User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2008

26th Regiment Royal Artillery Association

Thanks for the note. You are correct, notability is not a speedy deletion criterion, but not asserting importance/significance is, which the article did not. Its ability to be able to establish significance is a little compromised when the article stated "Hopefully, this site will reach people in all parts of the world that either serve or have served in 26 Regiment Royal Artillery, whatever their cap badge might have been." This reads as promotion/advertising to me and not a sign of a important/significant organisation. I will pass on to the tagging editor your concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was correct to delete, the concern was the possibility the tag was being placed for notability. The 'hopefully' comment I think was referring to their website, I hope anyway. Thanks MickMacNee (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag seems perfectly fine to me. I originally used a db-nn, but I wanted something more specific, so that's why I went with what I used. There were no claims of notability, which is always a speedy deletion criterion, and old soldiers' alumni associations would have had to do something mighty special to get kept. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issue to my mind is the implication that you unilateraly decided the subject is not notable and phrased it as such, rather than stating that the CSD criteria of claims of importance or significance had not been met. Rememeber this was a new editor who probably doesn't know the subtle difference between the two and think that's that, article denied. Plus it appeared (although the history was deleted before I could be sure) that you had made no attempt to establish notability before placing the tag, irrespective of how unlikely the association was going to have notability. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory, there is no requirement that a tagger try to establish notability, the article needs to assert notability at the time of the tagging. In practice, I generally will look something up before tagging, but like I said, there was nothing to make this notable tht I could see. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Semi-protection is usually reserved for high rates of vandalism. If it is one user, warn him and report to WP:AIV. In terms of quantifying it, usually 10 or 20 in a day (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Gladiators&action=history this history for example). Sometimes long-term cases where there are 5 or 6 pieces of vandalism by ips every day for weeks are protected. Pages linked on the main page get lots of vandalism yet aren't protected. I know it can be discouraging but sadly it it the nature of wikipedia. Keep it in your watchlist and revert it when it comes. Woody (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The London Eye in popular culture

An editor has nominated The London Eye in popular culture, 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/The London Eye in popular culture 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) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The article needs a verifiable reliable source not the disambig page. I asked for a source at Air Jordan days ago and it was not forthcoming but that is where you need to edit in order to include this ont he disambig page. What have you got against Jordans anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The village is called Jordans not Jordans, Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshiore would only be used if there were 2 places called Jordans. Please stop trying to prove a point. What is it exactly you have against Jordans. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jordans Bristol (company)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Jordans Bristol (company), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Robson + See also

Hey Mick, just wanted to explain that Bobby Robson is currently a featured article and as such adding new sections needs serious consideration. In my opinion the See also section is absolutely unnecessary as you now have a category for UEFA Cup winning managers and the See also would link to the same article. As per my edit summary, the See also could contain FA Cup winning managers, Portuguese cup winning managers, etc etc, but all those articles are already linked to. Hope you understand why I've removed that section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that's exagerating the case to prove a point, there would not be that many entries in a see also section, as per the indiscriminate information policy. Readers new to WP need as much help in finding related articles as possible, I don't think it takes anything away from the article to have a See also section included, which is a standard section which readers probably expect to find in a TOC, and I don't agree with the position that methods of linking should be mutually exclusive, in the same sense that lists and categories can include the same information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, to find the category or succession box, you have to scroll past 3 pages of references, which the see also would normally be above. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not making a point at all. At what point is saying that there are lists of all sorts of managerial successes that could be added to all managers making a point? I just believe that "See also" sections are a waste of time and really don't belong in biographical articles. Anything of relevance will be wiki-linked in the article and adding See also for the sake of it is as dangerous as bloating out the external links section. You've already added a category (which some may consider over-categorisation) so that should be enough. The argument that scrolling past 3 pages of references is too difficult is nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See also sections are a waste of time? What a spectacular dismissal of standard article structure. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps a bit extreme of me. Well, all I'm saying is that you already have a link to the article in question. Also, this article has been subject to extreme scrutiny by the community for it to get to FA status, no-one thought a See also section was required. So, I guess what I'm saying is that it's not just me saying a See also section isn't needed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I question the purpose of standard templates in the face of obvious collective laxity. It's a simple section of aid to the average reader in nearly all other articles, which surprisingly also have mutliple other internal links and categories, which is of course how WP works. It may surprise you being a WP veteran but I didn't fully understand categories from the start of reading WP, and they are just that, categories, they offer nothing in the way of explanation of the subject that an article does. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my response on the Robson talk page (quite why we're having two parallel discussion threads I know not) - where does the "See also" trend end? You have a link to the UEFA Cup winning mangers page a couple of times as it stands, without needing a list of Robson's attributes in a "See also" section. A category is a blue wiklink just like all other blue wiklinks. I fail to believe that a passing reader will look for Bobby Robson then expect to see an explicit link to your list. You added a sucbox which is more relevant (who won it before and after) and also links to the list. Come on, it's enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger talk page

Please take a look at Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. "Useless comments" isn't a listed reason, and if it were, beside being just your opinion, we'd have to remove a lot more than that. Pairadox (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this person really dead? Yes he is. If you think that is a valid talk page entry, you are mad. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the above comment about an editor;

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid masquerading as a third person placing warnings about attacks on yourself don't really make me change my opinion of your mental state. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Masquerading?" Perhaps you're unfamiliar with standard warning templates? Pairadox (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of standard templates. Are you aware you can type warnings yourself and don't need a template in such a situation? Welcome to Wikipedia was enough to make me giggle, let alone the third person usage. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

None of which is germaine to the fact that "If you think x, you are mad" is a breach of WP:NPA. Pairadox (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Go and waste somone else's time please. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you think civility, a Wikipedia policy, is a waste of time. Pairadox (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In this situation, I rank common sense higher. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bristo Bay

An editor has nominated Bristo Bay, 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/Bristo Bay 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) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bristo Camino

An editor has nominated Bristo Camino, 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/Bristo Camino 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) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Defunct clubs category

Yeah, you're right, sorry, I'll fix that. BanRay 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated two articles you created for deletion

Just a note - I put up the articles Bristo Bay and Bristo Camino for deletion. You can view the respective AFD discussions here and here. The primary reason is notability, the only basis for these articles is the movie and film itself and they certainly don't warrant their own articles. Gwynand (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Entertainers (NUFC)

An editor has nominated The Entertainers (NUFC), 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/The Entertainers (NUFC) 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) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your comments and understand your frustration. What would you say if the AfD could be closed for a pre-set time and then, if necessary, reopened? How long do you think you would need to reformat it as you suggest? I guess the reformatting wouldn't need to be complete for editors to see what shape it was going to emerge in. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while we disagree on the way the AFD is going, I agree that the AFD tagging was premature. However there's no time limit on this and if the debate keeps going then the AFD won't be closed. The time should be used to enhance the article from its current draft state. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is temp suspension allowed? I don't particulalry have a draft in mind, (except the one mentioned about a footnote timeline). I would more appreciate the chance to have the separate merge, notability, verifiability concerns, established, debated and concluded in talk (with a longer time limit than 5 days), which in my experience involves the proposition of many proposed drafts from the author and others. To move that process along if done, I think it would need listing in Rfc? maybe. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the AFD can be suspended, I've never seen that done unless the originator withdraws the request. The other thing you could do to get around this is to ask for any potential deletion to be carried out without prejudice under the premise that you may wish to recreate it again with the concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking of suspending, but an admin could close the AfD and then open it again x days later, which would be better if done with the nominator's approval. However, the kind of timelines you're talking about are way too long to my mind. What if the closing admin simply userfied it, so you can work on the article and consensus at your leisure? Userfying comes with no time limit, though it's not something that can be abused... eventually it'd have to be deleted or moved back into mainspace. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

btw you might like to see an article that was improved whilst AfD discussion was ongoing, so that contributors felt comfortable opting for keep, when initially it was going to be binned: Bayern Munich v Norwich City --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a suggestion MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i just closed the AfD and followed your suggestion. A copy of the deleted material can be found here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments at the AfD

I strongly urge you to revert yourself or delete some of the heated language you used. I know AfDs can be stressful but honestly it doesn't help your case and simply makes you look bad. --Dweller (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Entertainers

If you want to create the Entertainers article in your sandbox to work on it in your userspace, simply go to

[[1]]

Or anything else instead of Sandbox for that matter and copy and past the current article in there. Sorry for all the malarkey at AFD but, putting any differences aside, the least I can do is try help out. I'm not here to delete this, that and the other on my own POV. I still don't believe it is encyclopedic, but I'm only one person here. So there's my help. Peanut4 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already have one. I would have done that, but the Afd needs to be closed without prejudice to allow the same article to be recreated when I finish editing it in sandbox, and if it's just me doing it I want more than 4 days to do it. This is why Afd is so disruptive, it sets in motion an unstoppable process that stifles improvement and puts undue pressure on keepers, because deletion is so much easier to do in borderline cases. I agree the article has issues, but there used to be as I can see from essays, a culture of create and improve on WP, which is changing to create and delete. No-one can create the perfect article first time. There is also an essay out there about why encyclopedic should never be quoted in an Afd, and this is a classic case I feel. So, if you agree, I believe you can put in the Afd for it to be closed early without prejudice. I'm not entirely sure because past Afd's of mine (which amount to about 4 out of hundreds) I've just given up as it's not worth the hassle. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for it to be done at ANI MickMacNee (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Userfication should be pretty much a given since you've requested it; it's not uncommon and pretty uncontroversial. If for some reason the closing admin doesn't take care of it you can ask any on this list. One thing I hope you do is to start a discussion about the contents of this on the Project page; with the support of the Project, this AfD would be turning out very differently and could have even been prevented. Just a suggestion, and hopefully something you'll keep in mind for future articles. Pairadox (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bear Grylls Survivor world map.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bear Grylls Survivor world map.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bristo Bay

An editor has nominated Bristo Bay, 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/Bristo Bay 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) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Woking Bustler

A tag has been placed on Woking Bustler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I redirected the page, and I don't think you will have any objection with that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't my creation, I was trying to separate the original Bustler article into the two different subjects it contained, the Woking Bustler title has nothing to do with National Welsh MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bustler. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd

A tag has been placed on National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done], because the article is a repeat of Bustler. deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Robson talk page

Me:this is a continuation of [[2]]

I've replied at the article talk page. I think your start point is reasonable but the argument's become a little heated and some extreme positions seem to be being taken by people (including yourself) that they didn't originally intend. Please reply at the article talk - I'll be watching. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts vis Betacommandbot

I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts re the ridiculous betacommandbot. I am now one of those relatively infrequent editors who won't bother uploading images because of him/her/it?. I also suspect that after I complained once, the bot must have then trawled all my previous uploads and tagged most. I uploaded the self made versions of Australian Army World War Two colour patches (logos) in the Australian Commandos article. This is how Australians identify with the individual units and is really an essential part of the article. Now they will all dissappear on 19 Feb according to "it". Anyway keep up the fight and thanks again. Krait (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL thanks!. If they are self made though, i.e. you made them in paint?, then you can release them as own work public domain I think. If not, let me know where you uploaded them from and I'll do the tags for you, they improve the article, it isnt that hard when you know what's required (I've ended up learning during the fight lol). My issue is not the tagging or the policy (although it's a nightmare to understand, it's the sheer tidal wave way the bot is being operating, I don't think it's intelligent to be able to target all your uploads, I think it's just the sheer number of the last run (>15,000tags) probably caught them all. It's also not fair that so many previously acceptable images are being tagged because the policy changed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add my thanks. I don't upload images, but I've seen the destruction and irritation this bot has caused in the last few days alone. Enigma (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to give up, common sense will never prevail. Editors have pleaded with Betacommand to make his bot follow the redirect when someone has simply moved the page (without changing the precise pagename in every fair-use rationale on the article) but nothing changes. Some people are committed deletionists and the bot gives them a great big list of images to delete every time it does a run of 15k+. English peasant 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh so I'm not alone, Betacommandbot is ridiculous and now i'm being censored for a userbox expressing this opinion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin. Is it not obvious that it is impossible to write a bot with the intelligence to consider whether something is fair use or not. Google would dream to have an AI that good.. --Bleveret (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of users who have problems with this bot. Complaints have been numerous. Unfortunately, the bot has been allowed to run rampant for the most part. Enigma ^msg! 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mick - I did make them for a history presentation I gave at the Commando Unit I served in in 2001-2003. Most have now gone and I need to look for the old CD I had them saved on so I can upload. I have seen similar with the Australian PD template and have put this on the few remaining in the vain hope betacommand doesn't find them for a while. Cheers Krait (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, didn't think about the fact the govt. might own the copyright. MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of Geordie

Excuse me but you don't seem to understand, the article geordie has a number of people in it which are claimed to be "geordies", and these may be backed up by citations, but since geordie is a dialect and a local nickname for the people Newcastle Upon tyne, no source for this kind of subject can ever be accurate. As many people from the region of North East England are mistaken for geordies by outer sources who do not understand the regional nicknames of the Northeast, calling the people geordies who aren't, hence why situations like this occur, and many of these people who are in the article geordie, come from the Wearside area, which has its own dialect and nickname called Mackem (which is a completely different thing) and many people who are on the list of notable geordies at the same time are on the list of notable mackems "hence why it can never be accurate", this makes things difficult and confusing on wikipedia and hence no sources for this subject are reliable, I am offended by the content of the article, I personally think wikipedia would be better off without these "notable geordies" and "notable mackems" sections due to the lack of WP:V. You can't use news sources which mis-understand the dialect as accurate sources, play fair.86.150.252.106 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it?

