Hi Kevin McE,

Thank you for your very valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and a very warm welcome to the community! We're always grateful to have new people joining in and contributing with improvements to the encyclopedia. Here are a few suggestions to work your way around:

• Do have a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia
• I'm sure the tutorial will be of great help, as will reading How to edit a page
• The Manual of Style has tips on making Wikipedia articles look consistent
• You might also like to read How to write a great article and maybe the picture tutorial if you're interested in adding images to your articles
• The help page contains loads of, well, helpful information

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Do remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your name and the datestamp. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or feel free to contact me.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! -Aabha (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Rebuke? Not at all! Its a Wikipedia tradition to welcome new members you notice doing good work with a note, to let them know they're appreciated. And the list of rules and stuff is only so you know where to locate them, in case you ever need to. Your contributions have been great..go ahead, get addicted! :) -Aabha (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

needs a lot more info, it's currently up and running and can be linked off through the national team page. Also since you're a football fan wondering if you've ever checked out the site www.bigsoccer.com Selecciones de la Vida 02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The tags can be removed by anyone. They're there as an open message to Wikipedians that the article needs improvement; if it doesn't anymore, then that merits their removal. In this case, because you've improved the article quite a bit, the article is probably good enough to belong on Wikipedia without tags. - Tangotango 12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I see you have done: thanks! Kevin McE 12:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the tags seem to have been removed by an anonymous user while you were editing the article. ;) Cheers, Tangotango 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

Thanks for your interest. I took a look at your change, but I actually think that to word the paragraph as you have done simply re-enforces the feeling that Wikipedia (and indeed the wider internet) is USA-centric, and any non-USA examples should only be included in brackets as an afterthought. Cash machines are found in countries all over the world, so there is no reason at all that the article should be written from an American viewpoint.

The Wikipedia policy on national language variations does say that both varieties of English are acceptable: and that is why I don't go around changing American spellings to British ones, in international articles which have no closer relevance to the UK/Europe than they do to the USA. Conversely, however, in an international article such as one about cash machines, it is USA-centric to imply that "teller" is the natural international word to use, and only in the UK do "they" use another word - as is implied by the parenthetical mention as you have done. I feel that what I wrote is neutral and international, simply stating that "teller" is used in North American English; which does not imply that the writer is writing from a British or American viewpoint, but is simply stating a neutral fact.

I won't go and change it back immediately though... I want to wait and see what your thoughts are regarding the point I have made here.

Thanks,

EuroSong 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a regional question:

In the article about Jose Cardona, you changed "soccer" to "football." Should "football" or "soccer" be used in this article/encyclopedia? Football and soccer are two completely different things in North America, so it can be confusing to many users from the US and Canada. Kmp589 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

Good to see someone else admitting to being a member of the Blue Army round these parts, and wonder if you could help out with the GFC article. I've been helping to drag it up to Wiki standard for a couple of months now but I reckon you could probably have a better stab at sorting the 1974-1995 section out than myself- my first game was the do-or-die against Halifax, barely pre-Scally. I'll take a look at editing it myself from the same sources I've been using so far to try and build it up when I've got a minute- probably include something about the rivalry with Swindon- but if you could cast an eye over it, it'd probably be greatly improved. Missing a wedding to go to Yeovil on Saturday. Up the Gills, all the best. --Lawlore 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your comments I would suggest that you leave LMS links where the page is to a specifically diocesan based website. I will then not put up links to the national LMS website. I think this is a reasonable compromise and reflects your wishes (as seen by me) to have the entry specifically related only to the diocese. I resent the implication that the existence of specific links is either partisan or theologically biased. There was no text either supporting or opposing the LMS in any of the articles and the fact that the number of links is as you say narrow is because others haven't added any. Maybe you should add some links to organisations that you think are pertinent to the diocese? Roydosan 21 April 2006

For your information the LMS has specific websites for the following RC dioceses:

Arundel & Brighton Portsmouth Middlesbrough Leeds Hallam Lancaster Hexham & Newcastle Clifton East Anglia Northampton

Roydosan 21 April 2006

I named the pages here the same way I named the pages on the Tiberian series. It worked fine there, but if you wish to change the names go ahead. I won’t complain. TomStar81 09:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference would be that the "global defence initiative" and "brotherhood of Nod" are fictional entities: the USA and China are not! I had only spotted it on the recent changes page, and these games are of no particular interest to me, so I won't be changing them, but I would still suggest it. Kevin McE 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, bearing in mind that I don't know the background to the dispute you're involved in, nor am I commenting on or taking sides...

My edit summary (Hey, an external link that leads to...a list of other links! No, I don't think so.) is punchy -- perhaps too much so -- and requires a bit of background of its own.

First, it wasn't a single external link: if you'll look at my edit list, you'll see that I did a whole bunch in a row. One editor was spamming, adding to multiple celebrity chef articles links to a blog (connected to a book that the editor has been tirelessly promoting on Wikipedia) in an obvious attempt to drive traffic/raise Google hits for that site. Each link added nothing to the articles, since all they were were a collection of links -- including buttons that would simply bring up Google & Yahoo! searches of the chefs in question -- sometimes duplicating existing links. (See here for the Gordon Ramsay link.)

Your case, on the other hand, sounds completely different -- and completely unrelated, so what I'm doing shouldn't be used as a model. I will say that the logic you laid out sounds perfectly sound, and having a single link to neutral/official site laying out ALL or almost all of diocesan organisations is an obvious (and NPOV/non-judgemental) answer. Good luck finding an acceptable compromise. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin. Here is an answer for your question.

The Miss Baltic Sea beauty pageant was created by the Finnish tv-channel YLE and the entertainment company FINNARTIST back in 1991, when the Baltic countries became independent from Soviet Union.

As you know, the Baltic Sea has always been an important place during the cold war for the USSR. Finland lost Karjala and some other parts to Russia and Sweden took always the risk to be invaded.

http://www.yle.fi

http://www.misssuomi.fi/finnartist.htm

Keep up the good work.

