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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 1 January 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article United Nations Security Council election, 2012, 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.
Modern Blackboard chalk is not made from Calcium Carbonate. It's made mainly from Gypsum.
I say 'mainly', because I do not know if there are also binding agents.
The article now contradicts itself (see the section 'Chalk sticks' further down) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.138.162 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Main Page Barnstar
Awarded to Kevin McE for becoming only the third editor to make 1,000 edits to WP:ERRORS. With many thanks for all the hard work you do in trying to keep the main page error-free. BencherliteTalk 00:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well overdue, as you're now up to 1,201, but anyway... BencherliteTalk 00:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 January 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English Football League managers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sheridan (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) 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As long as it is non-alcoholic, I shall not be complaining! My comment after your revert was way out of line, and I apologise for that. I had been looking through the project watchlist at the time, so I had the full range of the edits to the page... But it did not merit the response; again, out of line, apologies. With the racing back underway, it may get lost under all the press coverage from Armstrong vs. Oprah... But at least it is underway again, and that's the main thing. Craig(talk) 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been resorting to Sporza for most of the cyclo-cross races over the winter; I don't think I've ever understood anything on those races except the names Nys, Pauwels, Albert, Vantornout and Stybar! Mind you, their coverage is superb, whether it be the roads or on the dirt. A lot of Flemish, Dutch and potentially French words to be digested from now until October... Craig(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 January 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You were right to be upset about the way I treated you back there. I was unnecessarily unpleasant in my response to you, and it was inexcusable. I am sorry that I did that, and I have no excuse or rationale to offer beyond this apology. --Jayron32 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Notts County
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I believe they've already appointed Chris Kiwomya as caretaker if you had the time to update the list of Football League managers? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I undid your removal of Africa Cup of Nations from ITN/R. For better or worse, it has been established that the listing of ITN/R cannot be changed by an individual editor. --LukeSurltc 21:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Fine: I reverted the change to ITN/R by an individual editor, so you should be in favour of my edit. Kevin McE (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 February 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English Football League managers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dreyer (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) 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about 1938?
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
"Coinage of eagles did not resume until 1838 (after Congress decreased the gold content of American coins, eliminating the incentive to export them), when a new design, by Christian Gobrecht, was struck.[25][26]" BencherliteTalk 10:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
My error: I searched the article for 1938 (blushes). I maintain that 1/3 is a degree of precision not justified by the article, and a phrasing that is both unusual and clunky. Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps you will add a null edit to the article to withdraw your comment that there was an unreferenced claim in the article. I don't happen to see the big deal in saying "a third of a century" instead of 34 years, particularly as the process would no doubt have taken more than an instant to get underway again. Also, it avoids the prose monotony of saying "in xxxx ... in xxxx ... in xxxx", which is another Good Thing, I would have thought. BencherliteTalk 10:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope you will trust that my null edit was simultaneous with your suggesting it: I'm not a quick enough typist for that to not be true. Kevin McE (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Saw your comment on this a while back. It seems fairly striking that in the past 3 weeks, there have been four DYKs about songs from Maroon 5's most recent album. This seems fairly strange and verging on promotional behavior, even though there isn't anything immediate objectionable on any of the pages that I can see. There are also a few other song-related DYKs that also sound like publicity packages. Have you thought more about this? Diffusive (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see my reply on my talk page. LadyofShalott 05:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there Kevin,
So I've finished rewriting the history for the Giro d'Italia. Do you think that you could take a gander at it and see if there is anything to add? (besides a little more about the mountains). My goal is a GA nom, do you think it qualifies? And last question should I remove the stage town section, I just feel like it isn't necessary and I know I added it because the Tour page had something like it. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Precious again
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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! - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...for your support at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, I don't think that it was at all unreasonable to expect a glaring error on MP to be fixed within 30 minutes. The bigger problem is how it was allowed to get their in the first place, and I think you know where I am on that question!--ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just wanted to drop by to thank you for referencing De mortuis nil nisi bonum. It was something new I learned today. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Award
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Barnstar of Diligence
For helping in the fight to make April 1st history on Wikipedia, I award this barnstar. If only there were a hell of a lot more like you. Humblesnore (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Gills
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Kevin, as I'm currently on holiday, could you jump on those edits that change the Gills article to "currently playing in League One" if we clinch promotion tomorrow......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I note all your hard work in this field and thanks for updating the FIFA ranking; but it would assist if you would update the reference rather than removing it. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Do me a favour! I did about 150 of these, most of them had no reference, and the item is unlikely to be challenged, so referencing is superfluous. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Andrew Marr
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It is referenced. Info restored to article. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You really need to understand policies before you start waving them around as part of a threat. Appalling behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. Kevin McE (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The text in question had been at Andrew Marr's article unchallenged for very nearly 2 years. It is the Daily Mail's coverage of the Daily Mail's interview with Marr. It is not tabloid journalism, it is Marr's own words, and he has never claimed that he was misquoted. According to our article, the Daily Mail is a Middle-market newspaper; it is tabloid in format, but not noted for fanciful or sensationalist style (I would never want to buy it myself, and its political bias is undisguised, but it is generally considered trustworthy within those biases, which do not apply to the matter in question) John's reversion were poorly explained, and his eventual, unspecific, presentation of his reason for reservation about the content was rejected at the talk page by Leaky caldron as well as myself. As an involved party in dispute over the matter of interpretation of wp:blpsources, he should not have taken the step of banning. I would further add that reference to the quotation from another source would deprive the reader of the context in which it was originally made.