• Heather Mills- born in the south, brought up in Washington, tyne and wear, which is wearside, and covered by the term mackem, is a geordie? she's not, use your common sense.

• This is being addressed elsewhere, I'm not continuing the discussion in different places. You already have enough information on the issue from me. I suggest you re-post the above on the article talk page before continuing to disrupt the article. I will not continue what is a content dispute on my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has not reverted since I warned them, and thus I have given them a pass. Gregs the bunny DID revert, and so he was blocked. That was the reason for the discrepancy. I have watchlisted the article. If the problems continue, I will issue protection on the article until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Top Buses

Hi Mick, thank you for your efforts in tidying my contribution - in particular it makes good sense to put most of the photos into a gallery (although your expression "image carpet bombing" could be construed as intimidatory). I do have a quibble, however, with your deletion of the section on Regular open-top services. I believe that (at least) the paragraph

• Open-top buses are employed on regular timetabled stage-carriage services at many scenic locations in the United Kingdom, especially at the coast. Generally these run during the "summer season" which is usually from Easter until September, and may be replaced by closed vehicles during inclement weather. They are often "sea-front" services in urban coastal resorts, but some are longer distance services which provide the best possible views of the scenery.

should be retained to give an idea of the most usual current type of use of these vehicles.

The use of examples is, admittedly, biased towards southern England, but it provides a clearer picture of some classic bus rides which almost warrant an article in their own right. Without those examples, users will not be inspired to include their own examples from elsewhere (which would enrich the article significantly). I realise that you created the article and may wish to see it retained in more or less the same format that you originally envisaged, but that isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, is it? By the way, where was there any inclusion of a "timetable" as referred to in your edit summary?

Sorry if this sounds a bit terse, but I feel just as strongly about inclusion of my contribution as you feel about deleting it (and deleting it requires a lot less thought and is a lot less time consuming than being constructive). Weydonian (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, no probs at all, but I would say that you should remember WP is targetted at a global audience (admittedly English speakers), so as it was it seemed too UK centric. Rest assured I know where you are coming from, but in my experience, general articles such as this need to be as neutral and unbiased as possible, or, if it gets to the stage of regional examples, un-biased. There are editors in WP who patrol and tag any article too skewed towards a particular country where it is not warranted (not me I might add, please think of my edits as preventative through experience). There may be a case that these sorts of services only exist in the UK, for climate reasons or whatever, I was struggling to think of others as I editted (California?), if that is the case, there may actually be a case for a new article, or inclusion in a tourism in britain type article. I am totally not against the text (although there are policies against WP being a tourist guide or timetable, which the info borders on: think what happens in a year's time when we have gone elsewhere and someone reads this article, it might be completely irrelevant by then). On the image comment, it was meant to be light-hearted, but again, for me there is a learned precedent behind it, images are not meant to be the overwhelming articles from the out-set, and the thumb format allows one click expansion if the reader requires to look in detail, so again, don't take that as a malicious edits just because of the subject, you will see that is not my bag from my previous edits if you look back far enough. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. reading back again, please feel free to start a UK centric tourist bus type article, I will support you in it whatever happens. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My AN/I Comment

I've responded to your post on my talkpage. I like the 'royal wiki finger' comment! Its pretty funny, I'll use it again if I remember. Avruch ^T 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

replied MickMacNee (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Gotta run, so just a quick note to say thanks for your interjection - it helped!! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Geordie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. , what you don't seem to understand is to use the talk page and you can't accuse me of being a sock as an excuse to revert, and "you believing you are right" does not excuse you from 3rr. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite simply, unbelievable. You have to laugh sometimes I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock, and the version will be left at the sysop version until concensus is done on the talkpage, the references are invalid because there is no definition for the term itself therefore you can't define who is a geordie, Gregs the baker is pretty ignorant and so are you. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It gets better... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just wow isn't it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to revert any further, you can re-revert back to your "right" version, but then you face 3RR, you are gregs the baker don't seem to understand just because you think you are "right" you can win an edit war, all this was explained on greg's talk page by the blocking admin. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't think we are right, we are editing as per wikipedia policies. I would point them out to you, and the reasons why you are wrong, but as you and I know, that has already been done time and again. Only one person here is unable to build a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[3] MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about ZogontheTyne. I've been speechless and astounded since tracking down what he has been up to, (as my dearly departed mum would say, "bless his little cotton socks"), and I've only just gotten to the point where you were 3 hours ago. Yes, wow. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear Grylls

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Eh? I have never met Grylls, I have never served in the Armed Forces. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring on Bear Grylls, and also blocked the IP editor in such a way that he can't log in anymore. In the future, please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. east.718 at 19:29, February 17, 2008

Mick, five reverts in a short space of time. This is inevitable. You know of WP:3RR, don't you? I know it's frustrating but you've got to play the game... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

heads up

Since you so gladly asked for more communication and want to assist in helping fix images that BCBot identifies as failing WP:NFCC, I am going to have the bot notify you when it tags an image. β^_command 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

yay, more carpet-bombing of talk pages. Plus, Mick just got a block, so he won't be able to fix things for a period of time anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is serious abuse, what the bot just did. Enigma ^msg! 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI report. See below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (Betacommandbot and MickMacNee talk page)

This needs to go on the record. I've started an ANI thread here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page was unfortunately used for disruption; you can find the offending material here. east.718 at 13:43, February 18, 2008

I saw it, thanks. I find it rather amusing that that is his method of consensus building. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

you stated FUR's that contain redirected links are valid but not readable by BCB. Tagging these images as non-compliant is against policy., but that also is not true BCBot does follow redirects. β^_command 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly true in the case of db pages and the litten thing.MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

those are not redirects, and thus not valid. so your comments is not correct. β^_command 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NX

I assumed it was uncontroversial as it was up for nearly a week. Maybe a new article should be created integrating many brands so National Express UK. Companies all over the UK are being rebranded by National Express. I have not removed this from WP:RM so feel free to move it back or at least carry on the discussion. The alternative name which i originally gave was National Express (bus company). I still think National Express should redirect to National Express Group. Simply south (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I literally started looking into it again prompted by the recent hat edit. I was also considering relisting the RM. I am up for further discussion at Talk:National_Express_Coaches#Requested_move. I will revert the basic moves to keep the current context for discussion, and make new proposals. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about it I'm going to start this discussion at the National Express Group talk page as that page is the least likely one to change name. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've retagged, reopened and relisted. Simply south (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a new hobby

Your constant prodding of Betacommand is getting old now. We've already established that a lot of your claims are not accurate and your approach leaves much to be desired. Running to AN/I every other day with Betacommand on your mind is seriously inappropriate. Ease up. Nothing constructive is coming from it. You're baiting him into losing his cool while making yourself look bad. Go find something else to do. Wikipedia is VAST, I'm sure you can find a project. Lara❤Love 08:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Lower Manhattan

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Lower Manhattan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--David Shankbone 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Again another pointless warning from an editor involved in the actual war. What is the point, seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one does wonder what is the point: you go to Table dance and dislike the photo, you nominate the article for deletion, then you go to every page where that photo is located, Lower Manhattan and Meatpacking District, articles you have never cared about before, and you get involved in edit wars on both to remove the photograph. Seriously, what is this point? --David Shankbone 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What policy says I can't do that? An irrelevant image is an irrelevant image, however many times it is re-used. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors such as yourself tend to burn out quickly. You end up pissing enough people off, not caring anything about the "work together" spirit that is required to successfully edit Wikipedia, and you eventually get blocked, banned, or you storm off. I'm not going to edit war with you. I have patience --David Shankbone 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the advice, I seem to recall you "leaving" WP once already. Working together is not 2 people argueing, by the way. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Meatpacking District

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Meatpacking District, Manhattan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --David Shankbone 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See above. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to know which article you are referring to. MickMacNee (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand‎, regarding the MfD notice. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)^

6RR

You now have a choice. I could've blocked you both, but I am going to unprotect this page now. One more revert and you get a holiday. I have left a similar message for Betacommand. Black Kite 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute was not of my making, it is clear what betacommand wants to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent DRV

Hello. I was the admin who closed the MfD and redirected the pages to the Administrators' noticeboard subpages. I would really have preferred that you had tried to contact me rather than simply trying to reverse my "deletion," mostly because I would have explained that I didn't delete anything at all. Everything is still available in the page history, not a single revision has been lost. There is no way for any admin to "vanish" revisions, we delete them sometimes, but even then, they're not really gone. Here is the revision of the page before I redirected. So... would you mind if I closed the DRV? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the discussion has been 'dissappeared', without any clear commitment to that outcome, so no, I do not want it closed. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving would have been better than a protected redirect. Discussion needs to be archived. There is lots of useful discussion there that will not be found by anyone in a few months time, let alone next year. If you think of it as an RfC in the wrong venue, RfCs are not turned into protected redirects, well, not usually. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Throw down the tiara and step away from the babysitter

152.91.9.144

I'm giving you a Wikipedia:Yellow Card. Regardless of your intentions, or how you present them, your continued input is being seen in some quarters as disruptive or harrasing. The ritualistic "shooting of the messenger" has begun. A key wiki-skill is trusting other users to do the right thing in your stead. It might be best if you took all these BC-related pages off your watch list for a little while.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I do hope you can seperate my request from the, uhh, more pointed one below. Secondly, I repeat that I beleive that at this point your well past where you're doing any good. Carth. is doing a great job at pressing forward and is attracting less heat. Have some faith in his (and others) abilites to get a positive outcome. (I say this will the knowledge that in all the times I've asked other people to back away slowly, only one (Splash) ever took my advice.)
152.91.9.144 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I think I may have made a UTC conversion mistake, and that you might actually have already taken my (and Ef F's) advice. If so, please just trout-slap me and move on. Sorry. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove

MickMacNee, if you don't stop making false statements and spreading misinformation, information which has already been pointed out as inaccurate,[4] you risk being blocked. Patience is running thin. Lara❤Love 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is innacurate in that statement? Enlighten me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How does the tag placed on newbie uploaders pages help when it's full of technical terms and contains no links to an FAQ designed to meet the repeat questions

The tags left on the talk pages, as pointed out in detail on that page, make it explicitly clear what the problem is and what needs to be done to fix it.

BCB's talk page and his 17-point 'why it's not my fault' box

We've been over this already. It's 10 points. This exaggeration is done to purposefully disrupt.

relying on the copydesks goodwill to answer the same quesions day after day after day who even had to set up a separate board to deal with the questions

We've been over this before too. Everyone is here on a volunteer basis. You are pointlessly attempting to place all of the burden on Betacommand. Those of us who help at the image desks do so because we want to. Many BCB questions aren't really about the bot at all. And there is a FAQ now, so we'll see how much that helps. Regardless, Betacommand shouldn't have to answer the same questions day after day either. Two years of that bullshit is why he's snippy with people like you, who are too lazy (see below) to take care of problems, too lazy to do your research and too lazy to get your facts straight before launching a campaign against him and his bot in the form of a "proposal" full of misinformation and ignorance.

