User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2019

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.

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:DannyS712#DYK commas. to continue the discussion from WP:ERRORS about the use of commas in DYK hooks DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and insightful comments at

• There is little point asking a question about the content, because the patrollers of that page are unlikely to know any more than you do about that topic. You could approach (or ping) the article authors, blurb drafters, DYK nominator, etc. to get an informed response.
• As well as alerting people that there is an issue, it would be more helpful to suggest a specific way to fix that issue. Some of your reports are not acted on, simply because it is not clear how the issue can be resolved.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you,MSGJ (talk · contribs): sometimes it seems like people would rather be glad that something has been proposed and feel it shouldn't then be touched, but your more active response is much appreciated. PotD particularly seems to suffer from inattention to comments here: maybe those who can change things late are wearied by the time they get that far down the page.

As to your comments, I would assume that those getting something to the main page would be aware enough about it to make sure they visit ERRORS in case there is a dispute over content. If they are that uninterested in how their area of interest, they have no right to complain about what is decided about how it is changed (because they don't

own

the article).

I do indeed sometimes make suggestions, but sometimes only someone able to translate a source better (as in the Chilean soccer referee earlier today) can really propose improvement, and sometimes it seems so far removed from clear fact that I really cannot see any justification for the premise (my original thought in terms of Hazel Smith and the outlaw cowboy phrase, for example). Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Kevin, we often (aka almost never) see eye-to-eye, but your recent surge of comments at ERRORS has been invaluable. While there's a desire to suggest alternatives, the problem is that the various processes that lead to the main page should already have ironed that all out. Please just keep on with your great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In many instances, particularly with regards to wording, as long as the hooks are still in prep and not queues, you don't even need to head to

Yeah, but given the volume of errors created at the other MP elements as well, I am not going to have that much time. Unfortunately, DYK operates on a basis where it is seen as good to approve, rather than good to be rigorous. Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that today your work reporting errors on the Main Page was particularly diligent. You are really very good at this. I'd like to thank you for your consistent efforts and encourage you not to be dispirited by occasional negative comments. It is sometimes a difficult judgement call how fussy one should be; only occasionally do I think you are nit-picking, so that means that you must be getting the balance about right for me. Please keep up the good workk. Jmchutchinson (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I kindly invited you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, despite us being often in disagreement, I hope all is well with you, your reports at ERRORS are always welcome and recently missed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please consuder how you speak to others in the future. Telling someone to "fuck off" from the safety of your pc is not only cowardly but against wikipedias TOS. Exat (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Abusive language against fellow editors in the Edit Summaries is against Wikipedia's TOS and not very impressive. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Telling lies about your own edits is far more reprehensible. Still waiting for apology and retraction of your denial. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, in the career section of the Giuliano Maiorana article it says he was working in a bakery when he signed for Histon F.C. in 1987 (from the 4th ref), but it says in the 2nd ref that "up to that point he'd tried his hand at hairdressing for eight months ("I was useless at it and didn't enjoy it – all I did was make coffee and sweep the floor for £27.50 a week"); after that, he worked in an Italian fashion shop called 'Giulios'."; And in the 3rd ref, according to Google translate, it says he was "working outside the rectangle of play in an Italian boutique in the city". And an IP editor claiming to be Maiorana's daughter (which obviously can't be verified) once changed 'bakery' to 'Italian clothes shop'. Just wondered what you think the right thing would be to do.

If you're not sure, do you know where I could bring this up please? Thanks,

@

Theo Mandela:: I know nothing about this player, and I've no idea why you come to me over it. It seems perfectly plausible that a young man unsettled as to his career might try his hand in bakery, hairdressing, retail clothing and other unskilled industries as well. But I'm afraid it seems ridiculous to be asking where the matter should be discussed when the talk page for the article is effectively empty. That is always the place for discussing articles. Kevin McE (talk

) 07:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you apparently didn't bother to actually read

Just curious as to what about in that CyclingNews article relating to Carapaz winning the Giro was so incorrect? Not angry or anything, was curious as what you thought was off with the article. Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It describes

Ahh I see, good call on its removal then - I just took those facts at face level considering I know much of nothing about the country. Thanks for the explanation, my man. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've not been directly involved in it but am following and you are clearly engaged in an edit war on this page. I am certain you know about the

How dare you tell me to discuss the matter. Have you even looked at the talk page? The consensus there is clear, and the notion that people can circumscribe it by reverting the changes and never taking part in the discussion is ridiculous. Kevin McE (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If your first response to my calm message is to go on the assault you really need to step back from this and wait. I think you have probably removed something a number of editors have taken a long time over, without engaging in enough discussion first. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE,

i am proposing that palestine be merged into the main section of states on the list of sovereign states in asia which should be renamed into un member and observer states, taiwan and the rest should be left in the same category, do you agree

Arabistan (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried to help improve your changes on Egan Bernal and you refuse to accept any of it, and instead you just undo everything done by others that is not in your favor. Putting that he was born in Bogota, Colombia is standard and makes perfect sense, as there are people unaware that Bogota is there. But, you refuse to listen to the number of people who explain this to you. I also saw your responses to warnings about this same thing from others on your talk page, and you clearly have taken nothing from these. This is very immature and rude. You need to learn to take helpful criticism and listen to others. You also need to stop removing large sections from articles, like you did on Giro d'Italia without asking anyone else first. I'm not going to war with you over this, as I see you will never accept change to what you write. It is also completely unnecessary to say "That is a grossly ugly picture...". This just makes you sound overly temperamental and immature. I will notify an administrator if this continues. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article specific to the Giro should have a lengthy explanation of the types of stage that can be in a race?