John's claim below that he is involved only "only involved in the sense that [he is] enforcing our most important policy" is disingenuous: he is involved as the minority party in discussion of applicability to the policy in question in that article, and did not have consensus in that discussion for removal of material present and unchallenged since April 2011.
John's 'offer' to lift the block if I am " willing to undertake not to repeat the behaviour" would require me to undertake never to link to an interview with the subject of a biographical article, which is plainly an unreasonable expectation. John would need to prove that the quotation in question is "challenged or likely to be challenged", that an interview freely given in a middle-market paper meets the definition of tabloid journalism, that the Daily Mail in not a "reliable, published source", and that Marr's own words constitute "contentious material about [a] living person." If he is unable to do that, he should lift the block and apologise unreservedly. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
See below. I fully expect that Kevin and John will engage in cooperative discussion now. Orlady (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Note to reviewing admin; I am only involved in the sense that I am enforcing our most important policy, WP:BLP, on this high-profile article. By edit-warring to restore negative material sourced only to a tabloid, after several warnings, Kevin has behaved unwisely. It would have been better to discuss the matter in article talk. If Kevin is willing to undertake not to repeat the behaviour I would be happy to unblock, or to have someone else unblock. --John (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
John is wrong about this. The material was widely circulated throughout the UK press and is highly relevant to the article subject who is a high profile journalist who brought an injunctive action to suppress material and then admitted it was hypocritical. There are numerous sources for this aside from the Daily Mail. WP:TABLOID is totally irrelevant. Leaky Caldron 11:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
John is right and wrong here. He's right that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, especially for BLPs - it has a history of printing biased and in some cases completely fictional stories to push its own political and societal biases. Here's an example I'm personally aware of - a local paper near us printed a story that a student had been expelled from a local school because he'd expressed opposition to gay marriage. It was completely based on an interview with the student's father and there was no quote from the school involved (it later transpired that the paper had phoned the school during half-term holidays and couldn't be bothered to wait for someone to ring them back). The Mail picked up the story and printed it verbatim, only to find - when the school was alerted to the story - that the student had actually been expelled for repeatedly assaulting a gay student. That's the level of "journalism" that appears to a regular thing with this paper (and others). However in this case I'd say that there's probably not a problem here - it is not credible that even the Mail would fabricate direct quotes from a well-known subject of an interview, especially one known to be litigious - and the quotes have been re-reported in more reliable sources as well. Whilst I understand John's motives completely, I suspect that here he's got it wrong. I would be tempted to unblock here - I'd be interested to see what others think. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm also tempted to unblock. I don't see this as a clear-cut BLP violation. The Daily Mail is not the kind of unreliable "tabloid" that the policy warns against, and the information (although maybe not the direct quote) has been widely reported in the news media. The presentation of this content should be discussed on the article talk page, but its inclusion is not a cause for blocking, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
So I now have one admin placing a block over a content and interpretation dispute in which he was in a minority, and I have two admins and one other very experienced editor saying that the block is not justified, with no-one trying to uphold the block, but I am still blocked. What does it take? Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no doubt in my mind that it is valid content, that the block was wrong and that John edited warred and was "involved". For the time being just agree to put the proposed content and sources on the article talk page for discussion. Leaky Caldron 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I just unblocked Kevin, based on my expectation that he and John will discuss this on the article talk page, rather edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall allow myself 24 hours cooling off before deciding whether to raise an ANI issue over this block, as I believe John acted highly irresponsibly as an involved party in discussion leading up to it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It's wise of you to take 24 hours before making a decision. That said, the healthiest thing you can do, in my view, both