Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 14, 2019

"It took six weeks for most of the bodies to be recovered and the fire to be extinguished." I don't believe I can find anything in the article to say how long it took to put the fires out. Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging SchroCat. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't immediately lay my hands on the source, so I've tweaked slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It now asserts that the fires were extinguished by 6 weeks before the 220th(the median) body was recovered. That certainly does not tally with the text. More than half the bodies were recovered by 17th Nov (36 days, far nearer 5 weeks than 6) after the explosion. The article gives no date for the fire being extinguished. Kevin McE (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Any reason why 'six weeks' was being preferred when it did not tally with the dates, but now that we know it was 5 weeks, 'several weeks' is preferred instead? Kevin McE (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm giving it a tiny bit of wiggle room, rather than trying to be over precise; it's no big deal. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need wriggle room: we know the dates. Frankly, you seem determined to not allow any change or improvement I am suggesting across a number of blurbs, and are acting more out of vendetta than desire to improve the accuracy and language of the project. I trust that that is not typical of your conduct, but seems to describe it at the moment.

You repeatedly put up versions that gave a specific number of weeks, and when I put the accurate number of weeks, you suddenly, and without explaining your thinking at the time, decided that we need "wriggle room": space for error seems an odd concept to promote in an encyclopaedia when precision is possible. Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the he said/she said crap you keep coming up with, and your battlefield approach which is making life difficult for several people, tell me which dates are you are talking about? - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The same ones as above, and in the first of two rationales in my edit notes that you claimed I hadn't made. 14 Oct and 17 Nov.

I'm sorry to read that you consider referring to your past edits here as crap. Incidentally, what is "Tv idiocy" and how is that consistent with the good faith that you claim to be showing? Kevin McE (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop being a troll Kevin: you're being a huge pain in the arse here and elsewhere, and I suspect a topic ban won't be far off unless you learn to play nice with others and stop being so bloody didactic over everything. As to "crap", again, you're deliberately misrepresenting what is written.

Aside from the fact that 14 Oct to 17 Nov isn't five weeks (close, but not quite), they are the wrong dates to focus on. The recovery and clean up continued after that Rdate, until nearly the end of November: around six weeks. I went to "several", rather than insisting on a fixed time period to allow a little leeway. Reasonable people would have accepted that, but you insist on forcing a point that does not need forcing. We're done here. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is disruptive and tendentious. Knock it off and try not to be so abrasive to everyone who disagrees with you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Again with the ad hominem attacks and the lack of good faith...

The blurb doesn't try to describe the duration of the clear up, but of the time "for most of the bodies to be recovered". There were at least 19 bodies recovered fairly quickly, per description of the crowds at funerals, and more than 200 on the 15 and 16 November, meaning at least 220 bodies, most of the 439, were removed in five weeks. Clear, precise, accurate, encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Pointing out examples of sub standard behaviour is not an ad hominem attack. I will repeat that we are approaching the point of looking at the possibility of a topic ban if the abrasive BATTLEGROUND behaviour approaches. There was nothing wrong with six weeks, nor (possibly) five, or several either. “Several” has a slight advantage of allowing sufficient wiggle room to avoid the pedants who may say it’s not 6 (or 5), it’s 5 or 6 and a half, or x number of days. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the chronology whereby six weeks was ever an accurate representation of the dates given in the article, to justify your claim "There was nothing wrong with six weeks". Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Stop being so aggressive in demanding things from others: it’s nothing more than BATTLEFIELD trolling. The mine was closed for six weeks for recovering the bodies and clearing the mess. It’s not wrong, but “several” is now in place and this nonsense can be closed off. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You won't defend it, because you were wrong and don't have the decency and humility to admit it. What is there now is OK, but it is irrational to have previously wanted a specific number, and now be so ardently in favour of a vague term. But when your main motivation seems to be to reject any proposal I make, it is not surprising that you stray into the irrational. Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve just fucking explained it!!! If you can’t be bothered to read what’s in front of you, there is even less reason to deal with your ridiculous approach. Time for me to piss off, and I suggest you do the same. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No you didn't. I asked you to explain why you thought there was nothing wrong with six weeks: you couldn't. Kevin McE (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I did. It's above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything that suggests 6 weeks to the removal of most bodies. Might it be that you were wrong? Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Don’t remove people’s signatures again please. Take the disruption elsewhere. I have explained all I intend to, which is justified by the text. You can drop the stick or pop it somewhere appropriate, but there is nothing constructive in your approach or comments - that ship sailed a long time ago. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies again: I must have picked it up with the cob code. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)