User talk:Kevin McE/Archives/2020

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The moratorium is on the talk page for the page titled 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (the title has the same issue you see on the list of deaths page). It was started on the 15th of March and is still ongoing, the most recent comment was yesterday from what I've seen. You have left your own comments elsewhere on the talk page regarding a title move so go revisit it and ctrl+f the term moratorium. Feel free to blank this response if you don't need it anymore and if it takes space. --Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

They are your proposals, even if you aren't the only one or the first one proposing them. They are being perceived as disrupting and pedantic by the people who proposed the moratorium and if you are going to proceed with them, keep in mind that other editors are discussing the moratorium on the main page for the epidemic. I'm not involved in the moratorium but I noticed it while browsing pages so I pointed it out because the result would cover the list page too. A section or two under the moratorium you can find your own comments saying the exact same stuff you said on the list talk page only with other editors involved. As far as I'm concerned, you are better off focusing your proposals on the talk page with the moratorium, you even have a Swedish doctor on that talk page. Having separate discussions on separate similarly named pages with different results will cause a disjointed naming policy for these pages. I will not involve myself with the talk on the main pandemic page or the moratorium as people have said similar things or raised other points unique to them. --Killuminator (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to an encyclopaedia to try to make it accurate. That discussion was unresolved, and the issues I raised had not been previously discussed. Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. When you added your reply to this section, you reverted several previous edits, including the archival bot's removal of a thread it had archived, and a few human editors' posts to various sections, including the one you posted to. This was presumably due to an edit conflict of some kind. You can post your reply in that section again if you like, but note that there are now other posts there in addition to the one you replied to. --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Iranian military careers starts at 18~22. His career started in 1982. this. Empty cell isn't helping either as he appears as the youngest when we sort things. Yug (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So If he started in the military within the typical age range (how certain are we that he did?), he might have been born anywhere from 1959 to 1965. But that doesn't mean we make a guess. People will realise that his age is unknown, not that he was so young that his age cannot even register as a number. That objection carries about as much weight as assuming that Bob Glanzer mush have died early in the morning, because his name is first of those who died on Friday. Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry, and I know you're a long-standing editor (well, in that case, you should know all this already) but this is a Good Article, based throughout on the cited reliable sources. We can't introduce an editorial opinion-based discussion that isn't even correct in biological terms. Farming and butchering and supermarket carnivory make precisely no difference to the basic biology; humans sometimes hunt and sometimes don't. In hunter-gatherer societies, it's often the men who hunt and the women who gather. In supermarket societies, most people don't hunt much for their food, though trawlermen certainly do. Please stay with the facts, as the article does. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That is nonsense. There is no part of the definition of predation in this article that suggests that the prey is hunted or trapped in the wild in any way. Humans kill the whole animal to eat it, so as a species, we are predatory in our farming practices. Maybe the sources that you refer to are working on a different definition, but the wikipedia article, especially if it is going to be in any manner describable as a good article, should be internally consistent. Our evolution has indeed been effected by pre-agrarian predatory factors: men's hips are adapted for running, we have forward facing eyes with a large binocular angle of vision: but this is irrelevant, as is your comment about farming, butchery and shopping, because physiological adaptation is not part of the definition. I haven't removed any information, so the information that the sources give is unaffected. Only information that is likely to be challenged needs sourcing, so I would invite you to present to me the group of humans capable of reading an encyclopaedia who do not understand that farming contributes dead animals for consumption. Maybe my choice of word is not the best, but to exclude livestock farming from discussion of humans as 'an organism..[that] kills and eats another organism' is simply ridiculous.