for yourself and for the article is to work out the content issues on the article talk page and let go of your resentment about John's behavior. Earlier I tried to post a detailed message here, but got an edit conflict with Orlady's unblock. I then decided not to post what I had written. So, I'll just leave you with a few more thoughts. First, you clearly violated WP:3RR on the article. Nonetheless, I closed the report at ANEW without taking any action (you can read my comments there). Second, even if John was wrong, I believe he acted in good faith (you probably disagree with that ). Finally, my view is that John was notWP:INVOLVED in your block. His only interest was enforcing his view of policy as an administrator. Even if his interpretation was wrong, that doesn't make him involved. ANI is a miserable place for achieving peace. You should only use it when your behavior has been impeccable (it hasn't) and as a last resort (it isn't). Anyway, think on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
By entering into debate at the Andrew Marr, but refusing to reconsider his position once he was in a minority there, and refusing to consider the arguments against his interpretation of wp:blpsources presented there, he became an involved party. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Hampikian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (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) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I changed it to "in the last 30 years". The wording was confusing, but it wasn't meant to say that all 30 year olds are born, but to put it in perspectively that only in the last 30 years have 20 million more men than women have been born. Not that men under 30 years old are born. Mkdwtalk 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
You're totally right. I forgot it says "Since 1979" which puts the timeline in perspective. Nice catch. Mkdwtalk 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
George Juskalian
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The news source says, "His decorations are among the highest and most rarely bestowed on US military personnel." Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
But it does not say " He is considered one of the most highly decorated U.S. soldiers". It puts a highly limiting qualifier into that claim, and omitting that is highly dishonest. Kevin McE (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by your line of reasoning that a journalist needs special qualifications to be considered a reliable source. I don't think that's supported by policy; otherwise most newspaper articles that aren't on journalism would be considered unreliable. I also have to note that everybody except you who offered an opinion on the issue disagrees with you - edit warring under these circumstances seems rather disruptive. Huon (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And yet not one person has even attempted to provide the tiniest shred of evidence that the "among the rarest" claim is true, other than reference to local peacockery. What is the objection to simply saying that it is a collection of prestigious medals?
Assuming the NPOV of those involved in this article, when they wanted a grossly exaggerated and totally unsourced claim about the guy to appear on the main page is hard to do. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Kevin McE. I've been following the George Juskalian article and noted you've reverted "among the rarest" and other text out of the article five times now, with a number of editors reverting it back or disagreeing with the changes. I think it would be a good idea to let the article state rest until things get worked out on RSN or on the Talk Page. However, I do have a compromise idea to suggest for your consideration that I think could resolve the issue. Obviously, you've already seen the source citation that mentions that Juskalian is "a decorated war hero", "supremely decorated", "one of the most highly decorated", "decorations among the highest", "most rarely bestowed on US military personnel", etc., and you've taken issue with other editors postings at RSN over "rarest". I think you'd probably agree, however, that Juskalian clearly did earn a sizable number of decorations at the level of the Bronze Star or higher (7) along with more than a dozen other awards and service medals, and that given the Silver Star and Bronze Star are the nation's 3rd highest and 4th highest combat decorations, it is reasonable to say that his awards are among the highest. It's common sense compliant and the existing sourcing would already justify that much. In that regard, I want to suggest a simple compromise to the existing wording seen in the article right now. Suppose we swapped out two words, replacing "rarest" with "highest", and in the sentence before that, "highly" with "heavily", so that the text reads like this (changes bolded):
...and is one of the most heavily decorated Armenian-Americans to ever serve in the United States Army. He was twice awarded the Combat Infantryman's Badge, as well as decorations among the highest bestowed on United States service members, including the Silver Star twice for gallantry in action, the Legion of Merit..." etc.