Hi. I took the case for mediation. Please go to User:Jbolden1517/Westminster to make sure you are OK with me as a mediator. Either way email me and lets get started. Looking forward to getting this resolved jbolden1517^Talk 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

________________

Glad you are willing to do this. I still would prefer email. So here are the options (in my order of preference):

1. Go to my user account and hit the "E-mail this user" button.
2. If you don't want to do email I can setup a board offsite so we can discuss things privately.
3. If you don't want to do that I can setup something on-sight

jbolden1517^Talk 21:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

________________________

You said re your request to do things by e-mail: I had not wanted to make my e-mail available on wiki, for no reason other than that I have managed to remain reasonably free of junk e-mail on my current address. If you can assure me that making it accessible here is not a problem in this regard, I will enable e-mail contact.

wikipedia doesn't publish your email. Someone has to send you email and wikipedia forwards it. But you don't even have to do that. You can just email me from your current address and then I know it but no one else on wikipedia can get to it. jbolden1517^Talk 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a few emails with no reply. Are you not getting them? jbolden1517^Talk 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last email I got from you was on the 1st. Have you sent any others. If so then send me a copy of your replies, email them again and post them and let me know where. Roydosan has made 2 compromise offers so I'd love to get back in touch. jbolden1517^Talk 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my last email got through either. I'm going to just start posting this to User:Kevin McE Westminster jbolden1517^Talk 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, singing, me? No I can't sing :-P — FireFox (υ|τ) 09:43, 01 May 2006

Hi i just noticed you comment now and since it's been a week since you left it i just though i'd let you know i've replyed (Gnevin 01:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I did not intend to injure you. Concerning the accents, I am not familiar with Spanish pronounciation, I just relied on the article about Tenorio and the fact that his name was written with an accent in the "Group A" section too. Greetings YXAndyYX 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, and I hope my rebuke was not too abrupt, but please be careful about WP:AGF Kevin McE 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I can't blame you in adding an accent to the last name, as every non-spanish speaking commentator I've heard so far pronounces this particular last name with an accent on the "a". However, the correct pronunciation (or at least the way we do it in Latin América) is in fact Valdéz (not Valdez nor Váldez!), but the correct way to write the last name is Valdez (without any accents):). Greetings. Bruno18 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, and sorry to all Wikipedians who I have lead astray by my false "corrections" of this name! Kevin McE 19:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out what I did just now to the "Individual Section" I too got sick of reverting the people who put "Sweden." Tell me what you think. Batman2005 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit war over this, don't worry--I'll revert something once (with a comment) than I generally leave things alone. While I realize FIFA treats red cards as red cards--whether earned for two yellow, or for a red-card offense, it is useful to distinguish the two cases so the suspensions match the card totals. (While not really relevant to the World Cup, other football bodies such as FA treat the two cases differently). Otherwise, if you see a player with 1 red and two yellow--did he earn two yellows in different games, plus a red somewhere else? Or two yellows in one game, with the resulting red? One can usually figure it out by looking at the suspension record--if only one suspension is indicated, then it's likely the latter, though there are other possibilities. Plus, true red cards often carry heavier discipline.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. I think having the info improves the article rather than cluttering it, but YMMV.

Cheers, --EngineerScotty 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it looked as if I was changing (as you invited) without anything on the talk page: I was adding my talk comments as you reverted! Although its true that in some tournaments (but not the WC) there are different disciplinary arrangements for straight red/2 yellows, I do not believe that football statisticians anywhere keep them as separate data. I do not believe that, if I wanted to, I could find out how many of any given players career red cards came through 2 yellows short of looking up match reports of each incident. I think if anybody is that bothered about the details of a players disciplinary record, they could look it up in the match reports. Maybe I'll just let the talk page act as an informal vote before I do anything... incidentally: YMMV? Kevin McE 09:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I've said above, I then thought of what I hope is a satisfactory compromise. Kevin McE 10:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is that complicated. Rather embarassingly, I've realised I've messed up my explanation. I'll transfer it to the talk page and revert to your version for now. For what it is worth, I found your version difficult to understand. I rather suspect that not many people will understand or care about either way of expressing this! Carcharoth 13:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We finally got the paragraph. Mediation is at Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster. jbolden1517^Talk 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are recent comments to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster. Please go there and take a look at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your recent comments. CQJ 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your comments on the page above. I'd appreciate your input and then maybe we can close this down. Regards, Roydosan 09:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, as of tomorrow, there will have been no action on the above article or case for at least two working weeks. Do you have anything further you'd like to add, or may I go ahead and close the case? CQJ 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my reply to your comments on the Westminster talk page. Then if you're happy this section can be adjusted for the other disputed pages. Regards, Roydosan 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few comments to your response on the Westminster talk page. I will now write the appropriate paragraphs for the other dioceses. As each one is completed I will let you know here so you can have a look at it. Regards, Roydosan 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you OK with the gentleman's agreement that you and Roydosan pretty much brokered yourselves at the Archdiocese page? If so, I'll gladly back out and continue along on my way :-) CQJ 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realize he was never eligible to play for Scotland or Northern Ireland. Kingjeff 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. FIFA considers the home nations as four different countries. Kingjeff 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're acting like a jerk. Don't message me anymore. I never put any evidence forward. So, you really can't say have I put any evidence forward. Kingjeff 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly: you have not put any evidence forward. So if you have neither knowledge nor evidence, don't revert articles to an erroneous state. Kevin McE 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I never claimed to put any evidence forward. I think you're wrong. In fact, you were the one making the claim here. I'll let you make 1 post on my talk page with your evidence about this so called gentleman's agreement. Kingjeff 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I awarded you this new barnstar in recognition of the good work you do on football. Having said that, I can't seem to get the coding to work. Oh well. Delete it if you think it's crap. Well done anyway. --Guinnog 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it work! Sorry for using you as a test. --Guinnog 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you to take into consideration that a discussion on this matter is ongoing in Template talk:Infobox National football team. This discussion might end in a decision to remove those informations, and therefore it could waste a lot of your work. Maybe you could suspend the introduction of those data in other pages until the matter is settled.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that - I looked beforehand and saw numerous others that were already sorted in that fashion, and figured that they were the rule, not the exception. In that case, I'll revert any of them that I can find, and propose a more appropriate tag so that they can be put someplace other than the general football stubs category. --fuzzy510 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there are only 84 national team stubs, many of which are for non-FIFA teams, so a split by confederation won't really be viable at this time. On the bright side, they'll all be in one category, and people (like myself) won't be confused as to where they should be sorted. --fuzzy510 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. Please be careful when throwing around the word vandalism. This and this may have other problems, but they are not vandalism. We do not want to discourage new editors. Keep up the good work. ×Meegs 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I see now how that happened. I reverted a piece of blatant vandalism by 207.28.11.2 on Ecuador, and looked at his/her contribution record, and the McGrath changes were clearly vandalism: I therefore assumed that the changes to the Hawks article was similarly malevolent. What I of course omitted to do was check that 207.28.11.2's contributions were the most recent. Apologies. Kevin McE 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do try and forget Selhurst Park as much as possible :-) ChrisTheDude 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that I could: I am scarred for life. Kevin McE 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi. can you add more material on gillingham's beginning?? secondly, why the club has too "simple" nickname, the gills, in contrast to other clubs in england? (the saints, the red devils...) Superzohar 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you've brought up an interesting point in the 1986 FIFA World Cup article about whether how third-placed teams made it to the second round for the 86, 90 and 94 tournaments. It seems accepted generally that the four best third-placed teams made it, as was the case in all three tournaments, but you said you remember that it's not necessarily that the four best third-placed teams made it. While I do not (and cannot) challenge your memory, without a source, I've reverted your point in the article for now. I've tried to find a credible source of how the third-placed teams made the second round, but very little has come up. As for how the teams are allocated to the slots in the knockout bracket such that the third-placed teams avoid their group winners in the round of 16, I remember (at least for 94) that FIFA uses a convoluted system (some sort of table) that does that; I've shared it at Talk:1986 FIFA World Cup#3rd place qualifiers; however, again, I do not know of any credible source for that available. Chanheigeorge 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal as to the specific cause of the riots. I'll try and the look-out for that myself. Lochdale 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The header colours won't have changed. Someone reverted Template:Tnavbar-header, which has caused the confusion. ed g2s • talk 02:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! --Guinnog 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! GiantSnowman