Do you consider that picture to be better than either of those it replaced?

Are you aware that of the most recent 10 biog articles in your contributions history that detail place of birth outside the infobox, only one specifies the country?

Do you believe that unclear and poorly written sentences improve Wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

About the picture of Egan Bernal in the yellow jersey from 2019. You replaced it twice by reason it's an ugly photo. That's a personal taste. The picture in the biography box is one of Bernal in action, no problem with it, but it isn't sharp and his face is hidden after the sunglasses. When I placed it in the chapter about 2019, I switched it with the picture of Paris-Nice. That's a very ugly photo for me. It is not sharp and there is a lot of sunlight that disturbs the picture. So I can not find this Paris-Nice picture better than the one I placed. But it's al in a taste, I presume? Odiel Defraeye (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The picture you want to put up is, in my opinion, an ugly explosion of yellows, with very poor definition of a tiny image of his face. I agree the Paris-Nice pic isn't great, and yes, it is a matter of taste. That doesn't mean that you get to impose your taste: you were bold, it got reverted, now take it to talk. There are much better photos at other wikis. Kevin McE (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kevin

I have reverted your edit on

In case you didn't know, I requested succesfully that page be protected last month here. I will again request full protection or any other means necessary to preserve the stability of the article, if the edit war restarts.

Thank you --TedEdwards 11:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

and what steps did you take to evaluate the arguments made in the RfC? Or are you simply using status quo to enforce your own preference? Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What steps did I take to evaluate the arguments made in the RfC? Well, I read them, and noted, while there were some fairly poor arguments, there was no consensus. Which is more than can be said for you, who just counted the number of arguments for each option. And am I simply using status quo to enforce your own preference? Well, I thought I made that clear when I said I do not have an opinion, but if that's not enough, please note I have not partaked in any discussions on the subject, and therefore have never expressed an opinion. If I did have an opinion, I would state it on the talk page and argue for it. --TedEdwards 18:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well.... First of all it's a relevant fact, 2nd of all it informs casual enthusiasts who have no knowledge of Colombia what the capital of Colombia is, so by the very act of looking up this guy who they heard won the Tour de France they now have also learned what the capital city of Colombia is.... It's how wikipedia works.... It teaches you things you didn't expect to know while simultaneously giving you the exact information you were looking for.... Furthermore when someone like seacactus takes the time to write 2,500 characters of relevant information instead of just deleting all of it because it doesn't fit in with what your opinion of the article should be maybe you could have the damn consideration to edit it down a little, or reword some of it, or possibly delete some of it and leave some of it not just decide hey.... I decide what's important and I'm erasing everything.... you know maybe being polite and helpful by taking 20-30 minutes to edit the edit of another contributor is how articles get better Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly how I feel and what I have been trying to tell him. He refuses to compromise with me and just reverts my edits to versions of his liking. It is really frustrating, especially since I wrote a majority of the article, and he just comes in and acts like he owns it. Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a fact that the Team Sunweb members were hit by a motorist driving a car. That's not a moral judgment. Cars don't drive themselves (not yet anyway); they are driven by humans. You don't say that a bat hit a home run; you say a player hit a home run. The player used a bat but without the player, the bat doesn't do anything. It's the same situation with car crashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmeskill (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

When writing about UK towns, the urban/built-up area population figure is used as a general rule, and so has it been the case for years in the Colchester article up until your edit earlier this year. I believe a consensus among the editors is necessary to warrant such a change. Any populated area within a town can petition for a creation of a parish/community council, and to me it does not appear reasonable to exclude its residents from the town population figure for that reason. --Glossologist (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the "Colchester built up area"? Does it include Stanway, which proclaims itself to be a different town? Does it include the houses just outside the town on its arterial roads? In short, how can a precise figure be given for an ill defined area? Kevin McE (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you have edited the Andrew Marr item. I wonder if you can tell me what has become of Marr and/or his Show since 21 July 2019, please ? I have watched various Brexit-related "Clips", my not being in the UK. I found his interviews interesting. (I reckon many of those wiki-rules about editing are tedious, so cannot be bothered trying much.) Thanks for considering. Cheerio. 121.45.200.84 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC) ANSWER - probably the next episode will be broadcast on 1 September 2019 - source : https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00085v0 124.171.109.75 (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the IP trolling you and was thinking about reporting that IP. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Rather peed off with intransigence I've encountered, and this obviously experienced editor hiding behind an IP didn't help (clearly a breach of WP:SOCK if they could be uncovered), but I'm OK. Thanks, much appeciated. Kevin McE (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't interpolate your replies as you have at Talk:Chartwell, it makes it impossible for others to work out who said what, and when, and to whom. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally, but that was how KJP answered me. Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, have given him the same message. Thanks for making it a bit easier to follow. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)