I've seen plenty tagged articles with marginal subjects that would get no attention within the 7 day limit

That's not Betacommand's fault.

in my and other editors cases, seeing 15 tagged articles of this type occur in the same day in your watchlist, you lose the will to even start to help

That's not Betacommand's fautl either. You're too lazy to fix the problems. How is that his fault? You've got the time and will to create a waste of server space to attack him and his bot, but you can't spend an hour fixing some bad uploads of precious legacy images that you so passionately adore?

As per usual, your posts are non-productive, repetitive, off-topic and contain mis-information. You pound the same problems into the page over and over while never offering a way to improve said problems. Your hypocritical criticisms of Betacommand's responses coupled with all of the above is what I and others are talking about. Lara❤Love 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Off_topic_comments_.28failed_discussion_threads.29 Also unhelpful. Lara❤Love 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Yet again you can't even see the difference bewtween his talk page and the bot's page, (it is 17), and completely can't separate comments about the bot and him, or separate suggestions from impreovement from attacks. How is it my fault he's had to take crap for 2 years? In your own words, that's nothing to do with me, and as everyone but you can see, absolves him of nothing in terms of lack of AGF or adherence to policy. There is now a FAQ? If it's the one I'm thinking of, its creation owes nothing to him or his participation, and is not linked from his page or anywhere it might be useful to someone looking at a tagged image, check if you need to: [5], so he deserves no credit for it. If you have spent the time fixing the images in the way the bots presents them to you, more fool you, some of us are intelligent enough to see it can be done better and more efficiently, if one of the links in the chain was actually receptive. If you think answering the same questions day in day out on the help desk is the only way to deal with reactions to the bot's runs, then once again, more fool you, again people with a better perspective can see there is an easier way to inform users about betacommandbot's what's/whys and wherefors, bar the 17 point excuse list. What's worse is you don't even see the merit in raising these issues, and the complete hypocrisy in slapping them down when betacommand sees fit not to even contribute to the discussion at all. So, on you go, you don't have the time to waste to be talking to me. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I sit corrected. I did think you were speaking of Beta's talk page and not his bots. Yea, the bots talk page does have 17 points. They detail information and contain answers to some frequently asked questions. IN FACT, I bet that could be turned into a FAQ. How about that? Just add some questions to it... yea. I'll look in to that. Though there is the other FAQ and, regardless of who created it, it's being developed, which is what you wanted, so stop being picky and be glad. As you can't take any credit for it either, past incessant whining I suppose. So you see, MMN, some of your concerns actually are being addressed. We're picking them out of the "bullshit and lies", as it was referred to, and we're addressing them. You're getting the response from everyone that matches the tone you give. Speaking of that, as far as intelligence goes, I don't think you're one to be judging me. Lara❤Love 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara, if he insinuated that you're unintelligent, that's not a reason to fire back with "No, you're the stupid one!" If you feel he's being uncivil, I'm sure you're not alone, but that's not a reason for more incivility. There's already been plenty of it from all sides on the current issue. Enigma ^msg! 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A request for civility

Can I advise to tone your comments down on the Betacommand admin noticeboard page and to other users involved? I've been watching it for the past few days and I've observed that your manner is unnecessarily inflammatory. For example, this is inappropriate, as you were implied that Lara was unintelligent. I strongly advise you as well to research more before posting (see Lara's examples above). Be aware that more unnecessarily inflammatory, uncivl, repeating stuff that obviously isn't true (policy supports that, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS) will result in a block. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out to me these examples of inadequate research, as there are none in that post above? MickMacNee (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the examples above are perfectly valid. Maxim_(talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and will be challenged if necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I am requesting specific examples of inadequate research or deliberate false statements on my part, given the subsequent comments above. MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Swansea Metro

For someone who contributes to a lot of metro related articles, I thought you would have agreed that the Swansea Metro is not a Metro system and it is important to clarify it on the relevant pages. I can see you are notorious for edit wars. Please do not persist in this one or you will be reported to administration and blocked again. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not a sane person in the world that would read that article, then get to the bottom to your sentence and say, wow, thanks for clearing that up. It's completely unneccessary, what next, clarification at the end of Metro (newspaper)? I will add a hatnote line and defend that version in any dispute, to head off confusion in those readers who might be completely confused before they read the first sentence. I am confident there is no third party that could possibly think that sentence in that place is needed at all. Note: you cannot request a block as a resolution of a content dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Metro (Belfast)MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging templates

I think it would be a good idea to merge the template I just created on public transport concept with the pre-existing one Modes of Public Transport. Modes of public transport are concepts, and many people who read the articles in one category would be interested in reading those in the other. The "modes" template is 5 sections long, and the "concepts" one is 4. If they were joined together, this would be a total of 9 sections, most of that contain just one line, so in all, it would not be too badly long.Sebwite (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not overly bothered to be honest, it does create some tenuous associations though, i.e. Metro - > bus ticket. If done, perhaps a rename to just Public Transport linking to the main article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

punitive, rude, retrospective and disruptive block - no warning or even a heads up was given, considering the last relevant edit was made 16 hours ago, and I was clearly working elsewhere at the time the block was made, potentialy leaving that article in a complete nonsensical state

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for revert warring before yet continue, you are in a situation where you know about the revert warring policies, so the excuse that you stopped ages ago doesn't work, the fact you continue after a block shows you have not stopped edit warring and it's prudent to block you again until you understand we do not tolerate edit warring and that every time you edit war, you will be blocked. Nick (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

patent nonsense, when it's clear that a block without warning could disrupt wikipedia, which is what blocking for 3RR is actualy for, not retrospective punishment, and is also made with incivility, then it's clearly a bad call. How long after an edit war has been disengaged from must an editor expect punishment without warning? 16 hours? 24 hours? 1 week?

Decline reason:

You have a prior block for the three-revert rule violation. If that was not enough of a warning, then what more warning do you want? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've been blocked for edit warring before and yet you continued. It's not unreasonable to assume you don't wish to adhere to the policy on edit warring and that being the case, blocking you seems entirely within the blocking policy, as well as being a most sensible precaution to take. Instead of trying to rules lawyer over your block, go read the edit warring policies to make sure you never break the 3RR policy again. Alternatively, I'll unblock you now if you agree that if you ever edit war again, you agree to an indefinite block. Choice, choices, choices... Nick (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the policy, hence why I know that in this case it is not to be applied as a retrospective punishment, and is not to be applied at any indeterminate time after the edit war, when it is clear the disrution is not ongoing and the block is likely to be just as disruptive. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it's not a retrospective punishment but a sensible precaution. You've edit warred before, acknowledge that you know the policy, but evidence shows that you are prepared to edit war regardless. That's most certainly ground for a precautionary block. Nick (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the template, you cannot review the same block multiple times merely re-stating your first decline. The fact of the matter is, this is a punishment, the blocking admin made no attempt to establish any of the facts, and left another article in a disrupted state by not even having the decency to inform, contrary to the very disruption to articles that you are claiming it is preventing. There was no disruption for 16 hours by me while editing as normal elsewhere, I am clearly not a rampaging vandal and I engaged in discussion about the issue, the block is clearly a punishment and not preventative. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say, you weren't warned, does that include the what, 65 very recent 3RR - 6RR warnings on your talkpage, from various editors? SQL^{Query me!} 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it refers to this specific block, in this specific situation, much as you really want it not to. I am still waiting for an answer as to how long the period is after the event you can expect a punishment without warning. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You will also note that every single warning above, both the spurious and the deserved, were placed at the time of the dispute, and not 16 hours after the event. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Current bus operators in England

Category:Current bus operators in England, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Ulster banner

The Ulster banner is not the flag of N Ireland, and isn't in use anywhere else on wikipedia to represent N Ireland. It's clear from your talk page that you have some trouble getting along with people here (to say the least), don't make me contact an admin to tell you the exact same thing as me. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be <Great Cornholio>"Are you threatening me?"</Great Cornholio>. Sorry, couldn't resist :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha thats hilarious! Html tag humor and a Beavis and Butt-Head reference in one, genius. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing my work

Just because a section contains a lot of redlinks, doesn't mean its unnotable, and just because you see redlinks and remove them doesn't make you right.. Please understand, Queensland is a state of Australia that is the size of Spain, France, Germany, and Poland combined, and you are reducing the section of the article (List_of_bus_operating_companies#Queensland) to something that just recognises a small area around the capital city. Also, the city of Rockhampton is not a Translink area and does not belong in the Translink section. Central Queensland is about 600km away from that part of the state. aliasd·U·T 13:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And can you please understand that your particular set of redlinks is not justified on geographic area alone, have you seen how big that list was with everyone's redlinks included, with equally large areas covered? If they are notable, create the articles. Otherwise, they fail the WP policies on collections of links, notability, lists, what WP is not, and several others. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflaming discussions

The end of this edit "some sort of super-wiki-editor who is above all others?" is needlessly inflammatory and adds nothing helpful to the discussion. Please don't do this. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous examples to support that statement. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What did it add to the discussion about the bot? Nothing. It was totally unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this already, have you not been watching? Are you seriously going to suggest that bc is not being given continual preferential treatment? Go back a year, two years, you will see the same behaviour, and the same warnings like this to opposers. I can ask you what vandalising my talk page brought to the discussion, I can ask you what his numerous incivil and rude remarks brought, I can ask you what his stalking brought? Would you have an answer? Would you be on his talk page like you are on mine? And finally review the comments that remark followed, and tell me even that one page doesn't support the case bcb is being given an innordinate amount of leeway, to the point of having a proxy bot created to allow him not to be accountable at all. This is all on deaf ears no doubt, but there you go. MickMacNee (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was about creating a new bot. It was not another referendum on BC's conduct. I'm not vandalizing your talk page. Consider this your last warning from me. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? He didn't say you vandalized his talk page. He was referring to when Betacommand used his bot to vandalize this page. Enigma ^msg! 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I notice about half of of the images he was notified about were deleted. It looks like legitimate notification to me. Mr.Z-man 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism because none of those tags were for my images, I never uploaded them, bcb got the bot to tag my page randomly to make a point. MickMacNee (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That was not the consensus viewpoint. Enigma ^msg! 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was that it was vandalism? Unlikely. Mr.Z-man 05:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus was that it was vandalism and a deliberate personal attack. Enigma ^msg! 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of bus operating companies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have reverted three times now on this article. Given your history, a block may turn out to be very serious for you this time. aliasd·U·T 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And just noticed the italics, way to game the system, you must be so proud. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not seen any argument from you yet about why an extensive list of purely red links that has existed for god knows how long without being created is appropriate, and only for Australia, beyond your personal objections at having 'your' work removed. If you realy like scrolling down pages and pages of crap, you're welcome to it, people who know what they're doing know how to do it properly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The content is notable, the article is not written, and your disagreement isn't just with me, I have seen two other users also disagree with your edits in this particular case. Yes the article is too long, but that just means it needs to be split up, content does not need to be haphazardly removed, and as I have pointed out, you are actually introducing factual errors in your edits by removing the context around sections you leave. This isn't about my work personally, but I know the stuff I work on should be there. This is all beside the fact that you are violating WP:3RR, however. I have no problems with cleaning redlinks if the redlinks exist because the subjects are not notable enough to have an article, but you are removing redlinks haphazardly and without any deep thought or regard. You may think that you are being bold, but the way you handle content disputes seems to be with complete disregard for other editor's consensus and complete disrespect for other users that have added the content in the first place. If I were you, I would consider a Wikibreak, I am going out on a limb here a little, but you seem to be completely disenchanted with the community. aliasd·U·T 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing haphazard about it at all, I removed every single red link just to be fair, so atrociously bad that list had become, it included an entire made up country with about 20 companies don't you know?. Do you seriously expect someone to google search every link there before carefully considering removal of every single link? I at least went to the time and effort to fix all the ridiculous db faults in the good links that are inevitably introduced when people leave redlinks for years and someone creates the same article with a different name elsewhere. Like I said, I know what I'm doing here. And I say again, if they are so notable, how long have they been there and why are they not created? There are two-bit companies with 5 buses already created, so why not these what must be huge companies? And if they are huge, removing them from the list hardly makes it less likely that someone will forget they could be created would it, but whatever, game away. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The section I replaced did not contain any made up places or bad information, Notice I didn't do a flat out revert of your edit, it was never my intention to do so. If the article is too long, we can break it up into smaller ones. That is fine. It seems stupid to have all the bus operators in the world on one list on one page anyway. aliasd·U·T 01:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the large company thing without links is concerned, this is Queensland we are talking about... Some parts of the world are just better represented in Wikipedia than others. There just isn't as big an editing community yet in QLD as there is in places like (insert name of some state of the US here). aliasd·U·T 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think spinning out into an Aus list is appropriate, as long term in my experience, if those links stay for a long time, they will attract others, that equally never get created, and we are back to a messy useless list. MickMacNee (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mick, may I commend WP:BRD? It's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, 3RRblock" :)

I don't have a view either way on the substantive question whether you it was a good idea to remove lots of redlinked entries from the list, but you are obviously entitled to make a WP:BOLD edit, and while it's best to leave a note on talk explaining a particularly bold edit like that, it's not compuksory. However, if someone reverts it, then your next step should be to discuss it on the article's talk page, not continue down the path to an edit war. I don't see any discussion of this on Talk:List of bus operating companies, and if there is a disagreement like the one you encountered here, then the talk page should have been your next port of call.