Loving your work. Props.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, thanks for letting me know. Jess Cully 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Allow me to explain my edits. Firstly, please look at this page carefully. Notice that when I changed the term from is to are, as the following word is team. Team is a plural noun. However, the term club is a singular noun. Thus, I believe that my statement in the talk page is not a contradiction. If the term club follows the sentence, then my edits would be a error, but this is not the case for this article. Presently, the article itself now contains a grammar error at the opening sentence. The term are should be used as the following word is team. However, if you change the term to club, the sentence would be grammatically correct as it is a singular noun. Hope to hear from you soon with regards to this! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to prevent any confusion from arising with regards to this, I have changed the term team to club in the opening sentence. Now, the sentence is grammatically correct! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been taught in my Spanish studies that a capital should not take an accent, and I set about many re-directs, and a few edits, involving the name Álvaro on this basis. I have since checked the Real Academia Española website and acknowledge my error. I think I have reverted all the damage that I did, and apologise if I have omitted any. Kevin McE 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did. Keep up the good work! Toonmon2005 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador and the link Children Of Ecuador Foundation I have to strictly disagree with your argument.

1. For what is the external links section then if not for links?

2. but to leave a link to a travel guide with Google Ads on its site is encyclopedic and fully ok, ya?

3. The whole article is quite long, the external link section on the other hand quite unpopulated. I think a few links are definitely ok as long as it's not spammy and again, it is the "external" link section, meaning links going outside. If it's not wished to put links then please delete ALL external links on all wiki pages asap.

The link is not commercial and was at least a month up; during that time the article has been edited the whole time by countless editors and the link didn't offend nor disturb anyone at all. I think an exception can definitely be made here.

On another side note... I don't see the post anymore someone (you?) made on my talk page alleging that I spammed before and I forbid this allegation. My IP number is not always the same and changes from time to time and I did not make any of those changes alleged I did, comments on that talk page I've never seen before.

Thanks.

"I do not doubt that it is a worthy charity, but Wikipedia is not a directory for links."

For what the external links section is for, and in particular why your link was inappropriate see here, and particularly item 10 in this list. The link was up for 2 1/2 hours, not a month.

Please cite when I have ever posted a "a link to a travel guide with Google Ads". If your suggestion is that I did not remove such a link, then I do not consider myself guilty by omission for every inappropriate link on Wikipedia: I do, however, have a number of pages in my watchlist and will often respond to what I consider inappropriate edits on such pages.

If you have changing IP numbers, then you will only sometimes return to the same user page. If you are refering to my comments here then you will see that the other comments about inappropriate links were made by an editor called Gwernol, and not by me. If Gwernol's comments do not refer to your edits, then your confusion is caused by your failure to register, a step I would strongly recommend.

Please sign messages on talk pages, using the ~ 4 times at the end of your message. Kevin McE 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link was definitely up before you or another guy deleted it. I put it up again and then it was you as the last person who deleted it. Before it was for at least a month up (during whole October) and the whole article has been edited over and over without anyone being offended by the link but you!

For the travel guide, please look at http://www.ecuador.us/ which is linked from the external link section as well. The site clearly has Google Adsense ads on the page at the top and in my opinion can very well be considered as commercial, definitely more than a non profit charity org which is legally registered in Ecuador. 85.10.199.106 13:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine: if you think that the ecuador.us link is a commercial site, it is your right, and maybe you consider it your duty (although you seem to think it is my duty) to delete it. I didn't post it, have never followed it, and would not miss it. If what I was reacting to in deleting your link was a re-posting of the link, then evidently I am not the only editor who thought it inapropriate. What you have not argued is that the link that you posted was appropriate under the terms of WP:External links. I do not need to be persuaded of the needs of the poor in Ecuador: I worked in shanty towns and rural areas there, but whatever sympathies I have for the charity that you are trying to promote does not change my opinion that it was an inappropriate link on that page. I would ask you to try to imagine how many charities and NGOs have projects in Ecuador: do you think that Wikipedia would be enhanced if they all had links, which would be equally valid with the one that you posted.

Hi Kevin, nothing personal, I didn't mean to be rude. Basile went to all Argentine TV sport shows speaking about this issue. He was obligated to choose (to both games br and sp) european players due the AFA/Renova contract. It would be very easy to understand this if you been in Argentina. Unfortunely international media (web based) didnt mention this so is very difficult to find a nice english source but if you take the time to read the spanish newspapers you will find it.--Jor70 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A full strength Argentinian team would be made up predominantly of players based in Europe, and so it is difficult to argue that the teams selected were far from being the full team: what you are saying ineffect is that the manager would have preferred to use a more experimental team, but commercial pressures prevented him from doing so. That is probably worth including, as a short term addition (it will not, in a few years time, be considered a significant portion of Argentinian football's history), but it leaves a problem of verification: Wikipedia's Manual of Style strongly prefers English language links on English Wikipedia. Perhaps this link will solve the problem. I admire your willingness to get involved in Wiki in what is not your mother tongue, but with every good will, this does result in some lack of clarity which is not what an encyclopedia should exhibit. In relation to a previous debate that we had, I note that the link that you had but up to www.espndeportes did refer to the team as Albiceleste. I will put in a note about the restriction on selections for friendlies. Kevin McE 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its totally on the contrary. Basile had repeteadly said here in Argentina that he prefers a majority of local players in his team because he need time to work with them, something would never happen with the "europeans". He always said that local players would have preference unless someone playing in europe "la este rompiendo" that is ... is playing very very well. Regarding albiceleste that proves what I was saying, it is a foreigner media, no argentine media would call the seleccion as "la albiceleste" Jor70 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you really think, or maybe more to the point does Basile really think, that a team made up only, or overwhelmingly, of domestically based players would be his first choice? I have very little knowledge of the Argentine leagues, but I would strongly suspect that the better players either are already in Europe or would have ambitions to play in one of the major European leagues. And so I think that it is for the purposes of experimentation and a wish to consider players who may be a regular part of the international team in years to come that Basile finds (understandably) a restriction on his selection less than satisfactory.Kevin McE 12:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, no matter what I think or what do you think as understandably. The point is that is already a consensus down here that the national team cannot depend any more of just good players thats joins together 1 1/2 day before each match. Its need works. Basile already done this in 1991-1994 when he used most local players. And that was one of the reasons he came back. He will join a new team of local players that train regularly here and I not said only of local players but most. Jor70 14:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks Kevin to correct my spanglish, I learning a bit more every day!  :-) .- Jor70 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the named article. In your opinion, is there anything else that could be done to remove the derogatory handbags image still on display in the aforementioned article? The discussion does not seem to continue, although the image does. Regrettably, the 'extended denigration' argument is apparently unable to muster as much adherents as the pseudo-excuse 'sample of British humour' does. Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.67.49 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You may have givcen a reasonable arguement but FIFA is not reasonable. Kingjeff 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I'm backing up FIFA? Kingjeff 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed FIFA over this little debate. What's your email? I'll send the email to you irregardless of what it says. Kingjeff 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not post my address here: I am accessible via the link at the left, or leave a message here. I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting a reply though! Kevin McE 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't get a reply then I don't get a reply. You're only partially right about. There are two main points to my assumption.

