please return to the SPI you filed and explain what you mean by the unusual case name, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RealEarthquake/Amerxican/Walter Görlits/ 71.139.164.148. As it stands, I have no idea how the users and IPs relate to the case. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. A cup of coffee and another admin's comment helped me to correct the case, which now resides at

WP:SPI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk

)​ 14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps [4]. Murry1975 (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The results of Hincapie, Barry etc have all been ratified. They have all accepted their bans and signed afidavits to that effect accepting their bans, stripping of results and prize monies, as they have accepted them thats it, theres no reason for the UCI to ratify the results stripping, all that can happen is UCI to appeal the length of the bans. In the case of Armstrong, he hasnt accepted the ban, the governing body hasnt accepted the decision so its a different situation. Trust me, im completely anti armstrong, but, when his page is changed, we need to make sure thats its an accurate portrayal of him and what a peice of crap he really is. have patience. Dave Dimspace (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also have a look how i edited them, preserving their results, being fair on the decision. other editors could well have deleted their results entirely. another reason i got in their first. took a fair while to do the edits. i dont do this for the love of it. hit me up on twitter and can talk in more detail Dimspace (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

can you have a look at the very botton of the Armstrong talk page, and look at my proposal and if you agree sign off on it. Want to get the LA page in some sort of order before the UCI make their decision so we can then tailor it to be a fair and reflective article. without the bile but without the fanboyisms Dimspace (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for humorously pointing out that Steve Bruce VIAF error. We are really trying to get this right and need the attentions of users like yourself who find the fringe cases. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CTF83! 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To provide context, CTF83 extrapolated information from my user page description to make prejudiced comments based on stereotyping in a discussion. I invited him to retract that, and he deleted the invitation: without making any personal attack, I pointed out the implications of that choice in the way that other people might regard him, and the above was his response. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

for the record you call me a bigot I thought "jesus" advocated tolerance and love CTF83! 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not: I observed that, by declining the opportunity to follow a course of action that would prevent you being perceived as a bigot, you showed that you were happy to be considered to be one. That you persist in believing that your simplified interpretation of the Nazarene's teaching is of relevance or interest to me shows that you are continuing to make unfounded assumptions about me. Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		Even if I were to disagree with your opinion, you shouldn't be harassed for being different than someone else just because you gave an opinion not shared by another and attempted to add benefit to a collaborative editing environment. Value should be placed on an editor's words and not their background, and I think you rose to that and I just wanted to let you know that it's appreciated by others, even if they don't always express it. - Ghost 12:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I know we've had a few agreements/disagreements etc, but since you live just down the road from me, and since I saw you just noted an ITN "wasn't ready for the main page", I wondered if you had an opinion on the bold-link in the

I was aware of the early part of that discussion, but I went off on a different tangent, concerned about the use of promotional images. In the past I gave a fair bit of time to looking at tomorrow's main page, and while I didn't object to very short articles the TFP often linked to, I did often find them appallingly written and leapt in with some basic grammar and NPOV fixes. I think that there ought to be some expectation of at least a bare minimum standard on any article deliberately linked (excluding the Random Article button), yet alone bold linked, from the Main Page. Where is this conversation? Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, nothing really centralised yet, mea culpa. You can look at the latter posts at

User talk:Howcheng, although this may help. The Rambling Man (talk

) 18:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a strong argument for an RFC in this area, but I've become too embattled to do it neutrally I think. I've tried to help with some of the recent featured picture boldlinked articles, but since some of them are only listed a day or so in advance, that makes life very difficult as there's no requirement for the boldlinked article to be anything other than an article that exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have undid, your edit [5]. If you have objection regarding the map or suggestion for a more appropriate map, please continue the discussion at

I have no idea what blatant inaccuracy you refer to. Please stop edit warring and explain yourself in the talk page, so this supposed blatant inaccuracy can be resolved.--Mor2 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you read the edit notes in that case: "Farcically untrue to suggest that Gaza is no more affected than Jordan or Egypt" Kevin McE (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you arn't going a bit mad? Govvy (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that I haven't added substantially to that for more than 6 1/2 years, it can't be evidence that I'm going mad. I may have been 6 1/2 years ago, and I might still be. Kevin McE (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Still, kind of made me laugh :) Govvy (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, in the

See the French 1875 and 1826 maps here: there is an Ile des Sables just off the north coast of New Caledonia, whose neighbouring islands are those named by d'Entrecasteaux. KPOK has explained in greater detail at the talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

merci bien!