Sure, Betacommand was wrong to stalk you, but by the time BC popped up, you should already have been leaving your talk page edits as reverted, pending the outcome of a civil discussion.

WP:BRD is a particularly useful guideline, because it helps editors deal with disputes in a way which means that they shouldn't end up anywhere near admin intervention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

unblock request: blocking admin has clear COI, and has also false claimed the ban is from editting the ANI/BC page only, which it is not

Technically, according to the block log, the block appears to be about the warning above and not related to WP:AN/B. So, it could be meant as separate from the topic ban of that page. Avruch ^T 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing about a six-hour block. I topic-banned him from a page for six hours. Maxim_(talk) 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that an admin (and I include myself in that) can't actually do that - such things proceed from community consensus. I don't believe, especially in the context of recent events, that such consensus would have been obtained. Orderinchaos 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a 6t day ban from all article space. MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to make a similar statement, with the caveat that it would be a very good idea for this editor to stay well away from any Betacommand-related discussion for the time being, as he seems unable to do so without editing tendentiously. Black Kite 01:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on, Black Kite. Mick started a thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Time_for_an_Rfc_of_Betacommand.3F, in which he advocated an RfC to consider BC's conduct. You may disagree with that suggestion, but I have never before seen an editor warned that asking whether setting out concerns with an editor's conduct and asking there is support for opening an RfC is "editing tendentiously". Mick has legimitimate concerns with BC's conduct, and should not be sanctioned for expressing those concerns, so long as he does so civilly, and only one of his comments in that section appeared in any way uncivil.[6] I would have no prob with a civility warning for that if it was done in a a balanced way, but there is something very unplesanatly partisan going on when Betacomnand gets a barnstar[7] for calling another editor "bullshit" and "dumbass" but Mick gets accused of editing tendentiously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The dispute between the two goes on longer than that. Both should be cautioned to stay away from each other, because it's tedious and timewasting. Black Kite 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ord. For the record, I did not break 3RR on the above warning, and in actual fact, that dispute is the article that betacommand decided he would just pop by and revert me tonight for some bizarre reason, plus maxim previously made an unfounded and unretracted block threat toward me regarding betacommand, based on accusations later proven wrong User_talk:MickMacNee#A_request_for_civility. So I guess we know where maxim stands. MickMacNee (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd note my warning wasn't about 3RR - it related more to conduct generally. The matters related to Betacommand are being sorted out by the community anyway, and if it does go to ArbCom, you'll be free to make a statement to it. In the meantime, some things being said might allow a future case to be derailed or turned into a list of accusations against you and/or others who have criticised BC (I'm thinking particularly of User:Badagnani and his rather strange conduct last night which somewhat diluted - rather heavily actually - the correctness of much of what he had to say). I'd suggest that giving such a case more diffs/evidence is probably unwise, as ArbCom in the past have felt free to rule on the behaviour of disputants or place enforceable restrictions on them even in cases where they've come down hard on the original target of the action. As for other matters, just don't get into edit wars, not only are they lame (and I say that having been in a few, which on reflection I have come to regret, as they achieved precisely nothing), but they also stir up unnecessary passion when the matters could often be solved by discussion. I note that my past experiences with Aliasd have been entirely positive and you're best trying to work with good faith editors to find solutions to situations. Orderinchaos 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as not breaching 3RR, you did revert three times within 24 hours. Its clear there in the history, is there something I am missing here? aliasd·U·T 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FTR, I've looked at the specific situation and agree with Aliasd's edits - those towns and companies all exist, and are distinct entities, so there's no reason for them to be removed. Rockhampton is not especially different to any other large town in Queensland, and Cairns and Townsville are somewhat larger in size and passenger loads. However, if you present a rationale for the changes on the talk page, I'm sure we can hammer it out. Orderinchaos 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't target Aus, I did the whole thing, look at the previous version, it was a complete mess. It surely shouldn't that hard to get these links up to stub class if they really are that big (which I never disputed). MickMacNee (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't flat out revert your edit, I just replaced a small section of the article that I knew was OK. You then began reverting me. I had no reason to believe you would even have a problem with my edit. aliasd·U·T 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lothian_950.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lothian_950.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lothian_129.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lothian_129.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Busways_838.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Busways_838.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lothian_275.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lothian_275.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bedford_JJL.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bedford_JJL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Me and Betacommand

Saw your groundless accusation and thought I'd show you how silly it is. Have a look at User:Hammersoft/Yawn, which shows Betacommand's and my contributions from 00:00 6 March 2008 through now, joined together. You'll note that if we use 10 minutes as the cutoff, I would have had to flip-flop back and forth between Betacommand and Hammersoft 19 times over just the last two days. If we us 5 minutes, it's 12 times. Heck, I even edited once from each account within the same minute! [8][9] Damned elaborate attempt at covering my tracks. You're on to me! I better get better at hiding! :) Any other baseless accusations you'd like to make? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't remotely serious, I just found myself thinking recently if you and him weren't some kind of jekyll and hyde split personality. It falls down though as bc is frequently jekyll like anyway. (Nothing to stop you one/two having two PC's side by side by the way). MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're awfully rude for picking on my psychological disorders. And how many PCs I operate is my business and my business alone! <laugh> Enough with the silly accusations. It was bad enough you thought I was BC. Now you accuse me of split personality disorder and mischievously operating two PCs to cover my tracks. Wow. I mean WOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked you for a week for unnecessarily inflaming discussions (the accusation of sockpuppetry noted above). I warned you about this yesterday, yet you still continued. You say it it wasn't serious. If that was the case, you shouldn't have posted it. Mr.Z-man 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A week for this, really? I agree it wasn't really a very constructive comment, but this seems overly harsh to me. Friday (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Mr.Z-man's taking it in the context of this and tenditious editing in general (constant edit warring, etc). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)He's previously been blocked and warned for incivility and disruptive editing and I warned him less than 24 hours ago for other pointless, inflammatory comments that added nothing to discussion and only served to multiply the drama. If he can't participate in discussion civilly, he shouldn't be participating in discussions. Its not difficult to not make random sockpuppetry allegations in the middle of a discussion. Mr.Z-man 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And in that warning you demonstrated your complete inability to take user talk page warnings in a proper context when making admin decisions, whereby you actually thought warning tags placed on my page by bcb were genuine, when they were vandalism. Unlike other editors (i.e. betacommand) I never remove any comment/warning from my talk page, no matter how disengenuous/false/misleading/pointed/plain wrong that it was (although this statement will probably cue some vandalism now I guess, fame at last). It's clear from this post you don't tend to consider that might be the case on your judgements. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Admin Orderinchaos did give you a final warning, in part relating to civility less than 24 hours ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The BCbot warnings part was totally off topic in relation to my original warning which was for making an pointless, inflammatory comment on the RFBOT page. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Mick's remark was uncivil and disruptive, in that it needlessly inflamed a discussion that was already far too hot to be productive. Having said that, the disruption was not severe and a week does seem on the harsh side. I wish I could wave the magic block-wand and make everyone commmunicate civilly in these threads. As a compromise, I propose that Mr.Z-man outlines some criteria for early unblocking, for example Mick agrees to a voluntary topic ban (BC/BCB-related threads) and civility restriction. We can always reblock. Bovlb (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Terms like that would be acceptable. I would suggest a topic ban last at least as long as the block would, maybe more. I won't be able to be online for most of today. If another admin sees that he has agreed to a BC/BCBot topic ban of some length >= 1 week, feel free to unblock. Mr.Z-man 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this 'do not inflame' discussions policy by the way? And why doesn't it apply to hammersoft's strawmen, or betacommand's 'bullshit', 'keep your mouth shut', 'moot point', or 'don't like it? tough' comments? MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll readily grant that some of my comments aren't the most likely things ever to fight fires with. But, I've never personally insulted you or accused you of being a sockpuppet, suffering a personality disorder, using multiple PCs to evade detection, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day, I've been blocked for an obviously humorous comment that was even taken as such by the target who admittedly has no love for me, so the action is out of context. If it really has to be the case that I accept a topic ban on ANI over this trivial issue, just so I can actually do what I am here for, edit articles, then I will accept it, because as below, the inevitable has happened and the obvious failings of betacommand have been taken elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• If you're saying that many people have been uncivil in that thread, then I agree (hence my "magic block-wand" comment above). However, our responsibility to be civil is unilateral, not contingent. We are not relieved of it just because someone else is uncivil first. Please take a moment to stop and think whenever you find yourself using the "but X did it first" defence. Personally, I am very hesitant to block established editors, but I have been sorely tempted watching the BC/BCB saga unfold. I'm afraid that by descending to that level yourself, you have given yourself a poor platform from which to complain about others. Bovlb (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is a fine sentiment, that everyone should be held to. Where it falls down is the undeniable fact that betacommands questionable actions, for nearly 2 years now, have been given a pass, because some people perceive his hobby programming (note perceive, hence it is debated and disputed) is essential to the project and absolutely can't be done any other way. This idea is patently false, but patently to express this idea exposes us mere mortal editors to the loaded gun described above. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on this comment, from the blocking admin and this acceptance from this user, I am unblocking now. The user is subject to a voluntary topic ban on threads related to Betacommand and BetacommandBot for one week from the time of unblocking. I note that this user has been named as a participant in a proposed BCB-related ArbCom case. Should this case be accepted, then the user is obligated to respond, and the topic ban would not apply there. This topic ban does not apply to this talk page, my talk page, and the talk page of any other user who so-indicates. Any admin may restore this block if they judge that these conditions have been violated.

