User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

WT:FOOTY flag discussion

Would appreciate your help in support of WP:V and stopping WP:OR WRT flags. I think I'm the only one left pushing for this and I'm about ready to give up. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, just when I was about to give up, User:Gnevin had a great idea that appears to have satisfied everyone's concerns. Thanks for your early comments to the conversation that helped me decide to dive in and "fight the good fight". The outcome appears to be something that won't anger people while at the same time eliminating the problems caused by a lack of verifiable sources. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made a new proposal at WT:FOOTY to restrict use of flags to mean sporting nationality and only sporting nationality - i.e. to use them to signify international representation. This has the added benefit of being easy to source, and removes the current ambiguity in the meaning of the flag - no more questions as to whether the flag by a player signifies a birthplace, an ethnicity, an adopted nationality or an international cap. Knepflerle (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ages note on season articles

It's necessary. The ages don't update automatically - they're not meant to. If I were to write 1969 Faema season, it would be a bit silly to give Merckx's current age of 64 when he was 23 and 24 during that competitive year (which is pertinent to that article, not his current age). This is also why the pages use the {{birth date and age2}} template rather than {{birth date and age}}, which is used on the general team pages. January 1 is a touch arbitrary, especially for those riders who have birthdays in early January, but it's easier than researching each team's opening date each season, and it is standard in all season articles.

Please bring this up at WT:CYC if you disagree strongly. I would certainly like to get more input on season articles, as I've been the only one working on them (to be fair, they were my idea, so I wouldn't have expected anyone to jump into them yet). 2008 Astana season is a GA, and the 2009 article, after a fine-tooth copyedit, probably will be soon. If they, and future season articles, can be improved, I'd love to hear how. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello Kevin McE! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,517 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Valeriy Dmitriyev - Find sources: "Valeriy Dmitriyev" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Be careful with accusations

I am more than aware that he is French, hence the "French Cyclcing Team", and not the "Finnish Cycling Team". A small oversight on my behalf when flicking through some of the vandalism spouted from this IP. I owe no one an apology. I merely misread FRA and FIN the wrong way around, and reverted it as I thought they had changed it FROM FRA to FIN. Moments earlier I warned the IP about calling another editor "a prick" for reverting his blatant vandalism - [1]. Interesting that this IP finds it appropriate to add none-cited material such as this about a dart player: "He is one of the few players known to have had pieces of darts encrusted in his faeces during tournaments".


Surely you can see that after seeing so many people making edits like this on WP each day, that in my haste to revert his disruption, I reverted one rare piece of genuine editing...? Willdow (Talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Anker Sørensen

You may or may not be interested, but I think I found the answer regarding this rider and his nation (never did get a reply to that email). It would seem that the matter of who issues a license is incidental – while researching another matter, I found that Leonardo Piepoli rode most of his career under a license from Monaco, but was always still referred to as Italian. So it really doesn't change anything. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to raise the point about the editbox

I'd say that probably WP:VP is a good point to start. It at least has the advantage of a high "footfall" so, if it isn't the best place to raise it and there's somewhere more specific that would be more suitable, there's a reasonable chance that someone will see your message and point you in the right direction. Hope that helps :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

creative tension

I like it :) Gnevin (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrain Icons

I'm confused; why would they be confused as a groups or a group of stages?174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

About the note, I haven't looked at all the Tour de France articles, but there are probably other's where they put a note beside the Terrain heading. If you change one, you might as well change the others.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1905 Tour de France is one of them.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentina's upcoming matches

Hi Kevin, I know that the matches in question due appear on Fifa.com, the only problem is that when it comes to upcoming matches, they aren't very reliable, in the past they have reported that Argentina would play friendly matches against the Czech Republic (Dec. 16, 2009) and against Nigeria (Nov. 18, 2009) those games never happen. Also it was reported by a major sport daily of Argentina, that the match against Jamaica might be the last match before the world cup. That's why I have deleted those matches as speculative. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RadioShack

Re: Road Bicycle Racing, where I recently added that RadioShack is a "prominent" team. My edit on this was modified by Kevin McE, and that`s fine, perhaps. But your statement was rather saucy and refers inaccurately to what I wrote: "One stage in the Volta ao Algarve does not make them one of the top 4 teams of the last 30 years." "Prominent" means, like, famous. Anyone think RadioShack is not already world famous in cycling? And I did not use the term "top 4" either. It should have been clear that it was a small sample of a few pro teams from "the last 30 years"...Jack B108 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Costa Ricans of Russian descent

I have removed your CfD tag from Category:Costa Ricans of Russian descent, because as far as I can tell, there was never a nomination for it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 1. If you still think it should be deleted, merged, or renamed - feel free to re-tag it and make sure the nomination makes it onto Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Junior Lewis

article timeline seems out, I thought he currently plays at WGC F.C. but not sure, your last edits suggest he was at Bradford and Welwyn at the same time?? [2] One link there of a reference to show dating. Maybe you can help clear it up. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

k, cheers, not paying the bill heh, Hopefully they haven't run out of money! Govvy (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GFC main article managers section

Hi Kevin

Yes, I think that section should offer highlights only, after all it's essentially a summary of List of Gillingham F.C. managers. I'm also in favour, maybe I'm just a sucker for sentimentality, but for me it just hasn't seemed like Gillingham F.C. without the little man around..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Look, I don't want to start an 'editing war' with anyone, but u must realise the templates should all match, consider editing all of them or editing none. See you around Tibullus (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

Regarding Maradona's Goal of the Century, couldnt help but notice you stated "Reid was nowhere near him". I have John Motsons World Cup book 2006 right infront of me (page 103) and Steve Hodge laments the fact he couldnt keep up with Maradona who pulled away from him...after both Reid (#16) and Beardsley had tried to disposses him in the centre circle. There followed Butcher, Fenwick and Shilton.Xavier 21 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok, they used the wrong terminology then. Reid attempted to dispossess him in the centre circle but Maradona dragged the ball back and spun away from him...almost exactly as he did to Beardsley. 20,000 edits is an unbelievable amount by the way! Xavier 21 (talk) 013:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GAA

Hi, could you explain this edit, please?