Hi, the news are dated today. I understand that Netanyahu announced it on November 30 but who will see it? It will go without votes, nobody will see it. Help me. Keeeith (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin McE. You have new messages at 71.139.169.254's talk page.
Message added 08:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On 16 December 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Galina Vishnevskaya, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that, based on two official documents (one given by FIFA and other by UEFA) is that FIFA not organised club competitions until 2000 due the art. 38 of its own statute allowed the organisation only do tournaments between national teams and it is precisely the reason that recognition was de facto.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The article List of world club champions in association football has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

See here for reference. The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together. Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. God Football (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you expressed your concerns about God Football (talk · contribs) at this deletion discussion. As you seem to have been witness to the user's edits over the past week or so you may want to add more information to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football as I only came across him when I spotted him trying to manipulate consensus before contacting Snowy. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can one identify if IPs and registered users with various nicknames are really the same person? If so, how I can do?...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page, but not taken any further action. If he continues to edit logged out on the same issues, let me know.

Kevin, hope you dont mind, but you might know the answer. on Mat Haymans page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Hayman he appears as having ridden for Blanco Pro Cycling for 9 years. Obviously this is the new team name, but on rider articles it looks really stupid, as he never did ride for them, he rode for Rabobank. Is there an easy way that you know of to fix this, should the rabobank page have been set up to redirect to blanco so that existing links remained. Its basically screwed up every rider that rode for rabobank :S Dimspace (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

When the template is used, it should be tagged with the appropriate year. Done on the Hayman article: damned awkward to identify where else it was used without a year tag. Kevin McE (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, i tried all sorts, couldnt work it out. I know for next time, for any others I come across. Dimspace (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What "blatent copyvos"? RashersTierney (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful to quote me accurately: blatent is your spelling error, not mine.

Easy answer is, "The ones that I removed, as indicated by the phrase copyvios can be seen and removed in the editnote."

Clue to identifying them is the recently added source (Clare FM).

The other way to identify them would be to look at the edit diff. Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy with the sarcasm. The wikipedia entries appear to pre-date the Clare FM article. RashersTierney (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a legally binding copyright note on the Clare FM article. We do not have the right to decide to ignore it, even if we believe that Wikipedia could legally challenge it.

If that info is not supported by the Clare FM article, then it is unsourced, and the part that relates to his widow and sons (and to the Fureys: nothing here or in their articles about them being Travellers) must be deleted anyway under BLP policies. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Clare FM is a rather low quality source and I used it only to back up the claim of Dunne living in Killimer. Everything else has sources now, just read them. For the kids: In the 1980s and 90s, he could be heard singing and playing the banjo in Killarney. Nowadays he lives in Killimer in south-west Clare, with his wife Madeleine and four children, all of whom play musical instruments. . You can find that quote here. The Banner _talk 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On top of that: The RTE newsreel shows mr. Dunne picking up his children for the schoolbus (so I guess they still live at home) and shows them playing music. The Banner _talk 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I have made a few small clarifications in that proposal, because there is a history of disputation on the issue; so it is more important to get things dead accurate than we might have thought.

In particular, please check this edit of mine. If you do intend that the entire text linked in your proposal should be replaced, please make that clear. If you intend only a part of the linked text, please specify exactly which part, and perhaps quote it.

When the linked subsection is short (as here), I often find it useful to quote it all, and then show what you have in mind immediately below that. Saves a lot of editors a lot of trouble.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if as you say you have read my message at Kwami's page, you will know that I take a dim view on changing other people's signed words:

the guidelines are clear on the matter. You have changed my proposal to make it possible to read it as something that I do not intend or support. I assume that you mean to retain the workarounds: certainly others could interpret it as such. I deliberately used the phrase "the existing text" without qualification, because I intended it without qualification: the existing text is all the text in that section. Knowing that you have read my opinion on such changes, I am disappointed in you that you chose to do so. Kevin McE (talk

) 10:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kevin:

• No, you did not at first write "Replace existing text ..."; you wrote "Replace current text ...". Precision!
• Both formulations are ambiguous, and it is still not clear on the talkpage what you mean.
• You now speak of "the existing text" (see your answer to me, above), which is clearer. You did not do that before; you still have not worded things that way on the talkpage (see your diff). There is a difference, and you appear not to have noticed it. Therefore, your intent remains unclear even as I write. If it were not so, I would not be seeking to clarify it. I would not be asking you what you meant.
• I suggest you work on your drafting skills. Editors need clear statements to comment and vote on, so that everyone shares a basic understanding of what is proposed.
• I suggest you take advice from experts, especially when it is offered without malice or disruptive intent.

