Wikipedia

User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2022

< User talk:Kevin McE
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Tedbranscombe in topic UN membership edit revision


Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Lovell (Welsh footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Evans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
ten years

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disclosure

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a very rare visit to the Main Page today, read a sentence that jarred, made a comment in the Errors on the Main Page that pointed out, I believe in a clear and inoffensive manner, how that grammatical error could be corrected. I then had an uncertainty about the duration of the topic ban, reviewed my talk page (the relevant conversation does not seem to have archived properly), realised that the topic ban had not expired, so I immediately removed my comment at ERRORS.

If anyone considers this to be egregious enough to consider upscaling my ban, I only ask that such a decision be considered in the light of this note and by somebody who had not been previously involved.

In view of what I have done, I voluntarily self impose a limit of 6 months before I will consider applying for a lifting of the ban, and will not seek to refer to this incident by way of proving that I can conduct myself appropriately there. If others refer to it, I will refer them to this notice, and would not comment beyond that. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Kevin McE,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge from XfD templates

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So I have a version for all of the XfD forums done. The new templates are:

and I've included links to those templates in the documentation for {{Merge from}}. Let me know if you have any other requests or need help with tweaking any of these templates. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

For procedural reasons, I have reverted your addition of a merge proposal at this AFD. It has already been re-listed once, and has had significant participation and there is currently a pretty strong consensus in place among that participation. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason to throw in a merge discussion at this point, and force essentially a new conversation on a different proposal to happen in the incorrect forum for that discussion. For this reason, it's best to allow this AFD to close and then go through the normal merge process where a proper merge discussion outside of the threat of deletion can occur using the normal channels at Wikipedia:Merging. You are much more likely to have a focused merge discussion and achieve what's best for the article in that context using the proper community forum. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. I am not proposing anything. Somebody else has already proposed that the article be merged rather than deleted: that is a very common part of the AfD process, and by no means something that should wait until the AfD process is complete. All I am doing is inviting those who might read the proposed target but would be unaware of the AfDed article to give an opinion on the matter. This would be an absolute requirement of a non-AfD merger proposal: I am trying to give equal heads up to the fact that the matter is under discussion (and record the fact that such notification has been given in the AfD discussion). Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm.... as a regular AFD patroller I’d have to say this is atypical of what is normally done when a merge proposal is suggested at AFD. In my years of contributing in AFD I have never seen a notification like this. I still think it’s not warranted given how late this notification is being posted to the AFD, and the fact that such an action is likely to turn a straightforward close into an unnecessary relist.4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

merger proposal with another AFD

I came with same issue on another AFD, for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bung_Karno_Seclusion_House. For one thing, there is an error in the merger notices...there is now notice at Sukarno page but not at Bung Karno Seclusion House and there is something wrong in a notice to the ongoing AFD. But i also have never seen this in any AFD. An AFD can be closed with a decision to merge already without whatever this is. And, i dunno, since merger to a section of Sukarno oage has been suggested maybe technically the Sukarno editors should be notified as if thus were simply a merge proposal with no AFD. Maybe a question should be raised on process at the Talk page of wp:AFD. --Doncram (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
P.S. i just posted notice to Sukarno article editors, which is certainly okay. Maybe just do like that in the future. --Doncram (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Doncram I do think this deserves some broader discussion. I do not think there’s anything wrong with placing notices, particularly when they are done so in reasonable time frame (ie at the time a merger has been argued). Unfortunately, I don’t think that was the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik. To me it seems obstructive to the AFD process putting a last minute notice in after several weeks of discussion have already taken place (and a relist already happened after the original merge argument over a week ago) and at a point when a consensus has been reached with considerable time and input. This wasn’t an AFD with low participation. It feels counterproductive to put in a notice that is essentially going to force a relist when an AFD was at a natural end.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay then User:Kevin McE could you please open a question at Talk page of AFD and ping us? Or point us to definitive guidance on the questions? -_Doncram (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems a moot point as the AFD was just closed, but I do think we need some sort of guideline to prevent potentially disruptive notifications and encourage useful ones.4meter4 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
And when I do come back from work I will certainly want to take you up on that accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@4meter4@Doncram
I haven't previously raised it at Talk:AfD because the talk page for the deletion policy is WT:Deletion policy, where I raised the anomaly whereby 'normal' mergers must be notified to the target page but not when the merger is proposed as part of an AfD more than 6 months ago. There was no reply, which also means there was no objection. I received support and assistand an WP:Requested templates.
It need only cause a delay to closing the AfD if the closer is considering closing as merge, but if that is the outcome, then it is farcical that there is a demand to change the target page without those interested in the target page being consulted: it wouldn't be considered right or proper in a normal merge, why would it be here?
There is no need for an additional template on the page that is under discussion at AfD (eg Bung Karno Seclusion House) becuase there is already a link to the AfD discussion at the top of that page.
I'll link to the 6 month old discussion at WT:AfD, but I need to go to work. Kevin McE (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I do think you raise some valid points, but equally I think your decision to unilaterally implement these templates without informing the admins and editors who routinely keep AFD running a bad decision. I think this would be a good template to use under certain circumstances (particularly the day a merge is first proposed in an AFD; not over a week later). Further, it’s probably not a good idea to use at the last minute when a lengthy well attended AFD which had already been relisted has a clear keep consensus with a tiny minority suggesting merge (with a clear policy based rationale argued against merging ) at a point when it has time elapsed and is in the closing window of time. That seems overly disruptive to the AFD process. Fortunately we had a closing admin who basically ignored the tag’s recommendation to relist. I suggest you inform people about the existence of the templates and see if we can craft a policy about how and when to use them. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
As to running it unilaterally, I have had a request for thoughts on the idea up for 6 months, so I decided it was time to be WP:BOLD and force a response. I am glad to see that yours is, in principle if not as to the execution, largely in favour: I have received as many thanks for the edits of placing these as I have challenges.
I did not seek out last minute cases deliberately: I went through 4 days' worth of AfD discussions and used the pair of templates on any where a merger had been notified: the principal that merger should not be under discussion at all without notification being uppermost in my mind. It would indeed be my intention that they are posted as soon as a merger is suggested, and I would like it to be seen as improper not to notify the target when merger is proposed through AfD, just as it is in any other contested proposal of a merger. But at an introductory stage, they will be later than optimal.
If the closer is not concluding that merger is not the route to follow, then it really doesn't matter that the notification was only shortly before the AfD was notified (there is no impact on that page), but I certainly do not believe that a decision of merger without reasonable chance for input from those who might have an interest in that page is reasonable.
I'm a bit disappointed that having tried to generate some interest through yesterday's use of the templates, and a note at WT:AfD today, there is still nothing, positive or negative, at WT:Deletion Policy Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese submarine Yu 23, where you placed one of these comments on a discussion that had been open for 20 days with no evident consensus. I've also seen these in several other AfDs and wanted to raise a couple of points: 1) As 4meter4 suggests above, posting these in discussions that have already been relisted isn't necessarily helpful. 2) Although you have formatted these in style similar to relist notices, they are just your own comments, which you should sign. Even relist notices, which are a long-established part of the AfD process, are typically signed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