1. FIFA considers the 4 home nations to be different countries. That's why there are 4 national associations and not 1 British association.
2. FIFA has regulations about government interference and would suspend any association they feel has government interference.

The players you named I'm assuming are from the old rule before the change a couple years ago. Is that law compatible with the new rule? Kingjeff 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're right, I don't know of any other player who would be eligible for 6 different national associations. Kingjeff 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that there are 4 different "home" associations, but there is only one entity of which one can be a passport holder in the UK. FIFA's criteria for eligibility is citizenship, and one cannot be a citizen of England without being equally a citizen of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I know that FIFA has rules about govt interference (I was the one who posted Iran's current suspension under rule 17 to the article on that team), but I fail to see any relevance of that to this dispute. This is not about the government seeking to direct the FA, it is about national teams being based on current facts of nationhood.

You offer no clue as to which "new rule" you are referring to, so I cannot comment on that. Hargreaves was not, AFAIK, eligible for 6 nations, but for 5: he would eventually have become eligible for Germany, but I think he had commited to England before he did so.

Any one who could claim dual citizenship of the UK and another country, and was born outside the UK, would, like Hargreaves, be eligible for 5 national sides: it is not difficult to imagine that somebody like Mark Viduka being elible for several nations (he was born in Australia, could probably qualify for both Croatia and Ukraine by lineage, and if he had been able to claim a UK passport, he would be eligible for any of the UK sides). My own nephew is eleibile for selection by Ireland (by birth), Nicaragua (by his father's nationality), or any of the UK countries (through his mother), although AFAIK, none of the FAs involved are tracking the progress of this 7 year old closely. Kevin McE 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Holmestown Road, Farrow Parkway, Grissom Parkway, and Conway Bypass contest much sources, notability, and information as the world knows. The articles are OK, so uhh duh. User:LongBay

Please do not restore proposed deletion templates after they are removed. If you still feel the article should be deleted, take it through the articles for deletion process. Thank you. --NE2 20:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kevin McE! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Kevin. I've started a discussion on this matter on the John Coltrane talk page. Do pay it a visit and let me know what you think. - Maggie --70.48.205.156 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAIFS actually changed its name to the FAI in 1936 just prior to the impending enactment of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland and the upcoming official name-change of the state from the Irish Free State to Ireland. The character-limit in the edit note didn't permit me to explain that in such detail. Both are the same body so I think it would be correct to date the organisation back to 1921. It seems that this name-change was a re-adoption, however, as I've since read that the organisation was set up as the FAI but was given permission to join FIFA as the FAIFS in 1923. I would need to confirm this before contributing any further edits on the topic.

The whole issue is very confused though and in need of clarification. It is not helped by the fact that both the FAI and IFA considered themselves the representatives of the island of Ireland simultaneously, even after partition, both calling themselves, "Ireland". The FAIFS's team didn't actually use the name, "Irish Free State", as far as I'm aware. However, I included that name in the "Key historical games" section on the Republic of Ireland national football team page in order to distinguish the new association's team from the old IFA all-Ireland team. Do you think that is the best option to take or should it be referred to as "Ireland", which I believe is techically correct, but extremely ambiguous given the context? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out a bit of research into the name issue and have found this page on the FAI's website, whish seems to suggest, contrary to what I had read, that the organisation was, in fact, set up as the FAIFS in 1921. It states:

A meeting of southern associations and clubs was arranged and on June 1 1921, the Football Association of the Irish Free State (FAIFS) was formed in Molesworth Hall in Dublin.

While the association amended its name to the FAI in 1936 to conform with the forthcoming constitutional change, it continud to refer to the team it fielded as "Ireland" until 1953, when a FIFA intervention ensured that the IFA's team would from then on be known as "Northern Ireland", with the FAI's team being known as the "Republic of Ireland". Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your edits on the Francophonie, you added; These percentages may have passed an exam in the language at school: that does not equate to being the user of a language. Actually, these figures come from the Eurobarometer servey; [1], which is (in my opinion) a reliable source. Aaker 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that that is what the survey says, and so if you want to re-institute it in the article, feel free. BUT I can only suggest that the respondents placed a very low threshold on the definition of "being able to have a conversation", and that if any French speaker were to come to the UK expecting a quarter of the population to be able to comfortably engage in conversation beyond the days of the week, the weather and numbers to ten, they would be severely disappointed. Kevin McE 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some certainly are correct. For example, FIFA regularly uses MTQ for Martinique in official results. (see for example Some old FIFA match results) It is hard to argue this is not the designation FIFA has given to Martinique.

Others are harder to track down (usually because they aren't exactly active) but are often used in official results of the confederatoins. SXM is used commonly for Saint-Martin (2007 CONCACAF Under-20 Qualification). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.49.72 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's exactly the sort of evidence that I had suggested was needed. I posted the note saying that I thought some evidence for the use of these codes was needed more than a month before I deleted anything, but nothing was forthcoming. As I said in the edit note: if there is evidence, please do re-instate. Kevin McE 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem (of course) is how far do you go. It's easy enough (and fair enough) to add MTQ and SXM, and MNE as well (noting that in the case of SXM and MNE that they are at least used at the confederation level - side note, do we care that UEFA has in the past used even more different codes for a number of their countries, I don't know if they have changed but they used KZK not KAZ, LIT not LTU, LAT not LVA etc etc). And what about the "obsolete" country section. I couldn't tell you if any of those ones were ever used by FIFA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.194.33.114 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the problem is that once something has survived unchallenged on Wiki for a while, people begin to assume that it is authoritative. I cannot say that the entire non-FIFA/obsolete collections were not just invention or ISO/IOC codes being assumed to be what FIFA would use. It might be that there is evidence of FIFA using codes for those nations that are affiliates to the confederations, because of logging matches like the Martinique participation in the CONCACAF Gold cup preliminaries, but the others seem highly suspect to me. As for your discoveries for Kazakhstan, Latvia and Lithuania, they would be suitable for the table of obsolete codes. Would you be happy for this dialogue to be copied to the talk pages for the article in question?Kevin McE 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - and I've even got around to getting a signing thingy to make it look official Jlsa 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to join WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season? Kingjeff 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with the Arthur Banks Article. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put the prod for deletion on this page but one of the main contributors simply removed the prod without deleting the article. The article is clearly a business promotion and, as such, violates Wikipedia policy. In addition, the main contributor has added a number of inappropriate categories, for example "Languages of Spain" and "Languages of Andorra". This is a business, it is a not a language, neither of Spain nor Andorra. I've never deleted an article but would very much like to see this unencyclopedic entry removed. Would you be able to do this? Or should we start an AFD discussion? The terms of your prod seem to make the latter unncecesary. Interlingua ^{talk email} 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i updated 81 to 199, but i did not check those the rank is not changed. And Equatorial Guinea need to add back Max and Min rank. Matthew_hk tc 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA's website does not report the max and min for Equatorial Guinea: I have contacted them about this oversight but it remains unaddressed. Kevin McE 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell, I'm having a go at driving up the quality of the GFC article with an eye on shooting for FA status as recently happened with Ipswich........ ChrisTheDude 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with the references is that FA status would be refused unless the article is well-references. If you look at Ipswich Town, which just got FA status, that article has about 70 references.... ChrisTheDude 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm happy with every aspect of the article now, so I'm going to put it up for Peer Review, but I think I'll wait till Monday as I'm away this weekend and when it does go up I want to be around to address points people might raise. Cheers for your assistance with all the copy editing and stuff.... ChrisTheDude 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not - family stuff.... ChrisTheDude 11:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you think the rename thing was quick, check out the new template on all the articles <g> I don't have HotSM unfortunately, but I believe the same info is in Roger Triggs' 2001 book The Men Who Made GFC, which I do have - I'll check tonight if I get a chance, or failing that tomorrow ChrisTheDude 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just alerting your attention to the new WikiProject on Irish football as you may be interested in taking part. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin

Apologies for taking so long to respond to your comments on my talk page, I only got back from holiday last night.....

It is quite proper that you do so, but you are quite ruthless in your quest for citations. You've tagged things that I put in when I made the Hessenthaler page, which I don't think can be evidenced unless a trawl through v old GillsConnect message boards or something similar were poss.

To be honest, if the only source available for info is the message board then i.t shouldn't be included - message boards are not reliable sources for a multitude of reasons

• That Hess was building himself a house during his disappointning 2nd season was an unchallenged and universally held terrace rumour, but where it might be recorded: heaven knows.
  • Personally I don't ever remember hearing this rumour, maybe I was on the wrong part of the terrace :-) I do remember hearing a rumour some years back (can't remember how may) that he carried on doing some building work "on the side", maybe this was a variant of the same rumour. But either way, a terrace rumour is still just a rumour, even if all the fans accept it to be true. There's no reliable source to confirm that he definitely did build a house, and even if he did there's no proof that it was the cause of his slump in form, essentially it's just speculation. If it was taken out and the article merely stated that he had a disappointing season I don't think it would suffer unduly
• Anyone who heard any conversation between Gills fans during his last couple of seasons as managers knows that he was criticised for preferring "his mates", whether or not he did might be a moot point: but th enature of supporter criticism is that it is not formally recorded, except possibly in old BMHs.
  • True enough, I remember that talk, but again it's just supporter tittle-tattle, supporters come out with all manner of criticism of players and managers but I don't believe it's necessarily of encyclopedic value. Apart from anything else, the fact that it was discussed on GillsConnect, where probably only about 10% of Gills fans go, doesn't mean it was the general view of the whole fanbase.....
• Ken Bates' admiration for Hess might be traceable in old match programmes or Kent Messengers from shortly after the game, likewise...
  • I'll take a trawl through the archives for that, as you say it should have been reported somewhere.
• Scally's "I'll never sack Hess" was widely quoted in the weeks and months before he resigned, in those publications and might be deep in the archive of the official site.
  • Likewise, if Scally did say this "on the record" (I can't recall if he did or if it's merely something that the fans reckoned he probably thought) it should have been reported, I will endeavour to source it.

I understand the criterion of verifiability, but popular opinion and anecdotal comment, while at times encyclopedically relevant (IMHO), is not usually kept in an easily indexed archive.

I can see where you're coming from, but I feel that sourcing is important and general supporter pub chat should be avoided as we don't want to open ourselves to people adding things like "all fans believe that Sol Campbell is gay" - an extreme example I know a terrace rumour nonetheless..... ChrisTheDude 08:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I've got no idea..... ChrisTheDude 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got to randomly thinking about this last night when I couldn't get to sleep, and I reckon the fact that those facts have now appeared in a reliable source means they can probably be cited from there but the Hess article would now need to be rewritten so that it doesn't look like it's been copyvio'ed from the Dover site. That's what I reckon, anyway..... ChrisTheDude 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, wanted to give you props for all the hard work on the GFC article- it looks fantastic. --Lawlore 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all the teams of the players are out of date. Including, Chris Birchall, Stern John, Carlos Edwards and Dwight Yorke. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this to a different article? Because it is causing distraction. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

errmm: I did, about 2 hours before you posted this. Kevin McE 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about it and don't feel like an intruder. I would most likely have invited your opinion anyway had I stumbled across your userpage. I more or less just went through members of the football project. Anyhow, the "spanner" reference was mainly in jest, although I'll be honest; I got slightly frustrated when I saw your list as I thought the article was well on its way to achieving FA status and had been looking forward to getting it off my mind before getting stuck into my exams. However, that's not your problem and it's only my own fault for being overly optimistic. It's our job on here to ensure that FAs are up to scratch so there's no point in me trying to rush anything. It will take time. I really appreciate you taking the time to not only help with the article, but to also take an interest in its content.

Having had a brief glance, I think your edits should be fine. Some of the old vocabularly might well have been mine. Your point about Partick did stir a laugh amidst my frustration though. At least I can admit that that specific inclusion was not originally one of my own, ha. I suppose the constant requirement to cut the article down in length didn't help. The history of the club is a lot more complex than many other clubs as it has a strong socio-political attachment and trying to express many of those related ideas in an extremely succinct manner so as not to divert too far on a tangent can be rather tough. Also, it can become harder to spot what might appear as a glaring problem to others when you yourself become so engrossed in an article that you begin to take the presence of a lot of the content for granted, overlooking much of it.