Best wishes as always,

Noetica^Tea? 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (♥)

I really cannot believe how an intelligent reader of the proposal would insert some sort of qualification into my proposal when I had given no reason for anyone to expect that one is intended. There is no ambiguity: I linked the current/existing section of MoS, and suggested a replacement. In context, existing and current are synonymous, so your nit-picking attitude is unhelpful and unconstructive. In contrast, relevant is entirely open to interpretation: who is to decide when passing comment on a proposal as to which parts are, or are not, to be deemed relevant? Are they !voting for retention or removal of the workarounds, or the extraordinarily badly phrased justification, or the thoroughly illogical "whenever possible, do not" construction? I cannot be confident that I know what you intend to be included as relevant.

Without claiming perfection for my own, I would suggest on this evidence that your drafting skills need considerable attention. They certainly lack the precision I would expect from experts.

I note the lack of either attempted justification of, or apology for, breach of WP:TPO. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate throughout, you say? Let's examine my assertions:

1. You changed my input on a talk page in a blatant breach of the guideline
2. I restored the original meaning
3. I used "new" wording in as much as I used existing rather than the original current: that, unlike your change, is not substantive,
4. I have the right to change my contributions anyway, you do not.
5. You did so after reading my message on Kwami's talk page which had the main purpose of asking him not to change my signed comment.
6. He had the dignity to specify what change he had made to the proposal, which you did not.
7. The change came about through editing from memory of my intention, without bothering to look at past diffs
8. Whether my word was current or existing, it is unequivocal and unqualified, and can only be read as meaning the whole subsection, which is linked.
9. I had already made my opinion on, and intention to excise, the workarounds clear.
10. Your change introduced uncertainty, and speculation as to what the extent of the "relevant" text.
11. Your edit note states, "otherwise it could seem that the entire text of the linked location is to be replaced, but it is not clear that this is intended"
12. If I say replace current/existing text, without qualification, it is evident that I mean the whole of current/existing text.
13. It is on that basis that you dismiss the proposal as "incompetently drafted."
14. This strikes me as a very bad faith comment.

If you are to substantiate your "inaccurate throughout" accusation, I would suggest that you will need to be able to prove the inaccuracy of more than half of the assertions. I would concede that I might (only might, it remains my opinion that you did act as I stated) have misinterpreted your motivation in #13: that leaves you 7 to prove. Kevin McE (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'll humour you. Addressing some of your numbered points:

1. No, I did not change your input in "a blatant breach of the guideline". The guideline

WP:TPO

says exactly this: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." Well, I exercised caution; and I immediately posted an explanation and a request for you to clarify your intent (initiating this section, in fact). You did not clarify your intent till much later, and only indirectly. The wording in question remains ambiguous. Note also that TPO explicitly concerns comments; but what I edited was a proposal on which editors were expected to comment and vote, so unambiguous wording was crucial – at a talkpage for the central page of MOS (as I explained). For that sort of reason, TPO wisely uses this precise wording: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ...". The special circumstances that follow, therefore, are not intended to be exclusive. And indeed, "formal proposals" (your term) are often amended for clarity. Kwami did it in the present case; so did I.

4. As I explain regarding 1, that is inaccurate. There are listed exceptions at TPO (restricted to comments, remember), but that list is not exclusive.

5. I did not read all of your words at this section of Kwami's talkpage. The text of my procedural comment at WT:MOS (adding underlining):

Having seen some discussion at Kwami's talkpage between him and Kevin, I endorse Kwami's addition of "referent"; but I have removed the square brackets that made it seem like a gloss on "meaning" rather than a genuine addition. I have also boldly reformatted, and removed some striking-out.
Editors: please do not now make alterations to the proposal. I did so only because no one uninvolved had yet expressed an opinion, or voted. If there is disagreement here, an advertised RFC would be needed. This is no trivial change.

As you can see, I was taking note of other points: not your objections to Kwami's attempts to remedy problems in your drafting.