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What's to explain? Directly lifting chunks of text without acknowledgement. Not only copyvio, but plagiarism as well, I would suggest. Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How was there no acknowledgement?? Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
To quote word for word, without acknowledging that that is what you were doing, and without using punctuation to identify the quote as such, would have incurred sanctions for plagiarism when I was at college. Giving a work as a reference is not the same thing as acknowledging a direct quote. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So why didn't you just add quotation marks? Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
According to this encyclopaedia, plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." The purpose of the reference is expressly to attribute the statement to the author. Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Without quotation marks, you are representing the words of the author of that paper as your own contribution to Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not. The citation makes clear that the statement is attributed to someone. Also, you didn't explain why you didn't just add quotation marks, rather than delete the entire statement. Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not correct. The reference suggests that evidence supporting the text might be found at that source. It does not make clear that you have lifted sentences word for word from the source. A quote cannot be taken to be attributed if it is not made clear that it is a quote. Obfuscating the fact that the words are not one's own is the essence of plagiarism.
As to your other point, it is a moral, maybe even legal, priority that plagiarism is not allowed to remain on Wikipedia. The onus of justification is always on inclusion, not exclusion. However, it is not incumbent on any editor to present a quote when they nothing of the reliability of the author of the quote, nor do I necessarily agree with the phrasing or grammar. What is the relevance of the word broad in this context? Are we to conclude that the nationalist community is comparatively narrow? What exactly is it, in your rather contrived sentence, that stresses "political aspirations"; the playing of a sport? What encyclopaedic information (rather than socio-political opinion) is the reader deprived of by not finishing that sentence after the word community? Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
First, I disagree that including an attributed sentence is plagiarism. There can only be plagiarism, in my view, where there is no attribution. There was no indication from the inclusion of the phrase that Wikipedia was claiming Cronin's views as its own.
Second, if, in fact, you are questioning the reliability of the source, then you should have said that in your edit summary, rather than referring to a "copyright violation". If you question the reliability, I'd be interested to learn why.
Third, criticism of the phrasing or grammar may well be valid - in which case a redraft would have been in order. I'd be happy to see your suggestions.
Fourth, I shall answer your questions:
What is the relevance of the word broad in this context? My interpretation is that it refers to the Protestant unionist population at large (as a group), notwithstanding that some individuals within that population may not feel excluded.
Are we to conclude that the nationalist community is comparatively narrow? I don't see how a statement that the broad Protestant population is excluded can lead to the conclusion that the nationalist population must be narrow. That is fallatious reasoning.
What exactly is it, in your rather contrived sentence, that stresses "political aspirations"; the playing of a sport? My interpretation would be that, yes, the author is saying that participating in Gaelic games is a means of stressing a political aspiration (i.e. that nationalists are attracted to the games because of the political aspiration espoused by the GAA).
What encyclopaedic information (rather than socio-political opinion) is the reader deprived of by not finishing that sentence after the word community? The reader would be deprived of the information that the broad Protestant population is excluded from the games because of their political aspect.
Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We clearly do not share a definition of attributed. I will merely comment, again, that you did nothing to acknowledge that you were using Cronin's words (speech marks would have done the trick), and that the vast majority of citations in Wikipedia merely show that evidence is to be found there, not that the exact phraseology was lifted from there.
I have no particular reason to question Cronin's qualification to comment (although I reserve the right to criticise his grammar); by the same token, I have no particular grounds to trust his research, so I'll make no effort to quote him, or try to work his opinions into something that has some semantic merit.
I find the contention that participation in a sport is expression of a political aspiration untenable: what of family tradition, school sports, enjoyment of a sport, sense of exclusion from soccer/rugby clubs, etc?
I cannot understand why you are enthusiastic to include Cronin's words when you yourself are having to attempt an interpretation of his comments. If what he says is not unequivocally clear, it does not merit quotation, because the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to invite an interpretation.
I think that a separate case would need to be made, and sourced, of people being formally excluded, rather than a perception of not feeling comfortable/welcomed.
As to suggesting an alternative phrasing, I already did. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that what Cronin says is not clear. What he says is certainly notable - the political aspect of GAA excludes Protestants. The fact that you find this difficult to believe or understand is neither here nor there. And I don't see that exclusion has to be "formal" - if there is a perception abroad about an institution which makes a particular class of people feel excluded that is notable. As for your alternative phrasing, I haven't seen it.
I will either put the text back in with quotation marks, or try to rephrase it (as I agree it is not very well crafted) - if you point me to your alternative wording, I will consider that. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why have you removed the text again, despite your concerns about plagiarism having been addressed? I don't understand your edit summary? Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You totally ignored my reply about a host of reasons why someone might play the game without them stressing any political aspitation, and you reposted a legalistic term (excluded) without any clarification that it is a perception rather than a regulation. Further, your most recent version lacked clear semantics: neither the subject of the gerund stressing, nor the noun phrase to which that ("and that excludes") is clear, nor is it clear that it is that intended by Cronin. There is already sufficient, clearer, info in the paragraph that explains why a unionist would not feel comfortable as a member of the GAA. Please remember that it is inclusion, not exclusion, of text that needs to be justified. Kevin McE (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
First, far from "totally ignoring" your reply about "a host of reasons why someone might play the game without them stressing any political aspitation" - I responded to it. The relevant point, however, is that we have a reliable source saying that Protestants are excluded because of the political aspirations of the sport. The fact that you don't agree with this is not relevant, because you are not a reliable source. (For the sake of argument (even though our own personal views aren't relevant), I would agree that many people play Gaelic games for reasons other than politics - I would also say, however, that the political identity of the GAA is also a relevant factor in the GAA's popularity within the nationalist community and that Cronin is right that this identity excludes Protestants.)
Second, "excluded" is not a "legalistic term".
Third, in my view, it is clear from the text that the problem is one of perception moreso than formal exclusion. If you think otherwise, feel free to propose alternative wording.
Fourth, I have conceded (twice, I think) that the text is wanting in terms of grammar/style, etc., and have invited you to suggest improvements. You haven't offered any.
Fifth, the inclusion of the text is already justified, as it is supported by a reliable source. I am happy to discuss improvements, but your response of simply removing it altogether does not sit comfortably with the ethos of collaborative editing.
Finally, you didn't explain the meaning of your edit summary ("Can be played by Catholics, and others, who do not stress that"). Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As previously, claiming that you did something does not mean that you did it. I gave a list of non-political reasons why people might play one of these sports, and you posted an assertion that by playing these sports people are "stressing political aspirations that champion the cause of an Irish Republic": that might be Cronin's opinion, or yours, of some participants, it is not a verifiable fact of why all, or even most, do so. A sport cannot have political aspirations: the organising body of it might, but a sport cannot. If I delete text that says that people stress something by doing something, then I expect people to be able to understand the editnote given. I have suggested, and applied, the improvement that I can consider best justified: a full stop after the word community. If we are to assumer that Cronin is a reliable source, then we should write that Gaelic sports were developed were developed in Northern Ireland in response to feelings of alienation. Patently untrue, but implicit in what he writes. There is no formal exclusion: there is undoubtedly a perception of exclusion, and it must be made clear that this is what you are talking about if that is what you want to say: in an encyclopaedia, you do not leave the reader to read between the lines. To say that Protestant players are excluded, and follow that with the anecdote about Darren Graham, is to introduce contradiction. The section adequately describes the close relationship of the sports with the nationalist community, there seems to be no merit in levering in a quote of a badly constructed sentence to say it one more time. Kevin McE (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Protestants feel excluded from the sport is notable, and should be mentioned in the article. As you don't like using the actual words of authors, and as I agree it's not great syntax, I'll paraphrase Cronin (he has a whole section about exclusion), and get rid of the problematic "stressing political aspirations" phrase. It now reads and whose political ethos can be seen as excluding the broad Protestant unionist population. Note "can be seen as" stresses perception rather than formal exclusion. Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, the reasons for the perception of exclusion make up the entire section, so determination to extract the term from this particular source seems odd. Your current edit is a definite semantic improvement, but because perception is, by definition, subjective, it should be clear by whom this "can be seen as". I am also still not happy about that word "broad": it is at best redundant, at worst open to misinterpretation. Once again, a sport does not have political aspirations: a sporting body might.
"...where the sport is played almost exclusively by members of the mainly Catholic nationalist community, and the Protestant unionist population generally see the organisation's political ethos as excluding them". Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A problem with your suggestion is that it is not necessarily only the Protestant unionist population which sees the ethos as excluding Protestant unionists. Indeed, the author, Cronin, also sees it as he writes at length about it (and presumably others), which is why I think we are stuck with the passive voice, being what the source says. The author stops short of saying that Protestant unionists are excluded, so surely this is welcome from your apparent perspective? As for "broad", I would have though (again, from your apparent perspective) that this was a welcome adjective, making it clear that the exclusion is of Protestants generally and not absolutely. If you really don't like it, though, how about and whose political ethos can be seen as generally excluding the Protestant unionist population? Mooretwin (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
We are not obliged in any way by Cronin's choice of words: his failure to say by whom it "can be seen" is a fairly fundamental flaw: there is nothing wrong with using the passive voice per se, but the passive agent should certainly be identified. Once again, you are attributing a political viewpoint to a sport, rather than to its authorities. And your interpretation of "broad" as meaning "the greater part of", while quite likely consistent with Cronin's intentions, is neither intuitive nor obvious, nor is it among the 10 definitions of the word in the OED. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What about generally excluding, then? Mooretwin (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That would address one (probably the least controversial) of the three points I've raised: we still need to be clear about who has such a perception, and that the political stance is not that of a sport, nor can it be assumed to be that of all its participants, but is held by the organising body. Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