I'll get back to the article in just over a week with a fresh mind and take a better look through all the edits that have gone on then. I'll keep an eye out for any deleted material that might be worth including in the relevant sub-articles. Just one thing; the area and its stadium are both known as "the Brandywell", just like the Den, where Millwall play. For example, just as you wouldn't say that Millwall play at Den, neither would you say that Derry play at Brandywell. Anyway, the article will get there eventually. Cheers for the good luck wish. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the outstanding issues you raised have been dealt with. Maybe you'd have a look at the article again to see if any remain outstanding? I've tried to get it across that the decision to play in Coleraine was not a wholly willful one but, rather, was somewhat of a last resort. If you still have problems with the wording around that, we'll try and work something out. About the crest and what it doesn't contain; there has been criticism over its minimalism or what some perceive as blandness and lack of character. Such opinions aren't really verifiable as they've been expressed by fans on internet forums and such. I thought what I had inserted might have been the best compromise. What do you think? As regards the supporter section; I've tried to neutralise it but maybe you'll think it's still a bit partisan. I'm not sure. All the statistics are verifiable and the two quotes serve to illustrate the claim that the club is renowned for a community spirit. What parts of the section do you have problems with in particular? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 11:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more editors have added their support for the promotion of the article to FA status. However, I'd be keen to have your backing also, rather than ignoring any concerns you may have in favour of what has become a majority view. Is there any chance you'd have the time to give the article another quick look over and highlight any issues you feel have yet to be resolved, or if you feel they have, maybe you'd add your support? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to leave all the Man Utd stuff on the Hargreaves page. After you taking it all off and me reverting back to your version, it has made it's way back on. Kingjeff 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I'd miss one usage! ;-) ChrisTheDude 09:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to take one comment, made by yourself, on a template talk and present in in an edit note as if it were an established consensus as you did today with Owen Hargreaves. Kevin McE 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything of the sort. Edit summaries don't allow for long justifications, so I pointed to the location of my justification. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your message. I realise there was a debate some while ago about the two words. However I recently discussed their usage with someone from Argentina. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the second message, but I forgot to also add this. If you look at the article on the country Argentina the Demonym is Argentine and not Argentinian. And on that basis alone I would say that it is perfectly valid to use Argentine rather than Argentinian on all wikipedia articles relating to Argentina. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, as I forgot to add the information in my second message, my reasoning has come across to you incorrectly. My reason for mentioning the conversation was to show where this had arisen for me. I then forgot to add the further detail from my second message. And yes I do think that the Argentina article, specifically about that country has more validity than an article about every single country, especially as the article not once uses Argentinian, yet uses Argentine throughout the article. And further, the Demonym article has Argentine and not Argentinian. The word Argentinian is not used once on the Argentina article, whereas Argentine is used numerous times. I would also add to it further as there are numerous wikipedia articles using Argentine - Argentine tango, Argentine Republic, Argentine Antarctica, Argentine National Anthem, Argentine Air Force as well as a number of other articles. Even the article Asian Argentine - an Argentine of Asian origin - not once uses Argentinian. And searching for articles that have argentinian in the title, so far I have found only redirects to articles that do not contain the word. So yes on the basis of all those wikipedia articles and a number of others I do believe that it should be Argentine. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello. i have answered some questions about your speedy deletion proposal on the talk page. i am hoping that is enough information. thank you. Grapeindie 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, I restored the link to an interview with one of Billie Holiday's biographers. You had removed it, claiming that the link was inserted by someone with a "commercial interest" in the site. That may be so, but if the link is useful to people seeking info on Billie, who cares if adding it was a promotional move. Personally, I have no commercial interest in any site, but I restored it because it is a useful link. I should mention that I had on another day restored a link to the same site that had been removed from the Bessie Smith bio. It so happens that the Bessie item was an interview with me and I suppose one could conclude that linking to it might sell a copy or two of my book, but the Wikipedia bio itself might do that, by default. The fact remains that these are pertinent links that supplement the info found in Wikipedia's Holiday and Smith bios. I did not place the original links, I merely restored them when they were removed for no justifiable reason; it is not as if links are being made to advertisements. I think that having the information contained in these interviews available to the Wikipedia reader outweighs any theory of ulterior motive.

Christiern Albertson 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, I can appreciate what you're doing removing that comment. HOWEVER, I was the one to add that particular paragraph and for good reason in my opinion. Before the FIFA rankings officially came to be, the rankings were actually directly based on world cup finishes and the qualifying rounds. Today, you'd be correct that a world cup placing does not determine your world ranking, however that only began in 1998; 1990 would have been different. --Hurricane Angel 06:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the whole point of giving a defunct team such as Yugoslavia a rating based on 1990 is because that was essentially the last year that it existed as a team and any sort of ranking would have been possible. Uruguay still exists and is now subject to it's own current rank, but since the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia ceased in 1991 (between the WC and the EC) that is the most recent/relevant rank. And it would probably have to remain as an ambiguous 5-8, same for Czechoslovakia (5-8) and the USSR (17-24). --Hurricane Angel 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask why you keep taking the silver medal mention in the Paraguay national football team article?. I'm not really sure what you mean by "full" national team. There isn't such thing as full team, a national team is a national team no matter what players are being sent or called by the coach.

I refuse to leave the medal achievement out of the article, as it is the most important football achievement in Paraguayan football history, and besides, every other nation that has won a medal (such as Argentina, Chile, Belgium, Netherlands, Uruguay) still have the olympic medal count template. I don't see why Paraguay is the exception to the rule in this case. Regards. Bruno18 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but you can't really say it was a full U23 squad as veteran players Cardozo, Enciso and Gamarra played the tourney; I believe there was a limit of 3 veteran players. As for the coach, it was the same one that managed the "full" squad at the 2004 Copa America.

I understand that most of the players were U23 and in fact the way to qualify to the olympics in 2004 for CONMEBOL was through a U23 tournament but I still don't see why the medal mention has to be taken from the article. The importance of the achievement is given to the full squad; you won't hear any football fans saying "the Argentina U23 squad won the gold medal in 2004". Everybody from fans to the media award this achievement to the full squad or national football team. Bruno18 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blindly remove all non-english links. WP:EL#Foreign-language links says "It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English...". Many of the links you removed from Ecuador were official government sites which are not apparently available in English. If they are, feel free to substitute the english-language version of the official sites. But do not go around removing links without a good reason. Thank you, Αργυριου (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Ecuador, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Good call.. thanks.. I'll take this issue to an admin.. --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Putzin did, in fact, copy something which Fernando and I posted on User:Jerahad's talk page. However, you are still wrong. In the case of articles about a country, links to non-english government ministries and tourist offices, even when the article in general is not about the particular remit of the ministry (or about tourism in the country, etc), are appropriate, unless there is an english-language page from the particular ministry, tourist office, etc., available to link to instead. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 very different issues here.

1) Regardless of where Putzin found the arguments (s)he used, it was him/her who posted them, after editing, on my talk page, and it was either ignorant or duplicitous to present them as having been posted by somebody else. I am disturbed not to see a stringent policy against this in Wikipedia, but it may be that I simply looked in the wrong parts of the protocols of user conduct.

