Archives

April 2006-March 2008 * Mar-Dec 2008 * 2009 * 2010 * 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

so talk to me...

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikipedia Wikiclaus' good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Hello, I'm Joseph2302. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alica Schmidt, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If what you're claiming is true, it needs sources to support it, rather than your own research Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Your incredibly condescending message misrepresents the policy, which states that it only needs citation if it is contentious or likely to be challenged, which for an issue that is on every sports results page in the world really didn't seem to be the case. I hope you will give proportionately more grief on the matter to those at WP:DYK who were responsible for publishing material error about her on the Main Page of Wikipedia this morning. Kevin McE (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hook was changed from what I originally suggested, and I'm away, so don't see how I can be expected to check it. And if you're going to change articles, sources are needed. If this had been raised days ago, it could have been fixed in time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not needed to update (which is what I did, I didn't change what was already there apart from the tense and correct verb) if the matter is uncontroversial, and why you choose to treat such a clear fact an contentious I have no idea.

"I'm away, so don't see how I can be expected to check it" How old are you? Because the internet only exists in one place? You are obviously online today, and more invested in this article and its DYK appearance than I am, so yes, it is more incumbent on you than on most to ensure its accuracy, but I had not, at the time you wrote that, said that you should, and only put it in the article talk in response to you saying that I (someone totally unaware of the person until a few hours ago) should have acted on it sooner. Your initial hook proposal was wrong anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am away with an unreliable signal and only phone access, and any person could have picked this up to be fixed at any time in the last few days. Trying to blame me because the German Olympic Association made a late change to their teams is just unfair- anyone could have updated the page, and asked for correction of this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only things I have blamed you for is a snooty message on my talk page, failing to understand the concept of contentious matter, and not recognising the difference between qualification and selection. I am not aware that any of those things can be blamed on a poor internet connection. Kevin McE (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk

I saw the "waiting for an apology" on the article talk and believe it doesn't belong there, as having nothing to do with the improvement of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that (although it was his attempt at justification that I was waiting for), but if somebody makes an accusation then there are only two possible follow-ups that person can make if they have any self respect: justification with evidence or retraction with apology. Kevin McE (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deduct that I have no self-respect because arbcom labelled me an infobox-warrior (without evidence) and I never asked them for an apology, listening to the great Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, both his essay on arbitration and his 10 rules (further down on the page) beginning:

1. You and your problems are not the most important thing in the world.
2. Choose your battles. Yield when it doesn’t matter, and stand your ground when it does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is whoever makes the accusation without justification who is without respect, not the person on the receiving end, so not you. I am exactly following rule 2, because I believe that false accusation does matter. Kevin McE (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification of what I read too fast, and for support. Back to Karl Heinz Bohrer, another case of a subject who had deserved a better article while alive, but came to my attention only in death. Two of those on the Main page right now. I have too little time to request apologies as long as content is missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Maile (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please never ping me again. I have made my points properly and carefully, so have nothing further to say to you. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are happy to be known to be an irresponsible, insincere coward who makes accusations without being willing to even try to state the basis for the accusation. Noted and mentally logged for future reference. Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary result of ANI thread

Allow me to copy my comment: " Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you." Drmies (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI reopened

See Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE: part 2. Schwede66 21:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AN discussion

"Final warning and Main Page topic ban, which includes Main Page-specific processes like DYK. And To be clear Kevin: I understand you proposed this option, but be aware, your next stop is likely a community ban, not just an indef block. I hope you take this as an opportunity to do better." - jc37 19:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: Thank you for bringing this to a conclusion. Is there a time limit to the topic ban? What is the extent of it: Can I edit pages linked from the MP? Am I expected to check every page I edit to see that it is not liked from MP? That it has not ever been linked from MP?

Further, am I free to request (politely, of course) of some of those who have made in the AN discussion what I consider to be unjust or untrue statements about my edits and comments that they explain what they meant and/or why they said it? Kevin McE (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin.