It may not contain all the changes you'd like to see, but it would accomplish your key goal regarding the word "rarest". Provided I can get the other editors involved to agree to this change, would you be willing to accept the above as a finalized compromise, i.e., no more edits and reverts to this language as long as the other editors comply as well? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Heavily is a clumsy and inappropriately informal adverb to use, but I have no objection to decorations among the highest bestowed: that is verifiable with reliable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Word choices can definitely strike some as elegant and other as clumsy with a wide variance in between. The author of the article used "supremely decorated", which I'm sure some editors would find far worse. I picked "heavily" after deciding that seven high ranking decorations plus a dozen plus more awards and service medals were "numerous", but it wouldn't work well to say "one of the most numerously decorated...", LOL. Why the substitution to begin with? Because I'm trying to avoid saying "highly" in the first sentence and "highest" in the second sentence, the dilemma of repeating the same word twice. If we use "highest" in the second sentence, can you think of a better adverb than "heavily" for the first sentence? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
If the point is to say that he has many medals, then simply most decorated meets that requirement. Why is there any validity to comparison with others in that particular subset of US military personnel anyway? How does he compare with others born in the first week of June, or who studied journalism? Kevin McE (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so you'd prefer to simply drop the adverb from the first sentence, and replace "rarest" with "highest" in the second sentence then, correct? And if the other editors are willing to agree to that modification, and leave the wording at that, you're likewise satisfied and won't initiate any further modifications without Talk Page consensus first? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
That would solve the unverified "among the rarest" issue. I'm still not happy with the ethnic subsectioning of the US military (and I would hope that the US military would be equally unhappy with it), but if I decide to challenge that, I would do so through MoS policies and discussions (the talk page of that article seems dominated by those who share Juskalian's ethnicity, and such matters should be in line with wider Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not on a case-by-case basis). Kevin McE (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I have responded to your comments regarding the hook for this DYK nomination. Mgrē@sŏn 20:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You are the reviewer who initially rejected the hook for this nomination, so please respond to whether the most recent change is satisfactory. Mgrē@sŏn 15:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't quite know what to expect when I noticed this edit summary. I'm otherwise unfamiliar with Last Tango in Halifax (the description of which makes it seem like a dramatic version of As Time Goes By), so I truly would have interpreted the previous wording as a reference to a lesbian couple. Obviously, DYK could use better quality control. In the meantime, thanks for picking up the slack. —David Levy 06:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I think your being a bit over reactive in your recent comment. Of course clubs playing in the S.Leageu can play in AFC competition if they have foriegn players. But the club in question has to be a Singapore club. Albirex Niigata are Japanese but do you expect the S.League to allow teams to fly all the way to Japan to play games, of course not!
You can see from the names of the clubs, who they represent, look at former clubs Dalian Shide Siwu and Beijing Guoan Talent. Are you telling me these are Singapore clubs? Course not.
All these foriegn sides based in Singapore can only play the players from the country they represent. Albirex Niigata only play Japanese nationals. But Harimau can play who they want, but they don't because they are representing Malaysia U22, so they are fully Malaysian. Only DPMM at this present moment play a mixture, as they play to the same rules as Singapore clubs and cna hae foriegn players. But they also can't play in AFC competition from winning S.League.
It does get rather confusing, hence why the flags are there to show just who represents what. Druryfire (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Ownership of a club does not determine its nationality. What FA are the clubs registered with and who are contracts and disciplinary issues determined by? Where are matches played? Etoile might have French and Francophone African players: does that make them a French club? Does the French FA have any authority over them? Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Etolie no longer play, but they were French owned. Albirex are Japanese playing in Singapore. In fact, Malaysia had a side playing in Slovakia but didn't suddenly make their side Slovakian. No club in Singapore owns a ground, they rent, Albirex represent Albirex Niigata of Japan but rent a ground in Singapore. The team only hires Japanese players. The club is registered withe the Japanese FA but play to the rules of the Singapore S.league, just like an English club plays to the rules of UEFA when playing European football, they don't play to English rules in Europe if you get what i mean?
I'll have to search for some references, as it can be a clouded league. There's nothing stopping Man United for instance in playing in the S.league, FIFA turn a blind eye because its only Singapore, but would have a fit if Rangers played in England. Druryfire (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If Etoile were merely French owned, then they should no more have a French flag here than Chelsea should have a Russian flag on the Premier League page. There is a team in the Chinese league that is a subsidiary of Sheffield Utd (couldn't be bothered to look the name up now) but that does not make them an English team. Flags are meant to show international representation: if they don't, they shouldn't be there. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That's what i'm trying to get at though. They are French owned and for some reason the S.League deem them as a French side playing in Singapore. Chengdu Blades, the Chinese team have always played in the Chinese system, they have a base which Etoile didn't have and it's a totally different case to Singapore.