2) I can find no source in wikipedia policies for the defence of breaking a general principle (English language links on English language Wikipedia) that you present here. Is there a reference for this, or is it your opinion? Kevin McE 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to me to amount to legitimise the number and wide range of Spanish language sites in question at Ecuador, and on the talk page of that article I have specifically addressed the text of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#non-English-language_sites (of which the link you have mentioned is a summary) with reference to the links in question. Kevin McE 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have to take a break now. I'll try to finish these brief summaries tomorrow. They will need expanding to the same standard as for the 2006 tour. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from a few days away and noticed your reversion of the unwelcome changes to my userpage by User:Arzautz. Thank you! Richard Harvey 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2007 Tour de France riders list, with the unresolved status of Floyd Landis, I was referring to Oscar Pereiro, who is Tour de France winner if Landis loses his title. BleuDXXXIV 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm interested by the comment on your recent edit to the Red Kite article ... can you tell me more? Thanks. SP-KP 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers SP-KP 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After your mass clear-out of the unrecognised nations section, I left you a comment on the talk page, here. I would've contested...well, commented on...the lengths to which you cleared out the section, as you gave a two-week warning looking for, but I simply hadn't come across the article in time. Personally I'd like to redefine the section, as I feel the section as it is is rather redundant and pointless. Well, you can read the extent to my thinkings there. I apologise if this seems like I'm rushing you, but I left it for over 24 hours, and then noticed that you'd re-editted the page and still not noticed my comment, so I thought it would save time to do this, as I know full well that sometimes people don't notice comments for literally months. Awaiting your reply. Falastur2 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take that however you like ;-) Nosleep1234 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept it the way it was delivered, with a ;-) Kevin McE 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of something, please check the facts first. I have never said or indicated "that inconvenience and cost to the people of southwest England is more significant on a worldwide scale than inconvenience, cost, and the loss of hundreds of lives, elsewhere in Europe". I have even endorsed putting the heat wave in southern Europe on ITN, "although the article needs some editing." Yes, I put the UK floodings back on ITN. But only for Main Page balance, because we've got a longer FA and a shorter On This Day today than yesterday. This means that the item that was last removed can be restored. This is common practice, see the history of ITN. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That this is a common practice is something I was unaware of. However, especially as you had endorsed my proposal of raising of the deaths caused by the heatwave to the ITN column, I was particularly disappointed that it was you who restored the UK floods in preference to this. Insofar as you made such a choice, I did believe that you gave an indication of what you considered to be significant. I am pleased to hear that you would distance yourself from such a viewpoint. Kevin McE 10:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must be verifiable. Other than a passing reference to FourFourTwo, there is not a single reference in the whole article which shows that it has in any way received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (to quote WP:N). Exactly where is this claimed Guardian mention? While I'm prepared to admit its possible this concept is actually notable, the article in its current state does not show this at all. --Pak21 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added back some of the most notable info about the doping controversies to the intro here, but I kept it significantly shorter than it had been previously. the Vinokourov situation and the Rasmussen situation were probably the two most reported bits of information about the tour (even more so than Contador's win), so they should certainly be mentioned in the intro. I agree though that it shouldn't preview the entire doping section, so I tried to keep it short otherwise, and also removed the information about riders testing positive after the tour. Cogswobbletalk 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you not discovered the fix for the sortable table, I would have suggested it, having used it on 2007 NFL Draft. I'm glad you figured it out though, and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia! Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few lists on Wikipedia that are, as you say, "just lists". The article in question contains much of the same information as any other "List of Club name managers" article, and since standards are very important on Wikipedia, I was being bold. Feel free to move it back if you wish. We can have a proper discussion about it on the article's talk page. - PeeJay 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive set of comments. I've done my best to address 95% of them - there are a couple which need more research but I'll get to them when I can. I very much appreciate your efforts. As for the note about the book references, the only reason I keep listing Robson's book is that there are more than one written by him, unlike the Kuper reference. So I'll leave it for now unless someone gets really agitated about it. Once again, thanks so much. The Rambling Man 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and extensive comment, his article was promoted to featured status last night. Hurrah! The Rambling Man 10:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the claim of the verbal agreement, hopefully this addresses your valid concern over that point. The Rambling Man 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd reconsider your comments, in light of the ongoing debate, but more importantly by virtue of the massive improvements to the article, with POV hacked and insertion of clear, reliably sourced notability claims. Cheers! --Dweller 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you'd agree that an article like 1966 FIFA World Cup Final is a must-have inclusion? Even though that, essentially, is a match report? --Dweller 11:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying those other finals should not have articles... it's just they've not yet been written. The Football WikiProject's notability guidelines state that all finals are automatically notable and that some other matches are also notable. --Dweller 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now, following various changes I've made today (including just now, lol)? The size of the "match report" section is now greatly reduced, proportionately, and the notability is even clearer. --Dweller 19:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed all that journalistic style crap from the Argentina national football team article. Damn good work. Regards, King of the North East 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy taking a gander....? ChrisTheDude 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

I've seen you around the Ecuador article, and you claim a good command of Spanish, so I'd like to ask you a question. A little while ago, User:Chinesco added a 23rd province in the Ecuador article. I reverted as vandalism, but he came up with a newspaper article in Spanish that seems to support the idea that a new province has been added. Please see User talk:Chinesco for our short discussion, and a link to the newspaper.

The problem is, my Spanish is not good enough to understand all the complications in that article. I get that something like what Chinesco is claiming was passed by the legislature, but it seems like it isn't a completely clear-cut case, and I can't decipher what the complication is. As far as I can read, it hasn't been decided what canton the new province is going to be in, but that doesn't make any sense at all (canton<province), so I'm at a loss, and my confidence in interpreting that article at all is now low.

The addition of the new province was reverted again by an IP editor this morning, so it currently says 22. I no longer think Chinesco is the vandal I originally accused him of being, but if there is a controversy of some kind around this new province, I'd like an outside opinion from someone else to confirm it says what he says it does.

Could you take a quick glance at the newspaper article, and let me know if he's right, wrong, or it's more complicated? Thanks, --barneca (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got a little cocky there, when I told Chinesco to provide a source in English or in Spanish. I guess I should change my userbox to es-0.5. --barneca (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin, I knew there was something more complicated going on, but couldn't figure out what. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps =). But I'd still prefer, "The [prize name] committee awards [award winner] for her book, [book title]", as you suggest. Anything but active voice on WP:ITN is simply painful to me, because it's meant to showcase current events, and quickly engage the reader. Passive voice does a poor job of doing either. If that sentence were buried deep in an article, then I'd be more comfortable with it (but still not happy). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you removed this from Chris Hughton, but isn't the idea of it to be for players born in England but played for the Republic of Ireland? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was what the category was called, I would agree with you entirely. But "born in England" does not mean that one need choose to be described as English. Terry Butcher was born in Singapore, but would not choose to be described as Singaporean. Having the right and option to do something does not mean that encyclopaedic editors have any right to assert that you made that choice. Kevin McE (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this mean it needs removing from every article then? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue so, yes, UNLESS the player has specifically stated that he still considers himself Irish (or whatever other nationality is involved: see parent category): I have removed it where the article specifically states that the player "is an Irish (or other) footballer". Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way this category works seems to be a bit "dodgy" to me, and needs moving to something clearer. I'm not sure if going by the opening sentence of the article is a good idea, as I think what it states mostly lies down to how the particular writer has decided to word it. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're recent actions have been very dissapointing, and better is expected of you. Please start being a responsible user of this website, and please refrain from attempts to put down others and although you're attempted jokes are quite lame, they could also be considered inconciderite. thankyou, --124.171.85.154 (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently did a blanket revert of changes to this template with the summary

rv to last version not overwritten with Scottish team info

This isn't what happened. The {{documentation}} template pulled in the documentation at Template:Infobox National football team/doc, but the infobox itself isn't affected. Please have a look at some team articles if you want to confirm that the changes haven't overwritten team info.