UWFC

UWFC edit - I *did* read what team its talking about. The text says this was one of two teams at the time going around as Ireland (and clarifies at the end of the sentence that its refering to the Northern Ireland team). So it seems to me that a sentence talking about the Northern Ireland football team either needs the "Ireland" hyperlink pointing at the team in question or needs to be un-linked from Ireland (ie a disambiguation page). Surely that makes more sense than a sentence talking about northern irish team linking to a disambiguation page? As I understand it pointing to a disambiguation page is frowned upon in wiki, especially when an article exists for the thing you want to point at. I'd appreciate you clarifying where I've gone wrong since as far as I can tell you've simply reverted an edit the wrong way. Maybe I'm having a brain fuzz day and completely mis-read everything? beardybloke (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. No harm no foul beardybloke (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Match in progress

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Match in progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 78.34.195.112 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have reluctantly withdrawn the TfD. [3] Your reasoning makes sense, but the template's function and its very existence assist and justify really bad encyclopedic practice. The preferred course of action would be to establish a bright-line rule. Too bad that Wikipedia is not a place where that is possible against the mob. --78.34.195.112 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Chester F.C.

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Chester F.C., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester F.C. (2011th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

cyclist

It is a notable event in the cycling world when a new professional rider beats the greatest cyclist of all time and a 7 time Tour de France winner, Lance Armstrong. It is also notable to beat Floyd Landis, the winner of the most notable race in the United States, the Amgen Tour of California.

All of my additions are cited by reliable sources and the article is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7dempster (talkcontribs) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

All of my additions are within wikipedia guidelines. This line clearly satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have examined many other pages for professional cyclists, and this clearly fits the creteria.7dempster (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Finishing position in stage races

I am stating the verifiable results of a stage in a race. I am fully aware of the tatics of why Armstrong/Landis would finish far back in a sprint, or a stage...and why they wouldn't care who finished ahead of them. In the page, I am stating a fact, a verifiable fact, that the rider finished ahead of Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis. I never commented on why it happened, or the tactics behind it. Please refrain from further patronizing commentary of this sort. Thank you. 7dempster (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

I was blocked on Saturday for breaking WP:3RR. Until Saturday I assumed that when you revert or undo in the same section or sections they count towards 3RR. However, the wording in WP:REVERT and WP:Edit warring make it clear that any edits, reverts, or undo actions in a single article constitutes a count towards that fourth revert. You seem to be edit warring against the fan image, which probably was stagged but not PhotoShopped as was suggested, and a few other elements. As much as I don't agree with your stances on the 2010 FIFA World Cup article, I don't think you should be blocked for this. I have no intention of reporting you either, but I know others may not feel that way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you any evidence for saying that picture was probably not photoshopped? I have not reverted on that pic anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
YOU may wait for an eternity. I have no intention of offering any further correction or apology. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD, essays, and your erroneous reversion

You wrote: "You need to read WP:BRD, and conform to it." Perhaps you overlooked that WP:BRD is an essay, not a guideline or policy.