I wouldn't normally include farming as an example of predatory behaviour, and would used a more nuanced definition to exclude it. But I'm not the one trying to defend an article founded on that definition, I am simply trying to make said article have some consistency. Without it, it does not deserve space in Wikipedia, yet alone Good Article status. Kevin McE (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You did not get a consensus. Change it back or I will report you for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You have done nothing to make an article meaningful or internally consistent. Kevin McE (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You do not go back and undo someone's contributions just because you're mad I was right and you were wrong.... It's childish and irresponsible and IT'S VANDALISM Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You really need to familiarise yourself with the purpose of an encyclopaedia (WP:TONE is very short and addresses the main issue with your contributions, if you can't be bothered to read the edit notes I have posted), with WP:GOODFAITH, and with WP:BOLD. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Someone is erasing my contributions. Courtesy notification since the poster did not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You left a note on User talk:Geo Swan about our work on Lynika Strozier, and our discusions at Talk:Lynika Strozier.

In your comment you speculate about my motives, my naivete, which was not really compliant with our civility convention. Please try and stick to discussing policy issues.

I urge you to consider the possibity that, while you may be well-intentioned, the concerns others raise, that you seem to have misunderstandings of our policies, may hold merit.

Over 10,000 people read the article. 20 editors edited it, in addition to you and I, and no one else seems to share your concern.

I always do my best to understand the positions of people who disagree with me. I encourage other contributors to do likewise. By doing so sometimes I realize they are right, and I am wrong. I like that, because I put the interests of the wikipedia before "winning" disagreements.

I did my best to understand your position. Which seemed to be that you needed to protect our readers, and rewrite the article so they did not reach the "wrong" conclusion, and they all reached the "correct" conclusion, your personal conclusion, your entirely unsubstantiated conclusion, that Ms Strozier never had a disability at all, since she was able to finish post-graduate degrees.

That is not my role, that is not your role. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutrally written, giving a balanced summary of what RS say. No RS share your conclusion she wasn't actually disabled. As I wrote on Talk:Lynika Strozier, if you find RS sources, or even a single RS, that shared your conclusion she wasn't actually disabled, you go right ahead and add a neutral summary of those RS to the article, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind.

You seem pretty annoyed with me, so this offer might seem like an insult. It's not. I'm sincere. I am a patient person, and I will help you be a more policy compliant contributor, if you can accept help. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S.' No, I never met Ms Strozier, or anyone who knew her. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Challenging someone to prove a negative is a pretty low move. I have never said that it is certain that she never had a disability, but that with no record of the nature of whatever slowed her response to initial education, we don't know whether this was the conclusion of a teacher, a throwaway comment by a neighbour, a possibility thrown out in discussion with a family doctor, or the result of a formal diagnosis by a specialist. And therefore we don't know what her block to learning was, and whether it was of a a kind that makes in formally defined as a disability. Because taking a non-specialist journalist's loose application of a term is not appropriate for something that seeks to uphold an encyclopaedic standard.

Consider [1] or [2], or [3]. Kevin McE (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A week on, @Geo Swan:, have you read those references? Do you understand why a loosely use term seems incompatible, in this case, with what is properly described as a learning disability? Kevin McE (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, sorry, I started a draft reply, on the 26th, or 27th, but I had other matters come up.
• Yes, I did read them, or enough of them to see they say nothing specifically about Ms Strozier. Were you proposing to summarize them, in article space? Because that would be a lapse from WP:OR
• In this edit you excisised the The Chicago Tribune, and inserted your personal opinion, with the phrase "an anonymous source". You claimed we were putting information in the wikipedia's voice, without proper appropriation. But your excision of The Chicago Tribune removed that attribution.
• Sorry, yes, that was a big lapse.
• Your initial comment, about asking you to prove a negative being a "low blow"?

1. I am doing my best to be nice to you.
2. It is not your job, not my job to lapse from SYNTH to prove things that aren't in RS.

   If you find RS that explicitly say a knowledgeable expert has doubts over Ms Strozier's diagnosis, you go right ahead and summarize that RS, bearing UNDUE in mind.

So, there have been no low-blows. Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I would describe telling somebody that they have to do the impossible, prove a negative, as a low blow, a cheating move in an attempt to make a constructive argument, so don't tell me there have been no low blows.