Mick: Please, please avoid any hint of incivility, and feel free to contact me for advice. Bovlb (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am getting an autoblock notice that expires tomorrow for attempting to use my own ip address under my own user name. MickMacNee (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to remove the autoblock, try editing outside your talkpage again. Maxim_(talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FAO Rettetast / Mr Z Man (PUI discussion)

As you will see above our discussion is at a premature end, and not likely to be able to continue beyond the as I understand it within the 2 or 7? day deadline at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, although why Z man posted a comment and then block me before I could reply I don't know. So in hope you read my page, and he obviously does, this is my comment in reply to this [10] from Z man. Freefoto.com act as a stock photography supplier, and a web hoster. The Commercial Use License Agreement Z man refers to there applies to the commercial sale of their photos to customers, not the low resolution ones hosted on the website. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied your comment to the page, I'll look at it in more detail later. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, having permission to use freely on Wikipedia is not sufficient. The images must be able to be used anywhere, for any purpose, with no usage restrictions against commercial use. FreeFoto.com DOES restrict commercial use. That's what the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported license means (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what their point 1 seems to say, as I quoted. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• their "point 1" restricts the free usage part to an online setting. That's not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements for free license media. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BetacommandBot

I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. As you're currently blocked, you can make your statements on your talkpage and a clerk will copy them to the main arb page. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metroliner of yorkshire traction.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Metroliner of yorkshire traction.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No Free Image

It's not really much of a "campaign" on my part to remove the silly No Free Image images from biographical articles. It's not as if I've created a bot to remove them or anything. Indeed, however, I will continue to remove those images as I encounter them in the course of my regular use of the Wikipedia. The images are childish, unprofessional and counterproductive. Many editors lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are NOT editors. "NO FREE IMAGE. CLICK HERE IF YOU OWN ONE" is a ridiculous thing to present to Wikipedia users. How many people clicking through from Google do you think see one of these asinine images, understand it, say to themselves, "Why yes! *I* have a FREE IMAGE of this person!" Click through, read and understand the Wikipedia's image copyright requirements then successfully upload and place the image in the article they've visited. I'll confidently guess that this has happened ZERO times and will never happen. There is nothing that says we NEED an image associated with every article. The exercise is pointless. I'd recommend to anyone, yourself included, to remove the images whenever you encounter them. --AStanhope (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should spend your time more productively elsewhere, clearly many editors don't agree with your assesment, and I think the average reader isn't so thick as to not understand what the image represents and understand the information it links to. In my own personal experience there are millions of free images both on the web and not on the web that can be uploaded, if people realise they are wanted. As for not having an image of a person associated with their bio, I can't see the logic behind that assertion at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove them as I see fit. Thanks. --AStanhope (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's your time to waste, and it certainly looks like a waste so far. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How many people "own" "free images" then? Do you have some stats to justify this ridiculous campaign? --AStanhope (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Perhaps someone should make a bot to remove those.--redlock (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting of your comments at RFAR/Betacommand

I hope you didn't mind that I reformatted your comments into their own section. I thought it would make for clearer responses if and when the arbs choose to reply to either of our concerns. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no problemoMickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like they're going to consider it anyway. Is there a lazier response than "we're going to throw this one back to the community and see what happens" when the community has tried and proven completely incapable of getting BC to be civil to his critics? It's a bit frustrating to watch. I mean the last arb rejected "per James" who rejected "per Bainer" who rejected for ... what reason exactly? Bellwether ^B_C 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy Access

Hi there. I noticed your edits to Easy Access removed maintenance templates, but I don't feel that the issues in them have been addressed. The article is still original research/synthesis of ideas, and now several of the links you have added fail to satisfy the external links guideline, and are spam. The article is still unsourced, as there are still no cited verfiable, reliable, and independent secondary sources; yet, you removed the maintenance template. Additionally, I'm confused as to why you reverted the move I did per the naming conventions guideline. Perhaps I'm missing something? Please help me understand your actions. --slakr^\ talk / 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added references to the claimed notablilty of the term in the lead sentence. Third party sources are not required for such verification when they themselves are the subject of the claim. As per the sources, the usage is a proper noun, i.e. capitalised. MickMacNee (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, please let me know how they pass the external links policy. --slakr^\ talk / 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it is a proper noun, why is it a proper noun? Is Easy Access a brand name? A specific product? --slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's tricky then, you want proof it is a proper noun, but you want the links that show it is a proper noun deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In the English language, there is a fairly indisputable concept of what a proper noun is. "MickMacNee" is a proper noun, as it is a unique identifier to you, as a person. Regardless of the sources, I asked a simple question: why is "Easy Access" a proper noun? From what I can tell, it's not a unique identifier but instead a common concept, which therefore disqualifies it for proper noun classification. Moreover, the sources given do not treat it as a proper noun, even though their formatting capitalizes headers. --slakr^\ talk / 02:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==Global perspective==

I have reverted you on Prisoner transport on the grounds of global perspective, bailiffs in ontario is certainly not a global subject. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it is a See also link and not an entry within the article itself. And why not list other articles in the See also section?--Jeff Johnston (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated the See also section with the rationale that the article remains global, and it is reasonable to assume that those interested in Prisoner Transport might also be interested in those who perform prisoner transports, such as Corrections Officers and (in the case of Ontario, Canada) Bailiffs.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Patently ridiculous and a clear case of article ownership. I fail to see how you can't see that is a ridiculous rationale. If that was your true aim you would link bailiff. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you took the time to peruse the article on bailiffs you would know that globally, bailiffs do not perform prisoner transports, however in Ontario, Canada they are the exception to the rule, hence the direct pointer to that part of the article. Not so "patently ridiculous" if one were to spend more time getting his facts straight instead of resorting to common insults. Simply linking to the bailiff article would be ridiculously confusing to the reader who might only be interested in information related to prisoner transport. If anyone is guilty of article ownership it is the person who couldn't wait to undo another's edit without due consideration of the facts... That would be you.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking absolute rubbish. So bailifs dont transport prisoners, except for some wierd situation in ontario. If you think that is remotely interesting to the global readership of wikipedia looking at prisoner transport you are off your head. Link marshall, police officer, security contractor, etc etc, or even better, do the sensible thing and make this ridiculous exception clear on the article if you really absolutely think you are presenting anything more than minor footnote of information in a classic case of pushing your own article per ownership. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion can be found at Talk:Prisoner transport. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

RFAR isn't really the place for a conduct discussion. So this is my further concern.

I commented to you, about what was meant, why it was meant, and stated:

"[...] RFAR isn't a venue for re-arguing or re-enacting the divisive issues already forumed elsewhere on the wiki. It's a venue for users to make factual and helpful statements summarizing the concerns, views, evidence, and insights that need presenting for an Arbitration case. That's different from a tone which pushes towards (for example) incivility, stridency, point-making, assumption of bad faith, or advocacy."

FloNight concurred.

Your reply was basically, to say you "recognized" it, and then to flatly deny it was anything to do with you. According to your reply, you have 1/ been the recipient of (only) "some" claims anyway, which were 2/ all "tenuous" in any case, and 3/ the "root" of actual posted advocacy on this RFAR page was Betacommand (who hasn't actually posted anything at RFAR) and not you. Finally 4/ concerns of conduct at RFAR are to be marginalized as mere "general etiquete points", with Arbcom evidently having "percieved misunderstandings" of the case. There was not the slightest pause to consider the possibility that when an Arbitrator - much less two - feel the need to comment on conduct, they might be worth hearing.

No. It's important when you post in relation to an Arbitration or administrative matter, to try and avoid such things. It's possible to find a manner of speech that says all that counts, but does so without such outbursts, and bad faith and tone in your statements, and it really would help. If you can, please try, I think it'd make things easier and not actually harm your ability to be heard. Most admins, and certainly most arbitrators, will hear a well-spoken summary as well or better than an over-invested or advocative one, so to speak; it'd serve you well too.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I seriously dont know what you want from me, I thought I was perfectly clear in what I meant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that it's not clear; from my POV, the thrust of FT2's comment is that RfAr is not an appropriate venue to use in the way that you have done. I have to agree with this.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered simply (and writing on the grounds you're a decent guy I know is trying to get certainty that genuine serious wiki-issues will be addressed)..... what I'd like if you can, is if you would be calmer and more at peace on the case. A lot of your statements include comments to the effect nothing will be done because some kind of protection exists... flat refusal to listen to explanations of how cases are handled in favor of theories why this one is being unfairly handled already, describing an (admittedly uncivil) statement that "X is inaccurate and libel" by Betacommand as a "legal threat", inability (to date) to see the tone you are taking is unhelpful, and so on.

In short, calm a bit... in the vast majority of cases we know what we're doing, and the main issue does get resolved, or a very substantial inroad is made. Not always first time, because some cases have built up over years, but usually. In that context, expressions of real concern are one thing, but over-heated statements and trying to "push" to get it seen more seriously, actually do more harm than good. We're dealing with heated "end of the line" cases here already; we don't need more heat piled onto them in the way your style was doing. If you have actually got more evidence prepared of the problems, and what those diffs or sections show, that would be far more useful; you might want to start preparing them or looking them up, in case. That would be 100 x more helpful. For now, we pretty much have what we need, to decide how we want to handle the decision about accepting the case. It's not even slightly exceptional in that way. The further question will be, which issues we would place centrally if accepted, and there too we already have tentative views. "Pushing" or such right now (or later) just isn't needed. It doesn't help and (since if one person does it usually others join in) it makes it harder, not easier, to resolve a case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would agree with FT2 on this matter - ArbCom generally do a very good job at distilling the facts out of complicated situations and coming up with reasonable solutions. Like you, I have my concerns about the user at the centre of all this, but the only way this is going to be solved is by giving ArbCom what they need - i.e. evidence on the evidence page, with diffs clearly demonstrating a pattern of behaviour or violations - and then leaving them to do it. I know it's hard, especially when things drag out and/or take contradictory paths, but in general I'd listen to what FT2 is saying here. Orderinchaos 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that the yours and general opinions being expressed at arbcom that 'this issue is down to newbies', 'I am against policy', 'the new bot solves the issue', are wrong. If I have got that wrong, please reply to that effect. If I am not allowed to make those statements at arbcomm, please state that position clearly. This opinion is not proveable by one or two diffs but is evident in all the discussions. I recognise I am probably not presenting myself always in a clear and calm manner, but I and many others are frankly reaching the breaking point with regards bc, as evident by many comments today, hence my comment about root cause. Meanwhile his behaviour has not attracted a single similar response. And as far as I can discern from the policy, that diff does demonstrate an implied legal threat, again if I am wrong, correct it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, I am not advocating the conspiracy theories about pre-judjement as others have, I am aware of the difference between wait and ignore, my issue is with the potential prejudice introduced from the as I see it innacurate statements in the case not being corrected, or similarly following on, those corrections not being clearly rejected, as opposed to being met with general replies. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

The initial statement at arb is purely to give some idea where the issues lie as people see them, and enough evidence of the concerns of the community and that it's been tried to be fixed by other routes, to show why it's likely to need an arbitration case to sort out finally. The statement you gave, and which others gave, was fine in that regard, and the messages received well. We also have a lot of familiarity with the area of dispute, enough to have a good sense that sadly, the concerns are real, that it's more than just the basics (other related concerns exist too), to have an idea what else matters (Carcaroth for example clarified one point I'd not seen he was trying to make, which got added), and so on. You'll note though that in your urgency, you've misunderstood what we've said. We see (and deal with) exceedingly heated and urgent/difficult issues day in, day out... most arbitrators don't write the kind of descriptions that people seeking or defending arbitration use. If the view was the new bot will solve things, then we would have simply declined, citing "decline - new bot being rolled out will solve things". I (and others) haven't done so. I think you must have missed that. We've each said closer to "Urgent issues agreed, let's allow this last try by the community to happen before accepting it for Committee consideration". It can be hard at breaking point to be told "we'd like to give X approach a chance to happen" anyway, or to have to implicit view given that actually problems can be borne for a little longer for it, but it's also important to recognize urgency and apprehension can be raised civilly and helpfully: if there is a reason it can't wait then it's as easy to say "In my view for X reason this is the effect it's having and for Y reason I urge acceptance without waiting", than essentially going all-out in an unhelpful manner that pushes the envelope on conduct there. Betacommand, his bot, and his communication (and the communication of others in that area, and so on) have been perennial matters for a long, long time now... I don't see anything specific to endorse cutting short a genuine initiative that may help some significant part of it, and that's imminent, by an early judgement it can or can't help. That's simply not necessary in the circumstances. There are issues it may not help with, but let's let the community address the areas it can, before taking out of their hands those it can't, or judging it's time to make a ruling on them. That's not the same as endless more chances, or unawareness, or marginalizing the issue. It's a view that the benefits of it outweigh the risks. If such an initiative was not imminent, I'd say accept, because waiting for it to happen would be too uncertain. But that's not the case; it's already well advanced, and as input into the problem, I'd like some indication how it has affected the issue before seeing what we have left to deal with.