I grant that my edit note reflected a momentary pique. All the same, I restored the text because you didn't cite a valid reason for removing it. I'm happy to discuss this further at [4]. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup article

Which is correct? Is America a continent? Or do America consist of two continents? I do not know this exactly. So I decided to reflect either the first opinion and the second opinion. I think this information is important. Removing content is not a solution (I think). What's your thoughts about this?Bekiroflaz (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The current phrasing (I had no part in constructing the phrasing) avoids any debate about whether the Americas are considered as one, two, or three continents. It is clear, unambiguous, and encyclopaedic in style. To declare uncertainty, and admit that in the first person, is not writing in encyclopaedic style. Kevin McE (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi again. I have re-edited "Best performances by continental zones" section of FIFA World Cup article. I have rearranged information by confederations (not continents exactly). Confederations are stated here. Bekiroflaz (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you: I think I haver known what the confederations are for about 35 years. Just because a World Cup is currently in progress, there is no need to re-write the stable, accurate, and well phrased article on the World Cup. The existing section was fine as it is: it is headed by continental zone, so there is no need to switch the focus to confederations instead. We do not need yet another point in the article to list the winners in 58/86/94/02 editions, and you have managed to totally ignore the 1970 event. I'm afraid that I can't see your changes as an improvement at all. The section will need some re-writing at the end of the current tournament, as there has not been a previous winner in Africa, but until then, it seems to me to serve its purpose just fine. What is it that you feel is lacking in the previous version that needs clarification/expansion? Kevin McE (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand your comment '"plagued by errors" lacks mature reflection on events' See 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies.Absolut1966 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No comment? Absolut1966 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't account for your failure to understand. Kevin McE (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why so unhelpful? Absolut1966 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It was not encyclopaedic language, it gave every impression of being a gut reaction rather than a thoughtful, balanced reflection on events: not giving a goal if there was not certainty that the ball had crossed the line is not an error. Kevin McE (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to talk rather than have an editing war. You're right, it was a gut reaction. I'll improve the language. The US media has focused on numerous refereeing errors, not just Lampard's "goal". I agree with your comment: "not giving a goal if there was not certainty that the ball had crossed the line is not an error". The problem is, in the case of Lampard's "goal", there was certainty that the ball had crossed the line, and hence Sepp Blatter's apology. Absolut1966 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There was not certainty on the referee's or linesman's part, nor on the part of commentators when the live commentary is listened to. To say otherwise is to accuse the ref of cheating. If the ref merely suspects that it is probable that the ball went in, he would be in error to give the goal, therefore that ref acted entirely properly in accordance with the knowledge available to him at the time. Ironically, if he had given a goal, he would have been morally in the wrong, but would have been praised for it. Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, to be clear, my concerns with the refereeing are broader than the Lampard "goal". My initial edit of this page was after the Argentinian goal (in the game against Mexico) that was scored from an offside position, as was obvious to everybody from the replay, including the fans, the players and the officials in the stadium. With respect to the Lampard "goal", I think we're on the same page. I agree with you that unless the referee and linesman are 100% certain the ball crossed the line, then it's not a goal. The problem is that it was obvious from the instant replay that the ball had crossed the line; certainly the instant replays on Univision showed that and, fwiw, the German version of Wikipedia states: "...der Ball klar hinter der Torlinie war." a literal translation of which is "... the ball was clearly over the goal line". The error was the the officials were not in the right place to see what had happened and that FIFA has resisted the use of technology. Absolut1966 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Chester FC

Hi, i dont have a source but all of the players are of my knowledge, i know who they all are and the nationalitys are all correct. But there was one player Stuart jones, i know who he is but not entirley sure his nationality but i am 90% certain that he is welsh. Thanks Liamtaylor007 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there is only that player so i will take his nationality off and leave the others on because i know for a fact they are right --Liamtaylor007 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Page move

What justification do you claim for your move of Française des Jeux to its abbreviated form? Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

UCI Website + French wiki. Damonking (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Personal attack" response

Here's how it plays out. First, you question my right to make a passing note on a talk page of an individual with whom I occasionally communicate ("I have no idea why a third party is involving themselves in a discussion on a usertalk page"). If you have "no idea", why not ask directly, instead of spouting indignation? Editors are not prohibited from commenting on the threads they had not originally been involved with. Second, "there is no surprise" to you that I would agree with Russavia, presumably because I am "the only person doing so on the userpage discussion that he claims as justification for these changes" and, of course, not because I am trying to explain something that had been satisfactorily explained in the past on more than one occasion. Third, after my explanation that following an established practice, albeit not explicitly documented as a guideline, is perfectly acceptable (we can't legislate every little action our users may think of performing), you alleged that the practice is in violation of an "established policy" (referring to WP:COMMONNAME). Then you alleged that Russavia and me "flout" the policy because we "disagree" with it. Please correct me if I got any of these wrong so far.

Later you call us a "small cohort" (and yes, I am aware of the meaning of the word, as well as of the fact that is not a verb, which is precisely why I placed nice little quote marks around "cohorting") trying to "over-rule a policy" (WP:COMMONNAME again) and accuse me of a "failure... to discuss the principles" and "blatant disregard for the concept of consensus". On that point I would like to remind you that consensus-building starts with two people agreeing on something. When a dissenting party (you) appears, the most prudent thing is for that party not to accuse the users in agreement of all sorts of ulterior motives, but to try and bring the issue for review by a broader audience, which is precisely what I recommended you do in the first place ("Village Pump is a good place to start"). You will be surprised how little attention such things attract, which is often why "consensus" is determined by "small cohorts" more often than it's healthy for the project of this scope.

After I, to the best of my ability, pointed out that WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with a choice of a disambiguator, you replied that "[c]ommonname is relevant, because it is when two people share the same common name that disambiguation between them is necessary". I'm sorry, but this explanation makes no sense to me whatsoever. Disambiguation issues are resolved by the disambiguation policies and guidelines, not by WP:COMMONNAME, and disambiguators are frequently chosen so the end result is nowhere near what would otherwise be a "common name".

I would admit that "personal attacks" is probably not the best description of your attitude and behavior. I do apologize for choosing a wrong term here. However, I in no way, shape, or form consider the manner in which you are providing comments as positive, collaborative, open-minded, thorough, or aimed to improve the project. It feels more like you are trying to prove a point at any expense, which, considering that you are "intolerant of everybody's errors except [your] own", is probably something you should be watching closer. Such attitude is never productive in Wikipedia.