It is tempting to simply deduce that you are the worst type of intransigent Wikilawyer, who will say, 'I have found something in a "RS", so nothing can make me remove it, regardless of whether it gives the reader a true impression,', but I am going to try for a bit longer to see if you are capable (despite the recourse to such passive aggressive constructions as "I am doing my best to be nice to you") of a more serious level of attempt to provide good encyclopaedic information.

Of course those references don't refer to Strozier: what they do is give an understanding of what is meant by learning disability, which shows why the idea of such loosely described, casually diagnosed and easily overcome difficulties are not really consistent with the phrase as thus defined. I really think that if somebody with an IQ of 70 or less (and I share misgivings about the validity of IQ tests) goes on to have a notable academic career, that begs some explanation beyond longhand maths and summertime tuition. And if that is not what has happened in Strozier's case, then 'learning disability', by definition, is not applicable to her, and the choice of phrase in the Chicago Tribune is wrong. And if you doubt that such a publication can make a mistake in phrasing, consider that the linked NYT article describes her as having a severe learning disability, which by definition means that there is almost no prospect of independent living as an adult. That is what happens when non medically qualified journalists start using technical medical terms without taking the trouble to inform themselves, and that, I would contend, is what the Chicago Tribune journalist also did. And because his intention was to write a puff piece in a non-technical publication, with no expectation of encyclopaedic standards, his employers were probably happy enough with it. But that does not mean it is proven fact to an encyclopaedic standard.

So who do you believe the source of the description of her difficulties at a young age to be? You have never addressed my comment that the CT did not know anything about 8 year old Strozier in 1992. Thus while that publication might be the disseminator of a description in 2020, they are not the source of it. Thus it is meaningless to suggest that this information is "according to" the Chicago Tribune. That source is by every meaning of the word anonymous, and so how do you explain the description of 'an anonymous source' as my personal opinion? Please explain in what way I have tried to claim that anyone is putting anything in Wikipedia's voice.

It seems very clear that this woman had some learning difficulties as a child, but equally clear that those difficulties did not amount to a learning disability. I would refer you again to those three links I gave you already to clarify this distinction. Please, after reading them properly (not just enough to observe the absence of Strozier's name)explain how firmly you believe that she had a disability rather than difficulties, and why, had you not read a loosely termed feel-good article, you would consider that a valid conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your third paragraph triggers the same concern as many of your earlier comments. I suggest you ask for advice from others about WP:Original research. If your three references don't mention Strozier, they don't belong in an article about Strozier.
• You wrote "...somebody with an IQ of 70 or less ... not what has happened in Strozier's case, then 'learning disability', by definition, is not applicable to her, and the choice of phrase in the Chicago Tribune is wrong...."

1. Who said anything about IQ? People of normal, or even above average, can be diagnosed with a "learning disability". Dsylexia, for instance, can be found in people throughout the intelligence range. At University I knew lots of very intelligent people who couldn't do basic arithmetic in their head.
2. Personally, I strong doubt the Chicago Tribune was "wrong". But it doesn't matter if they were "wrong", and every other RS that wrote about her were "wrong".

   The wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Your conclusions that she may not have had a genuine learning disability are your own. You can't back them up. You haven't found any RS that explicitly challenge whether she had a learning disability. So your conclusions don't belong in a wikipedia article. Please go ask for third party opinions on this.

3. I am not asking you to prove anything about Ms Stozier, or anybody else. No one is asking your prove anything. When the authors of RS assert they proved somthing, or otherwise reached a conclusion, we summarize their conclusions, we cite their documents.

Thought experiment - suppose we were working on the wikipedia in a time and place where almost everyone believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the Sun, moon, planets, and distant stars all circled the Earth. That is what the Pope tried to get Galileo to say he believed, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for disputing it. If the RCC had succeeded in suppressing Galileo, and all other people who challenged the Geocentric Universe I suggest the wikipedia's rules would require us to say the Sun circled the Earth. If a handful of Galileo's successors had been able to publish a couple of Heliocentric theories, but it was still a minority view, wikipedia coverage would have to say that, even if all the wikipedia contributors were smart-pants who believed the evidence for a Heliocentric Universe.