Hope that helps somewhat.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms AfD

Hi my apologies for the confusion over my comment which wasn't in reply to your message, but was posted just after the nominator had again tried to close the AfD claiming that the result was to delete, despite only him wanting it deleted and everyone else, the consensus was to keep. I had just reverted his closing the it again. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, I thought it didn't make sense. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Molag bal help again

MickmacNee, there is a problem with a molag sock on the geordies of note list again, his IP sock which I currently and preferably don't want to reply to wont let me reply to his arguement on the geordies of note discussion page. He is using his sock to suppress a debunking response. In the spirit of wiki could you put up the response from me and my in just 'one' edit?

Thank you.

--Gregs the baker (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where Gregs went wrong

Newspapers aren't sources, they're publishers - a source is an origin. Newspapers regurgitate, especially tabloids, so if you cite a newspaper as your source it should only be a newspaper that has itself stated its source, otherwise you're simply saying "It was published, that's good enough for me". You have to take into account the context, which is that the northeast of England is largely unknown and misunderstood in London. You should also be aware - and beware - that a lot of biographical data printed in newspapers is not verified by them, nor is it often obtained from the horse's mouth either. Heather Mills is a case in point: it was disputed whether she was born in the northeast, or in Aldershot. Newspapers were happy to print one or the other without bothering to check or verify. It can't be both. So, let's be clear: just because a newspaper thinks that 'Geordie' applies to everyone from the northeast does not make it so; it's possible to be misinformed, and to be misinformed is not to participate in 'evolution of the language', it is to be mistaken. So, check your facts before you cite and gloat over your dubious citations. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the purpose of this post? MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To prove Gregs research on the article wrong, and his definition of a geordie, besides he is now banned for sockpuppetry, and there is a checkuser case to prove it. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place for this assertion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is now on Talk:List of Geordies. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

how am I molag bal?

that is not fair, you can't accuse me of being a sockpuppet to win a dispute. Dr Nat (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what he would have said. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been on wikipedia for a few months to prove this now, plus there is no evidence against me, it is User:Gregs the baker who is responsible for the sockpuppetry. Dr Nat (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have less than fifty edits to your name, with many involving this dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How does that mean I am sockpuppet of Molag Bal? it clearly doesn't, and that sockpuppet of Gregs warrants blocking. Dr Nat (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Geordies

An editor has nominated List of Geordies, 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/List of Geordies 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) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reducing the tone and volume of your manner of defense of this article. While presenting reasoned points is certainly acceptable, characterizing your opponents as taking one side of two ridiculous POV's and otherwise misrepresenting what they are saying does not credit your cause.

Stating that the claims of those who disagree with you are complete and utter lies is a failure to meet one of our more important policies, Assume good faith. There is no reason to think that those who disagree with you are spouting lies.

If you must disagree, do so civilly, and based on reason. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A fine sentiment. Please request anyone opposing my view for a factual resource. I do not make these claims lightly, and I have shown good reason repeatedly. When your reasonable and factual view is dismissed, once, twice, and three times, in a forum where the truth is easily verifiable, then what do you do? I ask you now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Our civility policy makes no exception for people who are believe they are right, or even to people who are right. If people disagree with you, you just have to accept that, even if you are right and they are wrong. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, pretty obvious realy. We all know the rules, lets get on with it without these unecessary distractions eh?. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Geordies

I have removed your link to ANI on the AfD. I would suggest that raising the issue of a perfectly legitimate AfD at the admin noticeboard would not help your case at all, especially given how uncivil you have been on the AfD so far. Black Kite 16:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is justified gievn your views, the notification is just that, a notification. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 72 hours for continued disruption and incivility concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies and in the light of the discussion at WP:AN/I#Opinion on an Afd re disruption. This is a longer block than I would normally give for such actions, but your record of repeated blocks for disruption and incivility suggests to me that you haven't got the point of the prohibitions on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and personal attacks. Please bear these principles in mind in the future. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain where I made disruption to make a point. I contributed to an Afd on topic, as I am entititled to do, and I posted to AN on topic with concern about an admin. Please tell me what I have done to cause disruption, bar reply to comments? You will note that not a single uninvolved admin has been able to rule on the AN post I made before your ban. I await a reply as to exactly what I have done. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

MacNee, AfD discussions are not helped when any user deliberately argues against every view which is not their own. If you had not done so, you probably would not have been blocked. Note also that this is a relatively brief block. 72 hours is only three days. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

no example has been made as to what specific disruption has been caused. I have participated in an Afd and no more. The block appears to have been made out of pressure not to allow questions at AN to be answered in an ongoing dispute.

Decline reason:

The block appears valid. — _(1 == 2)^Until 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Furthermore, a user is attempting to obscue comments at the Afd here [11]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, a user was removing yet more of your uncivil comments. Black Kite 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like an admin to look at the above case, I have been banned on the say so of a user who wants to obscure comments at an afd and give a false impression by removing comments in between discussion, that are not in violation of any policy, and thus influence the vote. Even worse, an admin who I wanted to question at AN and have not been able to recieve an answer is now gloaing at the ban, This is against all process. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the absolute piss, how can you justify the removal of my comments [12][13], that now makes me look unjustly wrong in the discussiuon, this is an absolute fucking joke. You have applied a ban on the say so of someone who states in their edit summary "shut up, we've had enough of you for today" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can completely justfiy the removal of that comment, because it was a personal attack on me, and frankly I could have removed another three or four comments of yours on that AfD, but I left them because they said more about you than they did about me. You can't go around violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL because you don't agree with someone. Black Kite 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need something copied to the RfAr, please email me and I'll paste it there for you. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs

You don't help your causes by posting huge blocks of text. Please separate points into paragraphs and don't post too many points at once. The usual rule is that an audience will only take one point away with them so it's best to make sure it's the best one by just focussing on that. In this case, it's the socks. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into 4. I hope that closing admin reads it and takes it on board, too many times Afds seem to just follow the crowd, which is an easy system to manipulate if you have the time or the persistance to do so and make it an easy vote for Afd passers by. A shame considering as I said, this article from 2002 is one of the oldest on WP that I have seen. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:81.132.214.251

I wish you'd leave them alone, please. Let the sockpuppet case run. You could be wrong, you know. This could easily go beyond what's reasonable to harassment. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree, this attidude is exactly what he relies on. Even after the Afd was up and running, 3 of his socks were identified, but their comments and edit histories were quoted in the Afd anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There were plenty of non socks that felt the article should be deleted. Like I say, you can always appeal at WP:DRV. Dlohcierekim 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

less than 10 is not plenty, especially for an article with 153 sources, and the sock activity is relevant to the entire history, not just the Afd, but like I say, this requires someone to look at this for more than half an hour, hence why it is probably doomed, and the idiot sockateer has influenced wp. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies

I've read it and your talk page. I disagree with your assessment of the AfD. You might want to try WP:DRV. Frankly, I see you as venting your anger on others because an article you cared about got deleted. You might want to take a break, blow of some steam, find something else to thing about for a while. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the histories of the articles? all 153 sources? compared all talk page comments and edit summaries compared to his 120 confirmed socks? Do you know anything about this subject? Do you have any reason to assert most Americans or non-English speakers would know anything about this subject? Do you think this is a subject worthy of one line closure? Do you agree sometimes WP can easily sleepwalk itself into doing the will of the uninformed mob or wikilawyers, rather than err on the side of keeping content that has existed since 2002 on the basis of basic correctness? Do you agree many people who vote at Afd do so from a POV and not per policy? Do you agree this subject is not likely to get many people seeing this Afd with the 'right' POV to be able to keep what is indisputably a notable subject. Do you think Sir Bobby Robson, a knight of the realm, is wrong about who he is, and a bunch of WP editors have the right to say what he is and isn't based on dodgy consensus and calling reliable sources 'lazy'? MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I say. 1) You are upset. 2) You should appeal at WP:DRV. Present your evidence there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am preparing one, for consultation with the other editor who has also disagreed with the closure. In my experience, once a factual mistake has been made by an Afd closer, it is nighon impossible to overturn at Afd without glaring procedural error, but frankly, this has to be done, this closure is amazingly bad. A collective insult to upwards of two million people, on the basis of less than a handfull of editors, and a prolific sock. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maynes

OK I'll move it! -- Arriva436^shout! 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, np. I'm abit confused about the locations now, with the recent edit about ALDIs. Something to research if you want. MickMacNee (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

semi-protection

Due to the harassment you are receiving, if you like I will protect your page from being edited by new users for a couple days if you like. Just say the word. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. This episode should demonstrate the determination of the single source of the so-called widespread disruption being made for a very long time at Geordie and list of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks and the AfD

Mick - let's have a reality check here. After the AfD had been running for a while, I actually became suspicious of editors that were supporting my own AfD, and had User:Thatcher run a checkuser on some of them. This produced a large amount of socks, all of which I blocked, as you can see on the Molag Bal 2 SSP report. I thus struck the comments from the IP 86.154.197.75, as they were the same user as User:AndreNatas. I didn't strike his comments as well, because it is general policy to strike multiple votes, not all votes (and to be honest I didn't think it made any difference anyway because his comment was only a "Delete per nom".) If you're going to go down this path, I could point out the "Keep" votes from two editors who have backed each other up on a lot of AfDs recently ... but I prefer to assume good faith. You are not going to achieve anything by attacking me or the closing admin here; you are only going to get yourself blocked again, which is completely pointless and stops you from providing your many productive edits to Wikipedia. As you have been advised already, take it to DRV if you have a problem, that's the correct venue. Black Kite 00:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One of his socks is marked deny all recognition, every comment should be struck, a policy he knows and employs very well, and the entire history and talk ages shoudl be checked. I considered the listification, tabulation and ongoing attempts at good faith discussion in the face of this now apparently even more relentless than I realised sock, of Geordie and the list, as one of my most valuable contributions to wp. Seriously, I've asked the closer, so I will ask you aswell now, please quote an actual policy that you think justifies that deletion (not improve, clarify, modify and/or merge, straight out and out deletion of 89 sourced entries) of that list that dates from 2005? Why should I have bothered listifying it, as it looks like the standards being applied at Afd are well below what would have applied on the talk pages had I not spun it out. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Lower Manhattan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 72.69.118.249 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept this warning, read the talk page, my edits are not POV and reflect the talk page, and considering your edit history and knowledge of templates, I find your motives highly dubious. Please be advised it is perfectly acceptable practice to undo the actions of single-purpose accounts. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for six days

You've been blocked for six days for violating 3RR on Lower Manhattan. Not only did you get into a revert war, you also implied that a respected member of the community was using an IP to sockpuppet without any proof. (See User:72.69.118.249.) This is simply unacceptable behavior. Normally, the block wouldn't be as long, but seeing as you just came off one, I have no issue doubling the length of your previous block. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is a single purpose account, 3RR does not apply to reverting single purpose accounts. MickMacNee (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note this immediate edit summary after the IP has stopped after only 4 edits [14] if you think the sock accusation is not valid, this is clear gaming. What actual proof would you need for a tagging of suspicion? I don't have checkuser, are you saying I have no right to use the template in such a clear situation? Look at the timing, the order of the edits, and the spurious warning above. Do you believe I was vandalising the page? Answers please. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• And please inform DCGeist [15] of the policy involving meat puppets v sock puppets. And I will ask again, why is he edit warring over an image that consensus on the talk page shows is not wanted in the article? He is in clear violation of ownership on this issue, otherwise he must have an explanation for re-adding the image without input on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at [16], [17], [18], and [19], I don't quite understand your reason for reverting, other than because the user was an IP address, which is not a reason to revert somebody. These edits do not appear to be vandalism, and you've clearly broken the three-revert rule. If you look here, there are exceptions to the 3RR but constant reverting within a content dispute isn't one of them. Please review WP:3RR. I endorse this block. And in the future, please don't accuse well established editors of sockpuppetry without some sort of proof. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So. lets break it down.