There clearly is a problem with the practices various WikiProjects use. The right course of action is to determine how to best reconcile these differences, hopefully with minimal maintenance overhead for both parties involved, not to determine which side is "right" or whose WikiProject is bigger, or more important, or has more clout.

Regarding my Football Manager remark, a statement about Football Manager is prominently posted on your own user page for the public to see. Why you considered my comment offensive is beyond me—I see nothing wrong with expecting an individual who "spends far too much time playing Football Manager" to be intricately familiar with the biographical details of various soccer players. I spend far too much time trying to organize information about Russian administrative divisions, which is quite clear from my userpage, and I wouldn't imagine taking offense if somebody assumed that I would be able to instantly recognize which entry corresponds to which administrative division in the search box drop-down menu! If you consider this "snide", you would perhaps be better off by removing this fact from your page, so people do not inadvertently offend you by mentioning it during discussion.

So, to summarize, the answer to your question is "yes". However, please don't hesitate to contact me directly should you have any further inquiries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 18:43 (UTC)

Since I'm not Russavia's mother, I can't really help you with regards to his behavior or motivation. For my part, I assure you that not a single one of my comments was intended to be sarcastic. If you could point me to a comment of mine which you believe is steeped in sarcasm, it would be greatly appreciated. On the other hand, if you choose to interpret a personal remark (and, as I explained above, a positive one at that) as a personal attack, I'm afraid I can't help you there.
As for my history of involvement with the disambiguation of Russian names, that should not come as a surprise considering that I am a) Russian; b) involved with WP:RUSSIA; c) routinely running into articles about Russian people which need to be disambiguated, and d) faced with a profound lack of interest on behalf of the rest of the community regarding the matter (people tend not to take interest in issues which do not affect their area of editing). One of the reasons I recommended that you start a discussion at VP, because my previous attempts over the past years to raise an interest in this and other related subjects failed miserably, and I hoped that a new person would be able to word an inquiry in a manner that would spark a more lively debate. In the meanwhile, work needed to be done, so the course of action that made sense for biographical articles within the scope of WP:RUSSIA was devised (although, unfortunately, never documented). Such things happen quite often, because many projects are both specialized and undermanned. Between "instigating a discussion" on a minor technical issue for the umpteenth time and getting actual work done, actual work wins with me every time. Incompatibility problems should be addressed when they arise, but the positive thing is indeed to "formulate the problem" first, and not start spouting accusations that the other party "flouts the policies" or "fails to discuss the principles" in response to a friendly suggestion to consider the background information first. I was absolutely disgusted by this response to my comment that merely tried to shed more light on the situation and point out that the consequences are much larger than your original concern suggested. I don't suppose you'd be willing to apologize for the attitude, but at least you shouldn't be acting surprised that things went downhill from there.
That said, if you are willing to stop this pointless bickering (I most certainly am), I am more than open to starting the discussion from the clean slate and continue to the point where we formulate the problem and then propose and discuss possible solutions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 20:14 (UTC)

hello Mr kelvin please leave my Ecuador page alone i am a very important person who work in the development of that country please if you keep changing my page i will automatically delete your account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aariix3 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply on discussion

Hi there KEV, VASCO from Portugal here,

In case you do not read it again (it's not a WP:FOOTY discussion proper, and others have been created since, so it's not at the very bottom), please check my reply to yours (amongst others) in this matter (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#To_.28clearly_offside.29_.22teammates.22).

Keep up the good work, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No reply, not even after apologizing for any incoveniences. OK... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed you are correct, no reply was needed, after you had already explained the technical faults in which i incurred in the pertinent discussion, i merely wanted to discuss matters "one-on-one". I know i was a little "cry baby" in my second approach, just grew a little frustrated by the lack of response (rightfully or not). Defend my actions? No, trying to explain why i did what i did, that is all.

Afterwards, your answer did come, and a bit aggressive might i add, was really taken aback, knowing that you are not a vandal or a disruptive editor: 1 - "don't come to my page and moan" - as i said above, maybe you have a point there, but that choice of words...; 2 - "don't refer to people you have never met as teammates" - i have written many reports (mostly, but also some individual messages) with that word and some other football "facsimiles", referring to the people at WP:FOOTY, sometimes the members, in this case the users i was (in the wrong place yes) reporting...Patronising, inappropriate? I really can't see how/when/why; 3 - this one was really mind-boggling, "don't assume i use the abbreviation Kev of my name"...What the hey? I did not assume anything, i was merely trying a friendly approach, have done it many times with many users, first time i was openly scolded for doing so, basically i think you were saying "I am not your friend or mate, please don't call me that, it's X name or Y name or Z name for you".

In one thing i think you were really classy and of great help, when you again helped me with technicalities - always learning, aren't we? and when you said "Short of entering into argument with you about that, I'm not sure what continuation of the discussion was open to me."

That said, i reiterate my intent to improve on my approaches and reports, thank you for your help. On the personal level, my conscience is very much at ease. Will not bother anymore, rest assured, unless it is strictly necessary.

P.S. By the way, took the liberty of removing some vandalism on your talkpage, by "user" Ratzqu. Man, the way he inserted it, right after my message, really gave the impression I HAD DONE IT! In all fairness, not the most important reason for the reversion, i just happen to despise those "persons", they have nothing to do here, except leave. Maybe i am a crybaby, but i would not rest until that guy was blocked and/or banned.

Again, "signing off", happy editing an all, until some other time - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Team Saxo Bank-SunGard