I think I actually did suggest individuals who told the Chicago Tribune and other RS Ms Strozier had a learning disability, and who - a key point - those RS trusted. Didn't I suggest they could have been told this by her Grandmother, faculty advisor, former teachers, or even the Board's psychometrist?

Please don't get personal, and refer to your correspondents as "the worst kind" of anything, even in jest. It is counter-policy. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"If your three references don't mention Strozier, they don't belong in an article about Strozier." Writing that shows that you haven't read what I wrote. I at no time suggested that these articles should be cited, quoted or paraphrased in the article. I suggested that you read them to inform yourself of the difference between a learning difficulty and a learning disability.

"Who said anything about IQ? People of normal, or even above average, can be diagnosed with a "learning disability". Dyslexia, for instance, can be found in people throughout the intelligence range." And writing that proves that you haven't read the articles. You are here making precisely the same error as the so-called reliable resources you are so determined to defend. Dyslexia is a learning difficulty, not a learning disability. This distinction has been the thrust of my challenge to the article throughout. The distinction is often not made in casual conversation, nor in non-specialist journalism. It is my contention that there can be no confidence that the distinction has been made in the articles cited, and therefore, in the realm of identifying this woman's issues as a learning disability, those sources are not reliable.

"your conclusions don't belong in a wikipedia article" Not once have I asked or proposed that "my conclusions" be published, only that sensible editing of the evidently unexpert conclusions of others not be naively parroted.

"I am not asking you to prove anything about Ms Stozier" That is just a lie: "if you find RS sources, or even a single RS, that shared your conclusion she wasn't actually disabled, you go right ahead "

suppose we were working on the wikipedia in a time and place where almost everyone believed the Earth was the center of the Universe then your position, judging by your approach here, would be to say that because Rome is considered a RS then absolutely every word emanating from that RS must be trusted and can be replicated in Wikipedia on blind trust, regardless of how little natural authority it had on the matter. Really not sure what you are trying to illustrate here, nor what you mean by RCC.

Didn't I suggest they could have been told this by her Grandmother, faculty advisor, former teachers, or even the Board's psychometrist If you did, I can't see it. I did write " we don't know whether this was the conclusion of a teacher, a throwaway comment by a neighbour, a possibility thrown out in discussion with a family doctor, or the result of a formal diagnosis by a specialist", but it shows that we are agreed that the original source may have been entirely unqualified to make such a technical conclusion.

And lay off the passive aggressive crap before you try to tell anyone else what is an appropriate tone to deal with others. Kevin McE (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan:: nothing to say? Have you learned anything about the difference between a learning difficulty and a learning disability? Do you understand yet how misleading it is to use use the term 'learning disability' when you are referring to something that is in the same class of learning difficulty as dyslexia? Kevin McE (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Kevin McE. I did read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? In particular, it is essential you understand that your personal opinions are irrelevant.
• Don't use inflammatory language. Don't use inflammatory language with me, don't use it with anyone.
• With regard to this distinction that concerns you, between "learning disabilities" and "learning difficulties". Bzzzt. Stop.

  Mental health professionals maintain a big book of symptoms and diagnoses. This book is always in a slow state of flux. And the changes made to it are sometimes more based on politics than on science. In the last decade or so homosexuality has been very widely recognized as being part of the normal spectrum - at least in most parts of most western countries. But, decades ago, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disorder.

  Yes, your three UK sources seem to suggest that individuals who would once have been diagnosed as having a "learning disability" would now be diagnosed as having a "learning difficulty", in the UK, today.

  That is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because your 3 external links are all from the UK. And it is irrelevant because Strozier was diagnosed 28 years ago.