• DCGeist re-adds image, against consensus
• I revert, per consensus
• IP immediateley appears and reverts
• I revert single purpose account, on the basis this is the first edit of this IP
• It reverts
• I revert
• It warns me of vandalism, see above
• I revert
• It reverts
• I am banned
• DCGeist reappears, reverts, makes insulting edit summary

In my opinion, you do not have to be Columbo to work it out, it is either a sock or meat puppet, and it is definitely a single purpose account. MickMacNee (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mick, if you'd taken the effort to note that I was logged in and actively editing ([20], [21], [22]) another article (tone cluster) during the activities of the anon, you would have known better than to launch your baseless accusation. I'm not surprised, though. It's perfectly in keeping with your history of incivility and personal abuse. Take a breather, my brother. You sorely need it.—DCGeist (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are really happy. This has to be one of the most clear and plain examples of WP:GAME ever. There is no consensus on the talk page, I was not vandalising, you are WP:OWNing the article, you are gloating, taunting and insulting me, yet I am the one that is banned, for 4 reverts of a single purpose account. I want to know exactly how these admins became 'informed' of this so fast, and if they were monitoring prior, why they think it is OK for IPs to be used to push edit, and wait until after a good faith violation (still not convinced) trying to enforce the consensus, then they block. Something clearly not in good faith going on here, especially the comment 'use the talk page', after a ban, when conveniently the issue goes away. MickMacNee (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mick, you actually think I might have picked up the phone and asked someone to go to war with you over a photo I didn't even take in a minor article I hadn't concerned myself with in three weeks? You don't have to be Sigmund to realize you could use a little time on the couch.—DCGeist (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sure do go to extraordinary lengths to keep it in against many editors opinions on the talk page. Beyond the realms of imagination that you have 2 computers? Sitting in a shared lab? Yes? No? Raising even a suspicion of such apparently amazingly impossible circumstances given the sequence of events is worthy of a 6 day ban? I don't know how anyone is possibly meant to keep cool in light of this sort of provocation and gaming. MickMacNee (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What behaviour [23] are you referring to here DCGeist? Counting the opinions on the talk page and enforcing them? Daring to challenge your ownership of an article? Daring to become suspicious at an IP editor, who still has not made more than 4 edits after swooping in, placing false warnings, and dissappearing again, job done? MickMacNee (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the two admins, and any others that pass by, for responding in an edit war with this user [24] whose very first edit was to accuse me of POV pushing, after I clearly linked the talk page section I was making the change under, and in no less than 3 more edits had accused me of vandalism and placed a warning on my talk page, I have fully complied with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. MickMacNee (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will suppose I will get a months ban for pointing this out, but David Shankbone, who you will see from the talk page is a party to the dispute agreeing with DCGeist (as image uploader), was editing [25] today up until 3.01, stopped, and then resumed at 3.20; and the new IP user [26] made his as yet not added to 4 edits on the whole of WP, between 3.03 and 3.14. Perhaps I am actually going crazy as DCGeist suggests, if I am realy the only person looking at the above events and being the only one who thinks I have grounds to be a tad aggrieved here at being banned for 6 days. MickMacNee (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. First, the IP is in Chicago, and I'm in New York City, just having returned from Colorado (hence, the Colorado photos that I am uploading now that I'm home). Why don't you take a break for awhile; you care way too much about this stupid photo - seriously. You care more about it than I do, and I have stayed out of the dispute having made my view known. Whereas you are edit-warring over it as if this is a very important issue that a (in your opinion) low quality bar photo is on a page having to do with the bar's neighborhood. I agree with DCGeist - you have a poor history on the project, and maybe you should think more about how to get along instead of accusing every well-regarded editor of sock puppetry (I'm now your second implication). You're certainly not making yourself look any better. --David Shankbone 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was forgeting this is facebook and not an encyclopoedia, it certainly seems that way with this whole section of comments. Forget policy, truth and judgement, go with punitive blocks and arguments weighted and measured on perceived popularity in the community, go with re-inserting images against consensus because they are pretty and not doing any harm, go with ignoring blatant gaming and ignoring efforts to combat single purpose IPs per established policy. Go with it all, and ignore the inevitable result of less good faith stable usernames and more socks and bad faith IPs, given the obvious advantage they bring. MickMacNee (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And here's my IP address. I won't wait for your apology; doesn't seem to be your style to act contrite or have any desire to get along whatsoever - and I'm sure I'm not the only one noting that. David --24.215.228.223 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to get along here, you just need to upload pretty but irrelevant images, go against consensus, and edit as a single purpose IP, the community will give you all the protection and good faith you could ever need against a scumbag like me with a pitiful few hundred new articles, major edits and uploads. You know where you can stick your apology, do I look like a check-user? MickMacNee (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is my IP address. Like David, I'm in New York. At home. At my only computer. With naught but a cat for company. She's quite smart, but at age 16, no longer nimble enough to operate a keyboard.

Mick, it's not my intention to taunt or gloat. Twice last spring I was blocked for violating 3RR. The first time...well, it was my first time. The second time, the blocking admin screwed up—I actually hadn't violated 3RR at all. As far as I was concerned, I had it all under control here. Then, in August one night, I lost my shit—sort of like you've been doing...and doing...and doing here. I was blocked; it wasn't my first time; and I sure as hell deserved it. Did I throw a hissy fit? Amazingly, no. I was lucky enough to realize I needed the opportunity to reflect on how I was behaving here at times, however productive I was in general. I did reflect. I apologized to those who I'd behaved improperly toward and, just as importantly, I learned. And my experience here has been much more pleasant—and no less productive—since I returned from that ban. I hope the same for you. Best, Dan.—66.108.248.12 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have learnt, I have learnt that WP does not operate to the letter or spirit of policies, nor to a consensus of 5 to 2 for removal of an irrelevant image, supporting the encyclopoedic entry "The area's many nightclubs and bars draw patrons from throughout the city and the surrounding area." You and David frankly think this is facebook, and that is not a reference to the image, but how you phrase your opinions and edit summaries, and make ad hominem comments to 'inferior' contributors based on status rather than fact, consensus or policy. Frankly, if the above events and diffs are not grounds for suspicion (not accusation) of sock puppets, then there can be no proper time to use that template for anyone. I am not a checkuser, and I do not know your locations or personal set ups, and I know of no other template that is less, apparently bad form, than the one I used, nor of any other procedure to make the case. An admin has this very week accused me, with 5 months of edit history, of being a meat puppet based on the fact we have a common ISP with what must be half a million people. Yet an IP with 4 edits is apparently immune, as are you two. All I know is the circumstances of the edits, and the history of the IP. I am positively absolutely convinced that I have followed SPA and consensus in this case and thus have not violated 3RR in any way. There is no other opionion as far as I am concerned, until shown otherwise beyond a loaded and pointed GAME technicality. If I don't have enough friends points for that to count for shit, then I'm not sure I want to contribute. MickMacNee (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You should know that a claim of suspicion of sockpuppetry is a very serious charge here. Yet you obviously didn't do the simplest sort of research on my contributions log to determine whether your accusation was really tenable or not. But no apology necessary, Mick. You are infallible. Six blocks in a month and a half. You're damn energetic too.

The way you're going...and going...and going, you won't be missed. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I'm sorry we offer such poor accomodation for gods like you.—DCGeist (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As said, of course it is completely impossible that [27] is you. No admin has ever used a sock puppet have they? As for the block, I see the admin hasn't addressed a single response above, a fantastic response for such an obviously pointed and bad faith block. I will repeat for the criminaly biased and personality cult afflicted, I reverted a single purpose account being used as it appears and no one has ever disproved as a bad faith sock in pushing an edit against consensus. But you carry on ignoring these basic facts and policy violations and instead make personal insults in replacement for an argument, it's what you do best clearly. Of course I was forgetting one of the pillars of wikipedia, the number of bans you have determines what template you are and are not allowed to use, yet another characteristic ad hominem, are you sure you are such a respected user if this is your attitude to others? Like I have said, I have never removed a talk page entry of mine no matter how untrue it was or who placed it (and I have had some ridiculously false warnings placed, conincidentaly even in this matter by this super protected IP editor), I would hope admins were not so stupid as to apply bans on what they see first hand on a talk page, but perhaps I have this wrong, perhaps it is established practice to edit your talk page to show yourself in a good light, as it obviopusly pays off on here as to how you can get people to perceive you, as opposed to policy and fact, which obviously means jack shit. Again, another reason why it is obviously in someones favour to edit as an IP in a case like this. MickMacNee (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your swinging at shadows

I know there are real sock puppets picking on you, but it has got you so rattled you are swinging at shadows. You are accusing people of sock puppetry when the circumstances do not warrant it. DCGeist and David Shankbone are most likely not using sock puppets, and none of what you have presented is evidence, and frankly that kind of pattern happens every day by coincidence. Please try to assume good faith, it is not only a good idea, it is also policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And the IP is almost certainly not either David or DCGeist. Besides the fact that the IP is in Chicago and both users are in New York, I hardblocked the IP for disruptive reverting (and possible use of an IP in violation of WP:SOCK) and both users were still able to edit. Mr.Z-man 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi Mick, just a bit of friendly advice here. You have to start to play the game, don't ever revert a page 3 times in a day, whatever the circumstances, even if someone is vandalising, adding nonsense or content not supported by consensus. You should remove it twice, then look for a friendly admin or respected user to take it out, which they will definitely do if the case you make is clear. You must realise that persuing BCB has made you a watched man, there are probably a dozen admins just waiting for you to give them the chance to rub you out for good. You clearly have a lot to offer the project, so just try and play the game, even though the odds seem unfairly stacked against you.

By the way, it is easily possible to log on in Firefox and be not-logged on in Explorer, on the same computer, so you wouldn't even need 2 computers to chuck in an IP edit or two. Not that I'm accusing anybody of anything, I'm just stating that it's not beyond the realms of possibility. English peasant 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is responsible or accurate to tell this person admins are waiting to give him a rub. This person is already accusing people without merit of violations, and you are talking of conspiracy theories, and really have not presented anything to support them. Mick, if you accept when others disagree with you then nobody is going to pick on you, there is no cabal out to get you despite what English says. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with his sock-puppetry accusations, but I can certainly see how a SIX DAY block for "edit-warring" would cause Mick to start "swinging at shadows" as you put it above. As for cabal, do you not consider what's done on IRC a bit "cabal-ish" if nothing else? Bellwether ^B_C 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See above for this comment "The way you're going...and going...and going, you won't be missed" which may put my comments into perspective. The point of which were to advise Mick to be careful to follow the rules here, not to promote conspiracy theories. Thank you, English peasant 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Bellwether - Mick is continuing to lodge accusations and clearly is assuming no good faith (e.g. "You and David frankly think this is facebook, and that is not a reference to the image, but how you phrase your opinions and edit summaries, and make ad hominem comments to 'inferior' contributors based on status rather than fact, consensus or policy.") Although I thought the SIX DAY ban was a bit long, his SIX BLOCKS in a short period of time along with his continued efforts to agitate and lodge accusations show the guy needs a break. Or, as my Mom used to tell me, "When the problem is everyone else, maybe it is you." --David Shankbone 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may think you are doing Mick a favor, but encouraging his belief that well established users are "out to get him" is only going to lead to more of the same problems that lead to the first six blocks.

Mick, please just accept that people can disagree with you without it being personal, and that does not mean there is some kind of conspiracy against you. And while I know that real sock puppets are picking on you, that does not mean established editors are out to get you. If you truly feel that someone is picking on you, send me a private e-mail and I will investigate for you. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Look I dont want to fill this page up with clarifications of my point, what I am saying, is that this page is on my watchlist because of the BCB thing, it is not inconceivable that it is on lots of other peoples watchlists too. If Mick keeps pushing the 3RR, he will get blocked again and again. The more times people see this happen the more likely it is that he will get banned. I guess that some people will be happy to see him banned, I would rather encourage him to be very careful so that it can't happen. English peasant 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is certainly true that when one get involved in a dispute it puts them on many watchlists. Thank you for clarifying your point. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The sock warning issue is less of an issue for my part, (apart from the ad hominem defences from the suspected). I do not accept your view 1==2 that the sequence of named and IP editing is a normal everyday thing. Although, I also don't agree with your other opinion that deleting an article with 153 sources that has existed since 2005, on a 'consensus' of 10-7 is also not an every day occurence at WP. While the IP may not belong to them, it is clearly not a constructive editor, and highlighting this is not deserving of a 6 day ban, and doesn't assume any good faith toward me on the part of the admin, who ep quite rightly points out, was obviously giving this sequence of events a very close watch, without attempting to intervene in dispute until afterwards, giving out bans (well, one ban). If SSP is not to be used in this case, it should be deleted, especially if the standing of the editor and not the sequence of events is the standard for judging abuse. I was recently given an unjustified and pointed SSP tag, but the issuer was not banned for 6 days. Nor did I attack him for doing it. I let the process take its course. I see this is not the way others treat these tags.

