Talk:CyclingMikey

Name

According to this YouTube video of an interview on ITV's This Morning, his name is Mike Van Erp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYBsBtC_64w - I'm unsure if this would be a suitable source for an addition to be made to the article. 84.92.90.18 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to include it. His name has been published in at least one reliable newspaper article but I don't think he's ever shared it himself which is why I didn't include it. I am wary of the privacy restrictions of WP:BLP and know CyclingMikey has upset quite a few people so may not want to make such personal details public! NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah just had a quick look at the video there and I presume he's okay with his full name being published if he allowed ITV News to use it! Thanks for sharing NemesisAT (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

@TimBB66: why are you assuming he is Zimbabwean? Have you got a source for that? The Guardian states that he is Dutch. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

www.destentor.nl https://www.destentor.nl/auto/deze-nederlandse-fietser-is-de-schrik-van-londense-wegpiraten~a76bf10b5/

Skates place of birth was Zimbabwe. Doesn't speak Dutch, never lived there. Cultivating an image that is cycle friendly might be part of the reason for claiming Dutch nationality TimBB66 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Being born in a country doesn't make you a national of that country. Plus, that source literally says he is Dutch in the title... NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Gandalf's corner

Is this an encyclopedia or a comic?

How come we have a made up name for a road junction in what's meant be a serious source of truth, without any citation? If revised, some fan boy just reverses the edit. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've amended the caption to better reflect what Gandalf Corner refers to. I don't see an issue with the second use of it - do you have any suggestions for a better way to put this? Also - just a reminder of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith expectations for engaging with other editors. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree this a reasonable description of what it refers to, thanks Vladimir.copic. Bellowhead678 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, you could just put "map of Regents park". Or better still have no map at all.

There is no need to reference "Gandalfs corner". Made up nicknames for places which have no common usage in the English language are hardly encyclopedic. However, the subject matter on this page is incredibly thin, so I guess trivia has to be inserted to flesh it out a bit to avoid obvious notability issues. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Gandalf's corner" does have common usage, certainly among the cycling community on social media. I'm not sure if the junction has an official name but many people now refer to it as "Gandalf's corner", and it's very much associated with Mikey so it's right that it's mentioned in this article. WaggersTALK 12:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

wikipedia editors' continuous deletion of article edits:

- disputes about nationality of YouTuber

- status as "Britain's most hated cyclist" in The Times newspaper, considered to be one of the UK most reliable and neutral newspaper sources while partisan cycling website links remain

- deleting edits which restore or edit maps of non-existent places

- complete deletion of contentious moral and ethical implications of YouTuber's activities 92.40.219.70 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

His nationality is undisputed and well referenced. I agree that a "criticism" section, possibly referencing that Times article, might be a sensible addition - it's a surprisingly tabloid headline for what's supposedly a serious paper though and it's fairly obvious there's no evidence to back up the "most hated" title. But certainly some of Van Erp's activities have been publicly questioned and criticised, as has the whole area of citizen-powered policing, although that's obviously a different topic. The map adds useful context to the article, there's nothing non-neutral about that. WaggersTALK 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Real Name

Micheal Alexander Johan Van Erp. 2A02:C7C:DAA9:5C00:25A6:8B1A:102:FF0 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed. WaggersTALK 12:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of summary 2nd paragraph

The 2nd paragraph discussing CyclingMikey’s running of a red light is clearly biased in its framing. much more balanced and accurate wording for it would be: “He later released a video of himself inadvertently running a red light in Belgravia, London in April 2024, stating "It's my mistake, I hold my hands up, I'm at fault there. […] I missed that the other two traffic lights were still red.” He also stated “If the police prosecute me, so what? I'll pay the fine, you're not going to see me complaining."”

The way it’s currently written is clearly attempting to paint him in a worse light (i.e. that he didn’t care that he’d done by with the clipping of the quote) and wrongly states that he inadvertently released the video, whereas it was the entirety of that video showing and talking about the mistake. GallumphingHippodrome (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to be bold and make that change. WaggersTALK 12:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@BOOBOOBEAKER: Given that you've already been blocked for edit warring on this very page before, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss your edits here before reverting and marking them as "minor". With your edit, "In April 2024, Van Erp released a video of himself running a red light in Belgravia, London, despite filming there on numerous occasions previously.", anything after "despite" is clearly not neutral. I don't mind dropping the "inadvertently", but adding the "despite" is not helping. FozzieHey (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I was just being bold, as the previous poster was. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to be bold after discussing the issue on the talk page. Reverting a bold edit and then not wanting to discuss the content of the edit further is not being bold. Do you agree that adding "despite" is not neutral? FozzieHey (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Be bold article I've linked to states "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it."

I understand your opinion, but I was simply following the Wikipedia standards. Happy to remove the word "despite". BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure you can apply "be bold" to reverting the bold edit, or surely the Talk page wouldn't need to exist at all? I appreciate you changing your mind on the neutrality though. FozzieHey (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@BOOBOOBEAKER is clearly acting in bad faith here in an attempt to paint the article’s subject in as bad a light as they think they can get away with. The video uploaded clearly shows it being inadvertent, and the “despite” part is used to attempt to pass judgement in readers’ minds without full context. GallumphingHippodrome (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that it's fairly obvious it was inadvertent, or why would he upload the video if it wasn't? To avoid any WP:OR though, I'm willing to drop the "inadvertent" if it makes others happy. FozzieHey (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The video doesn't "show" anything of the sort, and as I stated this is an area that he is familiar with.

So as I've already stated I'm happy to remove the wording "despite", but the "inadvertent" is subjective. If someone was writing in bad faith they might speculate that the red light was jumped deliberately for clicks and headlines. That certainly wouldn't be appropriate or neutral, or a belief that I personally subscribe to. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you were the originator of the word “inadvertent” in this sentence when it satisfied your purposes. And as you well know, and is explained in the video, the error was the result of a change of the environment - namely that a different signal had turned to face the direction he came from.

I’m fine with that being removed, but as I said - you added the word originally, just in a misleading place. GallumphingHippodrome (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't know about the policy, but reading the paragraph, I think having the "inadvertent" makes sense. Whether that speaks well or bad about his activism is the readers choice, unlike the hypothetical speculation about it being deliberate. Also, the last quotation marks are missing. Xandru4 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the "despite..." section as agreed here. I've left "inadvertent" out for now but don't object to it being added. However the fact we include the quote immediately afterwards - "it's my mistake" - perhaps is enough to show it was of course inadvertent. WaggersTALK 09:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)