Can you please tell me why you keep deleting most of the new information about Team Saxo Bank-SunGard (currently Team Saxo Bank)? All the information has been verified by Bjarne Riis himself on a press conference yesterday. For me it looks like a milder form of vandalism! Tøndemageren (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a monthly newsletter. There have been dozens of riders join and leave this, and every other, cycling team: we do not record every transfer in the team articles: riders keep on telling the press how well they hope to do. Including this in articles is recentism, and news-handling, and not appropriate to encyclopaedic articles. Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not every transfer that has been mentioned, it is only the ones about Alberto Contador coming to the team and the Schlecks leaving the team, which is two huge transfers, similar to tranfers between Real Madrid and Manchester United in football, which would be mentioned in those articles. Furthermore, and the important one (see headline), is why you will not have any information about the future in the article, eventhough it has been verified? As an example you deleted the name for the 2011-season in the infobox? Tøndemageren (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Precisely! It is unbalanced recentism to talk about Schlecks, when there was no mention even of the departure of Sastre the year he won the TdF!! To take the Man Utd example you cite, the only mention of transfers in the 24 years of Ferguson's management is that of Ronaldo, which was a world record £80m deal, featured in news around the world: you want to mention three transfers in one season, establishing no records and with little or no mention in the mainstream press headlines. As to the infobox, that records history, not future plans, which can sometimes change even after they have been announced. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Man Utd was a bad example, because they rarely are involved in the biggest transfers. But look at Real Madrid - they mention the tranfers of Zidane, Figo, Roberto Carlos, Kaka etc. Therefore I cannot see why the transfers of the two best stage-riders in the world currently would not be something to write in the encyclopedia? If Carlos Sastre is not mentioned, you can just write what you think is missing, instead of deleting perfectly good work by others. And I do not know whether or not cycling is a big sport in England og the UK, but in has been mainstream press headlines in the affected countries and furthermore it has been the top cycling-story in allmost every cyclingnation around.
Regarding records, it is not common to buy and sell riders. They usually forfill their contracts with the team, before they move on to other teams. Therefore records are seldom broken.
The name has been announced and the rights to the webpages has also been bought, so the chance of the name changing is pretty small. Therefore you can call it a fact that the team is going to be called Team Saxo Bank-SunGard for the 2011-season and I cannot see any harm in this being showned in the infobox. If the name should be changed during the fall and winter, you can change the name then. But in cycling a name can change during a season to, so according to your argument, the names of the teams should not be written until the end of a season! Tøndemageren (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Man Utd was an excellent example because it shows how info should be distributed between season articles and the main team article. As to the infobox, find me one other example of where the fields headed "Team names history" have held future projections for more than a month, and I will concede, but it seems to me contradictory to the concept "history". Your last sentence makes so little sense that I will not comment on it further. Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
As long as you know what the name of the team is going to be, you might as well put it in there (http://www.team-saxobank.com/ny_news.asp?n_id=2895&lang=uk). And what is it that you do not think makes any sense in the last sentence? Tell me, and I will clarify it for you!
And the Man Utd-example wasn't good, because of the team almost never interacting in big tranfers. Look at FC Barcelona, AC Milan or Real Madrid, and you will see that the big tranfers are mentioned. So tell me why these tranfers should not be mentioned?Tøndemageren (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

12-August-2010: Bjarne Riis has officially announced the transfer of Navarro, Noval, and Hernandez. Please stop deleting information on Team Saxo Bank-SunGard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genedan (talkcontribs) 17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading the talk pages of the articles, I understand what you and the other editors mean, that we can only say that certain information has been announced, but has not happened for sure. I've fixed the articles to correct for my misunderstanding, thanks. Genedan —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

Actually.........

.........even our lot aren't immune from the curse of "pre-season-friendly-cruft"..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Philippines national football team

You blanked the recent call-ups section and your reason is underage and unsourced "famous" players? What famous players? And those are the real birthdays & ages of those players, nothing can be done about it. January 16, 2010 was the Philippines' last international match and the recent call-ups section are the players who has been called up within the last 12 months since that January 16 fixture which was in April 2009 in the 2010 AFC Challenge Cup qualification. So how is it out of date? Banana Fingers (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the summary was "out of date squads": those who did not appear in the January squad against Taipei cannot have been in the squad for at least 15 months, so that is an out of date squad. Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the match report for the Philippines' last game of 2009 which was part of the 2010 AFC Challenge Cup qualification which took place in April 2009. April 2009 is within 12 months of January 2010. All players from this qualifying tournament who weren't part of the squad vs Taiwan would be in the recent call-ups section. Therefore it can't be "out of date". I'm also still interested to know what you mean by "famous players". Banana Fingers (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
April 2009 is more than 12 months away from today, the interval between then and Jan 2010 is irrelevant. The false claim currently in the article was "The following players have also been called up to the Philippine squad within the last twelve months": no players other than those in the Taiwan squad have been selected in the last 12 months, so the curent status of the article is correct. I would not have deleted those names before April 2010: then they were within 12 months. There was no "famous players" section in the Philippines article, so that did not apply. Kevin McE (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. But the claim for the recent call-ups section could just be edited. As I thought that section is for players that have been called up within the last 12 months of the latest fixture and not in the last 12 months of real time. Banana Fingers (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But after removing the players who have not been called up in more than a year, as agreed at WT:FOOTY, there was nothing left to edit. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gyspy

What makes you think that Gypsy is a racist word like nigger? It's a word used by Gypsies themselves. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason I chose that comparison. I do not blieve that anyone really doubts that Roma is the more neutral term, not that the phrase Romany Gypsies is tautologous. Kevin McE (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits

As it stands, the article is promoting a commercial site, which is why I removed the links. I didn't want to edit the article to remove the promotional aspect, which was my other choice. As you've restored the links, I think I should now remove the promotional sources used in the article, something I didn't want to do. I don't doubt the the editor created it in good faith, but that's immaterial here. I pointed to the AfD so people could see my reasons, not because I expect the article will be deleted. There may well be Spanish language sources for the claims and I've asked the editor to look for those. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Apols

I was a bit harsh with my wording on the summary, so I had better apologise for that as well. Gilbert has had a jersey almost every day that it gets hard to track! ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Greece NFT

You could describe in better English that the team performs better since 2004 than they used to, instead of adding statistics in the introduction (which aren't accurate, since Greece ends in the first 20 positions every year). "One of the greatest surprises" isn't very "loyal" for an encyclopedia? Because it's a fact. - Sthenel (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to include it, find a reliable source that says it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just make a good article that fits the wikipedia standards, im doing my best on the Greece article. Redman19 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas' rant on Main Page/Errors