1) I went through 4 days of AfD discussions, posting the templates wherever there had been a proposal of merger, based on the principle that a target ought to be notified if a merger is proposed. If merger is the conclusion of the discussion, it should certainly not happen without time for a response from the target page (I hope that it time it will be the norm that the notification is placed as soon as a merger is proposed), but if the conclusion is something other than merger, then that doesn't affect the target page so it is not a problem.
2) I didn't make the templates myself, they were made in response to my request at WP:Requested Templates. When I first posted the Template:Merge AfD note to which you refer, the sig seemed oddly removed and disproportionate, so I thought it was incompatible. Maybe the template requires tweaking: I was not trying to act furtively. Indeed, I am trying to generate a response to my intended policy change and there was absolutely no response for more than 6 months at the appropriate discussion page. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Enough? (transferred)

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@4meter4: Do you intend ever calling a halt to drawing attention to the one specific application of the AfD Merge templates that you object to and that I have already explained more than once was specific to the initial rollout and should not be a recurring issue? Kevin McE (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You deleted this from your own talkpage saying that you prefer to keep the discussion in the public thread. I would sugest that this is irrelevant to that: this is about your conduct in that thread, not the substance of that discussion. I do not believe that it is a useful contribution to repeatedly refer there to a circumstance that, for reasons already explained more than once, should not be typical, and would ask you to desist from doing so. Kevin McE (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Kevin, I do not share your point of view on this particular point. I do not think you can reasonably assert that this issue will not re-occur in the future, as you can not control the actions of other editors at AFD and how and when they implement the templates going forward. Further, bringing the community’s attention to places where the template is already causing problems at AFD seems reasonable and highly relevant in a discussion where we are trying to craft policy to implement the template. Your attempts to bully me into not raising valid concerns in a relevant discussion are concerning. I would suggest you re-read policy at wikipedia:Civility.
That’s all I am going to say on the matter, and I request that you respect me enough to accept that I have a different point of view. Please stop pinging me to other places to discuss this. It is starting to get to the point of WP:WikiHounding and badgering. I prefer not to discuss this further with you outside of the relevant community thread where I will continue to express my point of view. We can have differences of opinions while being civil. If this sort of behavior continues I will be taking it to WP:ANI. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I took a discussion off thread because it did not seem to be moving that discussion forward. If the policy I am suggesting is followed (templates as soon as merge suggested, delay to conclusion only if merge is likely outcome) is followed, the element you find problematic should not arise. Meanwhile, you have made no alternative suggestion that addresses the matter of unwarned merger notifications to target pages, and the anomoly that AfD permits this while WP:Merge would not.
Please either substantiate or retract your accusation that I have not been civil. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Kevin, I am choosing to disengage from this conversation for my own well being. Please leave me alone. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Please stop adding merge discussions for articles at WP:AFD. If it's already at AFD, just !vote to "merge" there. It's disruptive to have such similar discussions going on concurrently. It's not helping out he process of coming to a clear consensus - it's preferable to have one centralized discussion for Admin to get a consensus on. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not !voting for merger at those pages, nor am I starting a different conversation. As already explained on your talk mage, I am informing users of a proposed target page that the page they are interest is the target of a proposed merger, and directing them to the discussion where that is proposed. I am affording page users the same notification and ease of access to the discussion that they would have if the proposal had been done properly per WP:Merge. I can only conclude that you did not read the template to which you object. Kevin McE (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Correct, I thought it was a different merge template. Disregard everything I was saying. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Sergecross73, there is currently an on-going public discussion thread on these templates at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Merging without consultation at intended target should not happen. You should probably express your opinion there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Great, will do. As that appears to be an in-progress proposal of sorts, in the meantime, please stop creating concurrent discussions like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Errr, you started it: I had replied on your page. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I see now. You're right. Apologies. Still think it wasn't terribly necessary in my particular case, as almost no one was proposing a merge at the AFD we interacted in. But I no longer oppose what you're doing in a general sense. Feel free to archive or delete this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

UN membership edit revision

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It took me about two dozen reads through to agree but I believe you were right, the grammar was correct. Thanks. Tedbranscombe (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_McE/Archives/2022&oldid=1137530147"