If you want to change the documentation page to use made-up example info instead of the Scottish team, feel free. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I've got the managers list knocked into shape I'm going to nominate it........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference for it. I'd forgotten all about it - my father got blagged volunteered to queue for all our tickets that day so I didn't see what was going on at the stadium, but now you've reminded me I remember him talking about it at the time........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't include him in the internationals section because he hasn't gained any caps while at Priestfield..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy correction. That's the second time I've done it today. I reckon I'm trying to go back in time. Peanut4 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've adapted some texts of FIFA.com about the NTs Calapez (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Tom Bryant, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Bryant and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that the caption being used was proposed by the photographer- see the FP nomination. The photo was taken in the presence of an expert on whales in general and specifically the whales in the photograph. Perhaps the author of the picture would be better suited to answering your concerns. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of how college sports work in the United States. The majority of colleges that offer sports do so under the umbrella of the NCAA. (Around 250 or so small colleges are in the NAIA - it is considered a lower level of competition than the NCAA and is largely small religious schools and local commuter colleges. There is also the NJCAA, which is an association of 2-year colleges - we usually call them "community colleges" or junior colleges.) The NCAA has three divisions - Division I, II, and III. (In American football, Division I is further divided into IA and IAA) Division I is the highest level of college sports in America. Division I-A American football and most college basketball games are televised at least in their region and frequently nationally. NCAA athletes are amateur (not paid) and if it turns out that one of them was paid under the table, it is a big scandal that makes national headlines and the school get into a lot of trouble and usually has to forfeit any games they played with the player. All of the players in that AFD discussion were prolific NCAA soccer athletes (the highest level of amateur competition in their sport). As such, they meet the criterion for amateur athletes. They went on from there to be drafted by MLS. They may or may not wind up ever playing a game, but they were already notable. --B (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've corrected your AfD nomination for Sam Hewson. It's tricky when it's a second nom, and that's probably what screwed up the template. I also transcluded the nomination to today's AFD page, which you can see at WP:AFD. Tips and tricks for nomianting articles are there as well, for the next article you nominate - it's a useful cheat sheet. The new nomination may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Hewson (2nd nomination). Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also transcluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séan Evans for you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chester. Next time you nominate articles, don't forget to doublecheck WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion, which is a useful cheat sheet - and reminds me to transclude the nomination, so that I don't forget (which I've done!). Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. I saw them on the unsorted list and tried to sort them, so I caught the error. It's all good. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Geoff Hangartner Football Association of Albania Chuck Carroll São Tomé and Príncipe national football team England national amateur football team Sociedad Deportivo Quito CenTex Barracudas New England Knights Henryk Kasperczak French Guiana national football team Dean McDonald Ralf Edström Saint-Martin national football team Israel Football Association Patrik Andersson Squad rotation system Chicago Politicians Laredo Lobos African Cup of Nations

Cleanup Club América Bebe Buell Queens Park Rangers F.C. Merge San José, Costa Rica Sunday league football Manchester United F.C. Academy Add Sources Football at the Summer Olympics Omaha Beef Iván Hurtado Wikify Catenaccio Football War Jefferson Pérez Expand Zinedine Zidane Obdulio Varela List of women's national football teams

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the text as you suggested. I am also not an entomologist, but this photographer has been known to consult with entomologists for species identification. I took most of the relevant text from the articles themselves. However, I unlinked treehopper because it's not of that family (despite the name) -- see [2] which puts it in Cicadellidae. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you keep Karl Duguid on your watchlist? I'd appreciate assistance :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin, thanks for your first tranche of comments. I really did feel after a week of solid referencing that I'd lost the prose plot but not quite that badly! Your comments are very much appreciated and I will get on to them as soon as possible. I think WP:FOOTBALL are beginning to lead the way with the use of peer reviews, they're participated in actively and energetically and (hopefully) pave the way to much smoother rides at GAN, FAC and FLC. Cheers again! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kev, thanks for your comments. I've attended to most of them (with the exception of one question) so please do, when you have time, carry on with the rest of the article should you still feel up to it! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks once more for your next set of comments, I've attended to most of them, I still need some work on the Cobbold thing running through the club and perhaps on the graph (if it stays)... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thought I'd let you know I've pushed on to WP:FAC after your plethora of comments. I know a couple of yours are still outstanding (most notably the graph and the Cobbold family thing) and I'll keep working on those, but in the meantime I felt the article would get more exposure at FAC than at PR. It may not be ready now but it's a damned sight more ready than it was before you provided your splendid comments, so thanks for that, and feel free to add to the FAC when you feel less tired! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Kevin (me again!) - just a quick note to let you know I've added some serious Cobbold stuff throughout and also mentioned Sheepy at the end. Was this the kind of thing you were looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I deleted said that Geoffrey of Monmouth equated Colchester to Camelot; in fact, Geoffrey never mentions "Camelot" at all (the name does not appear in literature until about 70 years later). All Geoffrey says about Colchester is that it was formerly called Kaelcolim (or Kaercolun; mss. differ) and that it was the home city of King Coel. RandomCritic (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin

Care to relieve the boredom of the last couple of days of half term by taking a gander at the PR on Hessy's new team.......?

Cheers!!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, blood, sweat and tears went into both the article promotion and getting it onto the mainpage - it's his 75th birthday on Monday so that's why I made the effort with User:Raul654 to get him on that day. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to give you a personal reply in addition to my reply at WP:LFC. I realise you don't want to give the impression that an article which should be deleted (such as Ryan Flynn or Mikel San José) is deserving of it's place on wikipedia, but to me the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Firstly by tagging it for attention of WP:LFC we actually know it exists, rather than effectively being orphaned (some of these articles have been around for months without being found). Also by tagging them, which I simply based on all articles which were already tagged with the Liverpool F.C. category, I have found a number of articles, such as Mikel San José which also should be deleted, and have/will put them up for afd. Secondly, to my mind, while the article still exists (as the deletes can never be 100% certain), and is related to Liverpool F.C. it is supported by WP:LFC even if that support is only to delete it. John Hayes^talk 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few more, and AFDed them, I've listed them all at WP:FOOTY. John Hayes^talk 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:this - except for me, basically nobody watches the talk pages for FA blurbs. Talk:Main Page would be a *much* better place to make such comments. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done now with help from Woody. Thanks for your help too. Alexf⁴² 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm could you maybe be a little more precise with what you are talking about? It sounds like you feel one of my edits was not good, but I do not know which page or edit you are talking about. I am glad to try and figure things out, but a diff or link would be great, and an explanation of what you feel I did wrong would be even better. Thanks. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh nevermind, I see what you are talking about, and yeah that was my bad, I didn't know about it always being in present tense. Um maybe next time assuming that I made my edit in good faith would be a little better, but whatever. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		GUESTBOOK AWARD
		I, Idontknow610, award Kevin McE for being the fiftieth person to sign my Autograph page. Congratulations!!!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]