  I think I may be a lot older than you are. When I was young "mental retardation" was a term mental health professionals routinely used, with no embarrassment. The term was used even though "retard" was a school-yard taunt. If we were writing about someone my age, who had been diagnosed as "mentally retarded", when they were 8 years old, that would be the term we should use in their article, even though that term is deprecated today. If, for the sake of argument, the PhD thesis advisor of the individual diagnosed as "mentally retarded" later said something like "Joe Bloe's successful completion of a PhD shows their childhood retardation diagnosis was in error", we could quote them. It would not be appropriate for us to editorialize about how unfair or insulting the term "mental retardation" was. Readers interested in the background to the changing meanings of learning disability", "learning difficulty" and "mental retardation" should look for the background in those articles.

  I will note you clearly did not do that. Learning difficulty redirects to learning disability. The very first line of that article clearly states that "learning difficulty" is a UK-specific term. It sure would have saved us both a lot of time if you had checked the article for yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• As to who was qualified to diagnose children with learning disabilities... These disabilities are common. Depending on the time and place these diagnoses were routinely made by experienced frontline teachers. When I was in primary school my mother was a supply teacher, studying part-time to complete her University degree. She had earned her teacher's certificate at a time when a University degree was not required. But all the younger teachers had one, and if she wanted to go full-time, when I was in middle school or high school, it would entitle her to higher pay. While completing that degree she decided to go on and earn a Master degree in Special Education, and work as a specialist for those with learning disabilities. For bureacratic reasons our local Board of Education required her to take the same summer course as all the others who worked with children with learning disabilities. So, at that time, and place, a summer course was all it took for a regular teacher to be considered qualified to diagnose learning disabilities. Would that have held true, in Chicago, in 1995? I dunno. You dunno. So your personal doubts are irrelevant.

  If the Chicago Tribune, instead of writing Stozier's grandmother said she had been diagnosed as having a learning disability had instead written that Kid Rock said he believed the Earth was flat, we should accurately reflect what they wrote, without adding our personal opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So talking of diagnoses, my initial one was correct. You are the worst type of Wikilawyer, and have far more interest in whether you are able to claim that you are sticking within policies than you are in trying to make informative communication to the reader. Your intransigence means there is clearly no point in me trying to follow this any further: have your shitty misleading article anyway you want it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, hope you're well. Please avoid the edit-warring at Ben Hermans. There is this discussion at WT:CYC for further input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not remove anything. I simply replied to some comments in the talk page. --Pesqara (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you point to me when and where exactly I removed comments from their signature? --Pesqara (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, I did not notice that was a single comment. --Pesqara (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sergey Renev, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dr42 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sergey Renev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Renev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ofc he was representing Germany, that was a World Championships
• Watopia is not a real place, as nothing is real in online cycling, but was the official "location" acording to the UCI and Zwift

https://www.uci.org/cycling-esports/uci-cycling-esports-world-championships https://www.zwift.com/news/24263-uci-cycling-esports-world-championships-results?__znl=en-eu

@Sebas1953: A place that does not exist cannot be the geographical location of an event. Unless you can find evidence that he was selected by the German cycling federation to represent them, he was riding on his own behalf and no-one else's. Please remember to sign your posts. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: Official posts from german cycling federation: https://www.facebook.com/bunddeutscherradfahrer/posts/3468837106548482 https://www.instagram.com/p/CIkr_uHHtGa/. The other problem of the location is merely conceptual: it is an online race without any geographical location, the location is virtual. Look all the UCI official posts: what they say? WATOPIA (https://www.uci.org/news/2020/moolman-pasio-and-osborne-make-history-in-watopia). It is just open the mind to a new concept. Sebas1953 (talk)

OK, if there is national federation confirmation I withdraw my objection to that (it's a shame if the loss of dignity and integrity has affected nat feds too, but OK). But I do not accept that a place that does not exist can be a venue. Please do not be arrogantly personal in your comments on my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)