You have not replied to clarify? Was that an attack on me? Who was this spouter of venemous hate? I think that is a vehement enough attack to merit some clarification. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

a response to the response to my message. was that an attack on me? if not, you should specifiy who your responding to.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So what phrase that I wrote exhibited "venomous spite"? That accusation demands justification. how is "Nearly 14 hours since the inappropriateness of the current phrasing was raised: what's the delay? If a meaningful description of the controversy can't be found, don't make up a phrase" an attack on anyone, least of all on you? The "current phrasing" referred to the phrasing of the ITN blurb: in context, I believe that to be obvious.
I really don't think you should be lecturing me on placement of comments in a thread. The comment that you objected to, just like the comment that you made before that, was indented as the next contribution to a discussion, not a direct reply to the immediately preceding comment. The only part of the initial phase of the conversation that is clearly marked as being from you is the two links; the preceding line is differently indented, and unsigned: I had no reason to assume that it was your comment. And your rather intemperate outburst was indented identically to a preceding comment from an unregistered editor, and positioned such that, if it was a reply to anyone, it was to Medeis.
And if you are going to post redundant empty sectrion headers on other users' talk pages, at least find out what the phrases that you use mean first, so that you at least attempt to insult accurately. Kevin McE (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C headings levels

In fact, I do not know why it is stated "Please use a level 4 heading (====) for new nominations" there. I am certainly not the one who started this convention; please feel free to start a discussion if you'd like to change it to level 3 heading. I just prefer to keep the format consistent throughout the candidates page. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I am not personally interested in the archive, and I am not familiar with its working. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

aariix3

user arrix3. hi why did you delete the change that i made i made a very good statement and i can support my answer in Quito official website and i never said that there was a subway , its being build right now its is not running yet i can prove my answer go here this is Quito's official website it's from the government http://www.innovar-uio.com/web/proyecto.php?id_proyecto=18 can you please put it back and help me because my picture is about to be deletedAariix3 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

when you have made as many false claims and posted as much errant nonsense as you have, don't expect a word you write to be taken at face value without impeccable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem once you clarified. I will block him now. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SS Richard Montgomery

Just wondering why you felt it necessary to remove my addition making the very valid point that the damage to Sheppy domestic glazing from the detonation of the Montgomery munitions would not be as bad today as estimated in the 1970's. IMO the inclusion of the 1970's prediction without contemporary qualification is misleading and tantamount to scaremongering.

Stevexyg (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The anticipation of damage was not explicitly related to housing stock as in the 1970s: the 1970s is merely when the estimate of the amount of water and debris that would be displaced was made. If you have a reliable source that provides a more recent estimate of the extent of damage, by all means post it, but the assumptions of editors are not encyclopaedically valid. Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of Exmoor

Please see Talk:Emperor of Exmoor. --Lexein (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Chaldean/Syriac church

i left a further note on the talk page to make the distinction of the main article space. How do you put the "notes" tag as seperate from references?Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

never mind, Yes check.svg Done sorted and good to go on ITn (although you may want to check it)Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlimited Nature

No, I was not aware of that (and it's certainly not a sockpuppet – of me anyway), thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on our friend here – nothing really wrong with copying my user page I suppose, but it's pretty weird! --Canley (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Miller

I've unsalted the article and created the most basic of stubs on the kid. Looking at the history, it was salted because someone kept creating a page about some teenage girl, going on about how awesome she apparently is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Penal farm

Please see Talk:Prison_farm#Extreme_US_bias_in_this_article WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Emperor of Exmoor

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox national football team

Hi Kevin, Today I had a closer look at the previously debated issue, of how the FIFA min/max and Elo min/max data should be listed in the "infobox national football team" template. As your name appeared in the previous discussion from 2006, I decided to inform you personally, about my findings of how the template is currently used by most Wikipedians, and about the recent changes I decided to implement for the template. All arguments for the change are of course properly listed at the templates discussion page. The changes are in no way controversial, and I am quiet sure most Wikipedians will appreciate the improvement (including you). Purpose of this message is only to inform you about the change, as it seems like you are still a very active Wikipedian, in regards of the football related articles. Cheers, Danish Expert (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My Association Football Edits

Hi, I just noticed your edit summary on my edits, and the word "Association Football" is within the worldwide governing body for the sport, FIFA (the FA to be precise). Spit Brook (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree given the fact that I believe the term "Association Football" was already being used as hidden links (or whatever you call the part behind the "|", and the term is used within the second sentence of the Football article here on Wikipedia, let alone thousands of other places such as FIFA (it's translated into English on that article as well). The term helps differentiate between the differing codes of football (such as American Football, Australian Rules Football, etc.) If there's a way to eliminate any confusion between the different codes in all articles, i'd be happy to work with you towards that. Spit Brook (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "Edwardian", but here's the result per what you asked. Football is 150 times more prevalent than Association Football, but look at the stories on the side...Non-soccer football. And as only three, I wasn't going to stop there. You also said to go to WP:FOOTY, and i'd probably agree with you because they have a pro-soccer bias there. So i'll return to my original question to you: how do we resolve this without edit warring? Spit Brook (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Kevin. Please bear with me if you are already aware of this. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly.
If you are still actively interested in schools and and are not already a member, and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel

Hi Kevin. Thanks for pointing out issues in the prose of yesterday's Today's Featured Article. You're right that The episodes were thought not to have been recorded, as was usual at the time is a bit clumsy, I always thought so even as I was writing it but it wasn't mentioned during its FAC nomination so I assumed it was okay. It was customary for shows not to be recorded. When it says that 25 of the 26 scripts were found, it refers to Script (performing arts) or Script (recorded media) (both currently redirects). The recording of the final episode is a tape of episode 26, the last episode of the series.

It's too late to change the blurb, but I've updated the article with yours and User:LizardWizard's suggestions. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FIFA

Seeking to avoid tax is not a financial irregularity, but it is a criticism, so belongs in the Criticisms section somewhere, and I suggest along with the other criticisms levelled by that programme. The required special laws were indeed to be kept confidential during the bidding process (though of course would not remain so if & when later enacted). I've reworded to clarify. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is getting into a discussion I suggest it goes on the article's talk page - see there for my response. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I'd already suggested that to you. Looked and didn't see any response! Kevin McE (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I was writing it - it's there now. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

QATAR 2022

Please feel free to join in the discussion about a part that you have removed, concerning the International reactions about Qatar hosting the BID, to elaborate your point of view over the issue, thank you for your contribution. Arab League User (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN Candidates

First of all, thank You for trying to help me; that is noble to do to a WP:NOOB in your particular area.