It is weird, but Singapore does appear to be a case on its own. We really can't compare what we know of England and China to Singapore. Druryfire (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We should, nevertheless, try to apply Wikipedia's MoS to the article on Singapore. The number of flags there is seriously out of control. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, remove the flags. It should be written into the article about anyway about the selection of teams. Druryfire (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacob Erskine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
as a [[Forward (association football)|forward]] and made some [[Football League]] appearances for {Gillingham F.C.|Gillingham]].
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, curious for some background on the "Other club(s) from" field you added to the soccer/football league template. Is there a talk page that held some discussion I can be pointed to? --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You mean the one known as Fußball Arena München when used for UEFA tournaments: thank you for providing an example to re-inforce my point. Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Please delete the AOL Arena's name and Allianz Arena's name from the WC 2006 article first. MarcosPassos (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
That article is not on my watchlist: don't tell me where I must edit: I have about 173 times as many edits to my name than you have, so I will not have you tell me what I must do. What you must do is to follow reliable sources, and reliable sources state that the name of those stadia, for that tournament, uses the names that I have posted. Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Quantity is not quality! BTW, FIFA and UEFA are different organizations! If we have always been using the sponsor's names in ALL World Cup's and Confederations cup's articles, why does the 2013 CC's article would be different? Because Kevin wants so? I insist, be coherent and try to delete the AOL and ALLIANZ from the WC 2006 article. MarcosPassos (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If you do not accept that reliable sources should be followed, you should not be on wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Good job, Kevin
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
BTW, I'm not a new user, I've just changed my username. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Query
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Kevin. I'm not sure what you were doing here but you seem to have removed a source and undone minor copyedits I had made. Could you please discuss your changes in talk, and can you be careful in the future only to change the things you actually want to change? --John (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As regards your edit to the Caxirola section, that seems to have been a failure of edit conflict software to catch (I've noticed several of these recently. As to the rest of it, I applied the stadium names as they are found on FIFA.com, and removed a reference to one instance on FIFA.com where they have been inconsistent. One editor seems determined to use that inconsistency as grounds to apply a stadium name that FIFA have evidently chosen not to use in all their other communications about the tournament. And you have now reverted against the source, so your advice to only "change the things you actually want to change" is something that you might wish to pay attention to yourself. Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Warning
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you edit the closed discussion at WP:ANEW one more time, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Extraordinarily, I am being threatened thus by an administrator for no reason other than suggesting that some conclusion ought to be reached on a report rather than an unrelated 'result' being posted as grounds for closure. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Yep; a sure-fire sign that I need to tone it down a tad. Thanks for the heads-up! Craig(talk) 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem, sir. The worst part about it, is that I don't believe I've finished looking through them all. I sort of gave up around 2:45 this morning, because I knew I was in work at 9! Still to take in the Tour highlights, which I'll nab off the ITV player later. That and Wimbledon. Busy, busy, busy! Craig(talk) 19:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Think I've got them all covered and changed now. A lot more than I thought there would be. Craig(talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What about the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup? Why can they use the naming rights over there? Yes, every FIFA tournment share the same policies about naming rights. MarcosPassos (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK-Good Article Request for Comment
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, GilderienChat|What I've done22:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses the concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I noticed you are changing Cape Verde into Cabo Verde. Even though, this seems justified, I think you should have waited for more information and feedback before doing so. There is the example of Burma/Myanmar, where both names are used even in the same piece of text, and the numerous examples of countries having a different native name to their English ones.
Apart from this, I am not sure if this name change is intended to be permanent, or is just a government decision that may change within a year. In general, it is a change that will affect a large number of articles, and thus I believe consensus should be reached on it being performed beforehand.
It's always a big project to implement a name change for a country, renaming all the articles, lists and categories. Talk:Cape Verde#Cape Verde Name Change is the place to start; so far, the consensus is to leave it at the old/common name. – FayenaticLondon 10:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
). Finally, my view is that John was not WP:INVOLVED in your block. His only interest was enforcing his view of policy as an administrator. Even if his interpretation was wrong, that doesn't make him involved. ANI is a miserable place for achieving peace. You should only use it when your behavior has been impeccable (it hasn't) and as a last resort (it isn't). Anyway, think on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Template: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. Blethering Scot 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)