6. No, I did specify the changes that I made. See my procedural comment, quoted above. And I explained. And I raised the matter at your talkpage.

8. No. You wrote "replace existing [or current] text". That is ambiguous. These alternatives would have given your precise meaning, as lately revealed (and I underline parts for emphasis):

• replace the text
• replace all text
• replace all the text
• replace entire text

And so on. Consider these statements:

Noetica wanted to replace text at WP:MOS.
The vandal replaced text at WP:MOS with a line of meaningless symbols.

What gets replaced, in those cases? All of the text at MOS, or just some? No one can tell, though at least the first is most naturally read as intending "some".

9. No, your earlier wording was not clear. Your believing it clear (grounded on its being understood by you) is no evidence that it was clear to everyone else. And anyway, I was not interested in a hermeneutical exercise on what preceded your "formal proposal". If you make one of those, you should make it unambiguous and self-contained. Editors scanning their watchlists see a proposal to address; they do not necessarily read all that led up to the proposal.

10. No, my edit reduced uncertainty. It narrowed the range of possible meanings, while necessarily leaving something still indeterminate. Further narrowing, or correction of my attempt to narrow, was up to you. It still is!

12. No, it is not at all clear. See my response to your 8, above. "Text" can be an uncountable (a mass noun) or a countable. You intended it as countable (or alternatively, as uncountable but quantified as all of the text). But you did not include the article "the", or any other determiner that is usual with a singular countable (or alternatively, for an uncountable, where the quantification all is intended). The absence of a determiner shifts the meaning toward uncountable (or toward the quantification some). "Telegraphese" omission of a determiner even when a singular countable is intended (or alternatively, when all is intended) can introduce a genuine ambiguity. A telegram example for quantification ambiguity, with an uncountable noun:

• Send money.
  [All the money, or some money?]
• Send the money.
  [Clear, for a certain known consignment of money.]
• Send some money.
  [Clear.]

And for ambiguity between countable and uncountable senses of a noun:

• Buy Luxor Ltd.
  [Buy some interest in Luxor Ltd stock, or buy the company as a discrete entity?]
• Buy into Luxor Ltd.
  [Clear.]
• Acquire the company Luxor Ltd.
  [Clear.]

13. It is only partly on that basis; add Kwami's amendments also.

14. My interventions and comments may strike you as being in bad faith; but the failure to assume bad faith is yours, not mine. I explained, I annotated, I came to your talkpage, and signed with my best wishes. As a very experienced editor at WP:MOS, I know only too well how misunderstandings can arise and how misreadings are seized on with glee by a minority who oppose MOS itself. I have not assumed bad faith in you, and I take your lapses from lucidity to be inadvertent. Others may not see the problem right now; but vagueness has returned to haunt us at WP:MOS before, and we must be vigilant against it.

That's 10 of your 14 points. Satisfied? If not, I propose that we just move on. I still suggest that you add the simple word "the" to your proposal. It removes a genuine ambiguity that I genuinely found troubling, of a sort that I know from experience can bring chaotic consequences. Even with the best will in the world.

Collegially,

Noetica^Tea? 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (☺)

Please keep your nonsense off my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you keep your blatant lies off other pages and stop using them to try to achieve your ends, I will have no reason to post reminders of the type of maths that I usually have to demonstrate to 8 year olds on your talk page. It is worrying that you consider simple comparison of fractions to be nonsense: have you considered remedial education? In the context of Wikipedia, it is more worrying that you not only attempt to mislead the project by putting forward blatantly false statistical analysis, but that you consider it more pressing to moan about a comment on your talk page than to apologise or retract after being uncovered. I look forward to seeing what you consider to be an appropriate response at ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper place for your comments, if any, is the relevant project page, not my talk page. Your comments on my talk page are unwelcome and this is your last warning that if you make another I will file a complaint at ANI. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made comment at the project page: you have failed to respond to them. I would love to see you present the scenario at ANI whereby your deliberate attempt to mislead those who will have to decide on consensus at ITN/C by presenting a totally fallacious analysis of !votes, claiming a 66%+ agreement for a proposal that had less than 43% (less than 38% if neutral votes are counted) preference is laid bare. Of course, if you can direct me to the eleven !votes that I apparently missed, I shall apologise and retract my comments. Until then, everything necessary to know is amply illustrated by your prioritising removal of comments from your talk page over any attempt to make good your lie. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On 30 December 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article William Rees-Mogg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)