i WP:AGF that You did not realize that by "i originally posted this on Thursday but, because i incorrectly put it in Wednesday's section, few editors noticed it.", i meant that i found the ITN Candidate instructions confusing and originally posted on both the date the news broke and the day i alerted ITN before You gave your ambiguous summary of "duplicate listing" on 2010-12-10T01:14:02 and that today i honestly doubted my actions of yesterday and thought that perhaps i was meant to only use the date i alerted ITN instead and had in fact well and truly missed the boat. Even trying to decide the UTC date can be difficult when one lives fifteen hours ahead of the writers and no time is listed on the article; especially given that this is the first candidate i've proposed for an event in the past and only my second candidate nomination in the first place.

i have trouble understanding though why You took the extra effort required to delete the explanatory paragraph that i spent half an hour trying to select and that You further publicly ascribed an egotistical motive to me in the edit summary without taking the time to check by commenting on my talk page beforehand. Doing so unintentionally made ITN appear rather inhospitable. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 13:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find the ITN/C instruction "Find the correct section below for the date of the event in UTC" difficult to understand, and sympathise with you for the undoubted difficulties implicit in being unique on the planet for inhabiting a timezone that differs from UTC by 15 hours. It is indeed tricky to identify the date of publication of information when the only clues we have are the words "The study was posted today (Wednesday, December 8)" and a timestamp of 08 December 2010 @ 04:12 pm EST. Perhaps I can try to explain the phrase "duplicate listing" for you: it means that the listing was duplicated. This is clearly difficult for most readers to understand, and I shall endeavour to follow the clarity of your trigrammes in the interests of forming helpful editnotes. I now understand that the movement of a proposal because "few editors noticed it" has nothing to do with hoping to gain more support, and congratulate you on the development of spy software that makes you aware of what part of the page visitors fail to read. It is clearly unthinkable that anyone could have read your proposal and not supported it enthusiastically, so I'm sure your information must be correct. Finally, I can only hope that I have managed to live up to the high standard of sarasm avoidance that you model. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
i am fifteen hours ahead of US-TX and eight hours ahead of UTC. i have significant damage to several parts of my brain but other parts are a little above average. A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a more translingual form of the word, link. i had earlier used the term, URL, but i think i had done it incorrectly. i think You assume that i've been sarcastic. i get that a lot even though i don't mean to; i'm sorry. i try to gloss that subject on the top of my talk page.
My search for the ITN candidates page was circuitous & exhausting. It is not straightforward for people who don't already know the key term is ITN/C. i followed main Pageedit introWP:main Page/2edit introWP:main Page/2edit main pageWP:main Page/1edit introWP:main Page/1edit main pagemain Pagewikinewsedit introwikinewsmain Pagemore current events...edit introportal:current eventsediting portal:current events/2010 December 8 → even though it felt like the right area, i noticed there was no way to suggest something → portal:current events
→ i gave up because i couldn't figure out how to get to ITN candidates like i did last time → user talk:thecurranuser talk:thecurran#ITN for Yaganin the newsuser talk:thecurran#ITN for Yagancandidates pageWP:in the news/Candidates#Suggesting an item
→ i read "Find the correct section below for the date of the event in UTC." → i got confused because i'm used to US-TX often being a day behind me → Medical Daily → "08 December 2010 @ 04:12 pm EST" confused me further because to me EST means UTC+10 or 11 but there it really meant UTC-5 → i tried to figure out which incident is chosen as "the event" to determine the date (Slashdot; 2010-12-09, Medical Daily; 2010-12-08, Biology of Reproduction; listed as 2010-12-08 but no time given & funnily 2010-12-07 in the URI, the date it was accepted; 2010-11-23, the date it was received; 2010-11-29, the date it was written, the date the conclusion was drawn, the date research concluded, the date the genes were checked, the date the mice were born; or the date the mice were conceived) → i chose the two latest ones
→ it was late & i went to bed but i tried to show on the second date why i put it on both → late the next night i remembered being confused about the date before and saw that You removed one of the two entries → i noticed that only one person responded at all and thought i'd messed up → i thought the confusion i had was silly; "obviously the only way people would read what You wrote would be if You wrote it into the day You notified WP"; this means i forgot that it was meant to be the event date because my route that day was through my contributions section links and it had bypassed the ITN/C intro → i thought that You had thought i notified WP the day before and that was why You "mistakenly" removed the second one → i thought since only one person commented, that person must have been an anomalous area-noob like myself
→ i tried to re-alert WP because i "must have" messed up & i wrote that → i carefully kept the dates and opposition so that other people could understand what i did → while i was trying to add the other sources, i found i couldn't edit what i had just written → i read the edit history → You helpfully instructed what i was meant to do but You not only accidentally had trouble with WP:AGF, You also publicly humiliated me with your reprimand → i honestly did not understand why You would be so mean → i re-wrote the paragraph, added the sources, and tried to contact You and give You the benefit of the doubt
→ today i assume You insulted me again because You mentioned sarcasm and spy software → that's not so bad because it's slightly more private here → i'm trying to give You constructive feedback because You're sincerely a considerate, diligent volunteer but You probably don't have much experience with polite, intelligent people that also have learning disabilities; our setbacks often make us bitter so You've probably only come across those of us. Again; thank You! Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 WC dream team

No problem. I also saw that pic from the FIFA ... it was very unfavourably ... showing Maicon AND van Bommel while focus in the text on the last.

Best regards --Bergpavian (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Economic speculation for the FIFA 2022 world cup

Can you suggest a better forum or format for this information? Also, could this section be tied into the section pulled from Merryl Lynch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil al-Rahman (talkcontribs) 11:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there talk pages at Qatarifinance.com? An encyclopaedia is simply not an appropriate forum for this. An article about a yet to happen football tournament even less so. Look at all other WC articles: do you see anything comparable? Kevin McE (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You should probably also be aware of WP:COI. Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

there is a outcomes section in the fifa 2022 world cup bid page, that states this information in an accepted format, this simply adds more information, from another source. I understand that there may be a COI due to my relationship with nuqudy, I am only pulling relevant data supported by analysis. this information shows how the world cup has changed qatar, and is encyclopedic by nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil al-Rahman (talkcontribs) 12:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning -- dont refactor user pages on your whim!

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Lihaas/Editnotice, you may be blocked from editing. Lihaas (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you too should look at your part. You can discuss, doesnt mean you have to VANDALISE! that is far worse and acrossing bounds. even though at tiem since we have seen agreement elsewhere (the new world cup articles i would say) can go both ways that your talk apge would be sued they way you too treat others. there are 2 sides to every coin..
(at any rate, if youre not proud of it you coulda undone it)(Lihaas (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)).