I'm going to presume good faith and treat this as a request for clarification, and not an attempt to Wikilawyer.

I'll try to answer your questions in order.

But first, as you are topic banned (twice), both restrictions which should be considered to follow what is laid out at Wikipedia:Banning policy.

The "time limit" is 'indefinite'. That said, as per the policy I just noted, you may appeal either of your bans, though as it states on that page, bans are not considered short term, and in my experience, one of the things the community tends to take into account when deciding to remove a ban is how long the editor in question waits to appeal. Generally one waits an absolute minimum of 6 months to a year or longer.

You are topic banned from the Main Page, including what is currently on it (content, transclusions, categories, etc) I'm not going to try to list every process associated with the Main Page. If a process is associated with the main page, such as (but not limited to) deciding content, transclusion, categorization, linking, organization, or in any other way associated with the main page, you are topic banned from it.

If in doubt, don't do it. If you really feel you should be able to edit in a particular instance, (as this is a topic ban placed by the community) ask the community for clarification at WP:AN.

And no. Do not engage with anyone (or any process) that you have been topic banned to discuss. If you do, you are likely to be immediately blocked. Just drop the stick and walk away.

And finally, I can see you have been editing Wikipedia for several years, so I'm going to presume that you understand the seriousness of having a final warning in place. It means you have nearly worn out the community's patience. Should you do so, the next step is likely a community ban from all of Wikipedia. There are 6,813,898 articles currently on Wikipedia. There are many other things you could choose to edit.

I hope this helps clarify. I wish you well in your future. - jc37 21:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, it does feel like you've been handed a last lifeline here (many editors had asked for an all-out indef block). I think it's pretty easy to work out how to deal with the conditions about which you've been informed. Avoid main page material, avoid your previous personal attacks, and you will be allowed to continue to contribute here. Fail to do that in any sense at all, you will be indefinitely blocked. It's pretty clear. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the original topic ban had not been properly promulgated and was not binding. It seems grossly unfair that I cannot defend myself against those who have told lies against me, but OK. Kevin McE (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, I think the community would view your presence in a better light if you just moved on and demonstrated that you could contribute positively without the issues that cause the various AN cases. Much better to look forward than seek back. Of course, you might not wish to do that and continue the fight that got you at AN in the first place, your call. FWIW, I've got a backlog of around a thousand "lies" about me, but it's not going to help with anything. Either deal with it and work on the project, or don't. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You did defend yourself, in the AN discussion, where everyone (including you) said their piece and then some. It really doesn't seem like anyone wants to perpetuate this dispute, and I imagine everyone involved in that discussion would prefer to never have to hear about this thing (or any similar thing) again. So... please don't? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did defend myself. What I didn't do was take to task those who misrepresented me. I can well imagine that they do not want to continue it if it means they need to defend their untruths. But OK. Kevin McE (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, you're on your last chance. So don't fuck it up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. And Kevin, you made quite a humble speech last week acknowledging why your previous actions had caused distress to other editors, and promising to do better. That was a good post (even if not everyone was impressed by it), and it's time to go and do just that. Edit articles, improve them, fix errors, all that stuff. But do it without insulting or belittling other editors. Try not to reference other editors at all, except in a collaborative manner. And regarding "defending yourself against untruths", forget about it. You have your opinion, they have theirs, but it's time to move on from all that. If you can put in a year or two of good, drama-free editing, then it's quite possible the community will take a good view on that and you can resume main page activity and have the restrictions dropped. But that won't happen if you continue battling your perceived enemies. That's my advice anyway, which you can take or leave. The others in this thread make excellent points too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per User:Drmies, his previous restriction was not a "true" topic ban, but more of a warning to not do those things or else you may be blocked. That still holds true. As you know, you were then subsequently blocked (for 60 hours). And you are now on a last warning. I have struck the relevant part from my words above. - jc37 23:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]