Anyway, the bigger issue is no-one, especially not the banning admin, has answered my belief that my actions fall squarely under WP:SPA. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying 10-7, but that is your rather contrived count, you are counting a guy who did not even participate in the AfD as a keep, and discount several valid delete opinions because you don't agree with them. And we don't really work on counts anyways. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not contrived, it is my analysis of the votes in the absence of any from you, and the ones discounted are done so on valid policy grounds, i.e. deletion is not justified on OR or personal opinion arguments against sources. I even include in the 10, 5 'per nom's, which is pretty bad as the nom had a completely convoluted argument with various points, in which he calls newspaper writers less reliable than him, the idea that 5 people lazily agree to it all is definitely shaky. And if its not a vote, it goes on your one line closing statement, not supported by a single diff despite requests. In fact shown to be claimed falsely in the Afd nom's nomination. Anyway, this all on your page, not starting it here again, the point is our difference on what we think is normal daily editting occurances. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And once again, DCGeist violates [28] the spirit of 3RR by reinserting for the umpteenth time an image rejected on the talk page and by other editors changes, still without commenting on the talk page, but rather using the justification of the editors 'sleight of hand' rather than adressing the issue of policy and consensus explained thoroughly on talk. Still, I guarantee no action will be taken. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mac - while I'm not condoning or further commenting on your mindnumbing incivility, I'll just point out that as a neutral editor I've made one revert (which will be my last) removing that pic on Lower Manhattan and will keep my eye on future reversions without talk page discussion. Gwynand (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just frankly amazed this sort of out and out lie is tolerated. [29]. If anyone is still intereseted, just count the edits/users, it is patently absolutely false, and pushes a complete falsehood as policy, let alone the joke idea that 2 weeks = accepted by the community; yet DC seems to think whatever he types is truth. I guess that's what being a trusted user gets you, immunity from basic reality. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also noted Black Nite [30]. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC) It gets better [31]. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mick, with all due respect, why don't you back away from the site for awhile, as I have needed to do before? You are blocked for essentially the incivility you just typed, and if you are going to continue to be uncivil, it's cause to extend to block. Right now, there are three people who are against the photo, and three people who are for its inclusion. Frankly, I don't find the photograph, which was taken before I purchased my DSLR, is worth this much passion on either side of the aisle. For you to continue casting aspersion on editors, assume bad faith, etc. - well, I just don't know why you care enough. If the photo is removed, I am no worse for the wear. Why do you feel you are worse for the wear if it's kept? It's baffling. It's the thing that fells many a good editor: caring too much. It's just a website, man. And it's just a photo on a minor article, upon which consensus is split. Take it off your watch list. Your vote has been counted. That's what I have done. --David Shankbone 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, 3-3 is a basic lie. Second of all, you are not the one being blocked for 6 days for fucking nothing, and what's worse, it seems you and DCg are immune from any and all censure at all, whatever you do, whether you lie your asses off on a talk page, violate consensus with edits, or insult anyone who disagrees with you. I have fucking had it. If anyone thinks I deserve this shit, indef me, I will do what works on here and come back as an IP and a sock, it ABSOLUTELY and CLEARLY is the most effective way to edit wp. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

St James' Park

Hi there, I did use the template, but having researched further it appears to be rather ambiguous. One site suggests that it is a UEFA 4 star stadium, but I read a recent comment which read "how can St James' Park be FIFA-compatible for the World Cup but it's not 4 or 5 stars?". Therefore I think further research is required to bring clarification.  Kaboooz LUFC  ^T _C

Definitely. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit on Lower Manhattan

That was a smart and tactful way to "rejoin" discussion on the article. When I first saw you had a diff there I was worried you were going right back to reverting, but the analysis was sound. The only issue may be that there isn't technically "consensus" one way or the other, just more editors preferring the article without said image than with. I believe the best way to handle this is for someone to provide an alternate "bar/party" image that is more tactful and sums up a similar point. If certain users continued to edit war even after that with the dire need to keep that specific picture included then I would probably see some serious ownership issues. I myself have yet to become an images guy on wikipedia, but I was hoping somebody would provide a more suitable Lower Manhattan photo for us to include. Gwynand (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Seconds From Disaster

I see you're adding Template:Seconds From Disaster to a bunch of articles... It's a good looking navbox, and I don't have a problem with it, I just have two tips for you. First, you don't need to use the "br" html tag, just add an extra blank line before the template. Second, you might consider setting the "state" property of the navbox to autocollapse or collapsed, particularly on the articles relating to the disasters, since those articles are about the disasters and not the TV show. – jaksmata 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta, what's the difference between autocollapse or collapsed? MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

autocollapse makes the navbox collapsed by default when multiple navbox templates are on the page, collapsed will make it always collapsed until you push the "show" button. – jaksmata 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think autocollapsed then, do you concur? /leonardo di caprio in catch me if you can MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

autocollapsed would be fine - probably the best choice. – jaksmata 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do then, thanks for the feedback. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Logos

A few points:

1. The initial discussion about the logos finished a few months back. The logos did not change. I suggest the read the various discussions.

2. In the case of NXEC and NXEA, the specific logos are used more- on liveries, timetable etc.

However, the argument is the same for the coaches page. NB, I understand what the re-brand has done. NX are now referring to all their brands as National Express (or "national express" to be exact :-( However, they still differentiate between the brands! Wiki should as well. If you type www.nationalexpress.co.uk you no longer get the coach company website.

I hope that you can see, that these logos help Wikipedia, and its users get through a potentially confusing time after the NX re-brand. Btline (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If your first point refers to the discussion here the I'd note that simply because the logo didn't changed does certainly not been this issue has been resolved. It should be clear from my comments there that I never swayed from my feeling that it was inappropriate so I'm not sure why Btline thinks that simply because this discussion took place and the logo wasn't changed that the issue was dealt with.

I'd reiterate one of the points I made then, "Wikipedia is not supposed to try to distinguish between different companies of the National Express group, that is up to NX to do and the whole idea of the rebranding exercise is to try to create a single identity for the company, part of which is the sharing of a logo. I'd suggest that it is misleading to readers to create a composite images combining the NX logo and the East Coast branding".

It appears that consensus is against Btline on this one so it seems fair to change this now as I've done on the NXEC article. Adambro (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have emailed NXEC. If they send me a logo, do I have to forward the email to anyone to prove the source of the image? Btline (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, I think there is a procedure, I have never needed to use it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

London Buses route D3

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of London Buses route D3, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://medlibrary.org/w/index.php?title=London_Buses_route_D3&action=edit. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Look like a wiki mirror. MickMacNee (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your irrelevant comment on Colonel Warden's talkpage

I think you know exactly why that list was deleted. Correct place for any further discussion on this: WP:DRV. Black Kite 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do know why it was deleted, per your 3/4/5 part reason, hence why I think it was an absolute joke of a nomination and deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalking Stops Here

You're blocked for 24 hours over this. This is the very last warning you're getting over stalking and following other users around, any further repeats and your next block will be an indefinite one. Nick (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hardly stalking him, I had col wardens page on watch, and frankly, bk's comment to him amounts to worse behaviour than mine. No action will be taken about that no doubt. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have blocked you for [32] if Nick hadn't already blocked you. You are about this || close to an indefinite block right now, and you really do need to massively change your behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony McCoy

I have to say that I haven't read or heard anything to say that McCoy rode in his last Grand National yesterday and as far as I know he isn't contemplating retirement. I won't change the article back again until I've got a definitive reference to say it wasn't. As a thought, is it possible you misheard a mention of it being Tony Dobbin's last National? He is retiring this week and it was certainly his last National yesterday. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be right actually thinking about it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Uefa Cup and Fairs Cup

One is precursor of the other, but not the same competition:

1) One was unofficial and the other no.

2) Uefa cup´s records don´t include Fairs Cup´s champions. ¿Why? ¿It´s correct to say they are the same when the UEFA doesn´t include the Fairs Cup? No sir...

--Ultracanalla (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stobart

Create a separate article for Stobart Motorsport if you want to, or move properly the current article, but do not make cut-and-paste moves. I also don't see why the rally team could not have its own article. Prolog (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The two articles would basically be duplicates for the wrc info, and would not in my mind survive any attempt to merge them later, so there is no point in keeping it separate. And it has to be cut and paste and not a move as someone has occupied the motorsport title with a redirect already. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can delete Stobart Motorsport so it can be moved. How much information are you planning to add? Prolog (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At least the basic info on the official site pages. I haven't started to do any third party research as I was going to do that after the basic article was in place. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll move it, although I don't see why the information would have to be duplicate. The rally team article could be more detailed season-by-season type, and the Stobart Motorsport section on it a shorter summary with {{main}} on top. This is standard practice. Prolog (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with the difficulty of having an infobox in a subsection, that is probably OK, but I have seen these article proliferations quickly merged before, hence why it might stand better in one. For now, just delete the motorsport title and leave the rally article as is, so I can create the ms article per the {} main model you suggest and see where it develops from there. MickMacNee (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I already moved it but I'll revert myself. Prolog (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Formal warning

I'm formally warning you for incivility at Talk:FIFA_World_Cup#Requested_Move. --Dweller (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Enthusiasm

I have just seen your message about curbing my enthusiasm. However, I have also seen that you have been formally warned for incivility. For this reason, I will not be taking heed of your comments. Have a nice day! Britishrailclass43 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as an attack, sorry you took it that way, edit how you want. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK but thanks for the advice Britishrailclass43 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

World Cup

Please get more wikipedians so we make a decision by May 8. ThanksCamilo Sanchez (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC}

What happens on May 8? MickMacNee (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion criteria

Hi there. Thank you for your contributions and for helping fight vandalism. I noticed you tagged Express Transportation with a {{g4}}-like tag. The valid criterion for this always refers to articles deleted by the articles for deletion process, and not speedily deleted or prodded articles. See WP:CSD#G4 for more information. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox/common name talk

Hi Mick. The party's finished. Are you going to close the debate? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth someone else closing, an uninvolved admin maybe. I don't realy want this process to become attached to me. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicken! Fair enough, well since you started the formalisation perhaps you could find a neutral admin to do just that. Sarumio is itching to get back to work... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is ANI an appropriate place to request? MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick to WP:AN, it's not an incident really, just something needing admin attention when possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant of course ;). I'll post it now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Chatham Pentagon bus station

Is owned by Medway Council and is under a very long lease to Arriva Southern Counties, whose permission has to be obtained for its use by other operators.

Please do not mis-represent the position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTAOHSF (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arriva are obliged to allow all operators reasonable access at commercial rates, as per the MMC report, the lease cannot and does not prevent this. This is all sourced information. MickMacNee (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a thicker skin

I agree with your basic premise that BC's behavior continues to be a problem. However, don't you see that you're not in a good position to get anything done about this? Why not let it go? It's apparently not an emergency, as it's a problem we've been living with for a good long time. Friday (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 'living with it' is the problem. Nothing has changed, and I proposed impartial monitoring in the arbcom, ignored, and outright opposed by the likes of Lara, and instead, I was laughingly told to do it myself. For which I get the obligatory accusations of stalking and harassment from beta. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to do more to nip these problems in the bud. But what to do with an established contributor who's been getting away with it all along, is a difficult question. Honestly, I am more bothered by his inability to engage in rational discussion, and his dismissal of valid criticism, than I am by whether he's "nice" or not. Someone can be a bit cranky and still be able to collaborate with others. BC isn't able to effectively collaborate. This is the big problem as I see it. Friday (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His chronic incivility is irretrievably linked to the behaviour you see above. If he knows he can easily dismiss/ignore/insult others, then there is no incentive to do the rest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Hi Mick, so now Angelo has closed the debate with a consensus going for option C, are you now going to seek out the general consensus on how to implement it - as you said in the poll for option C - "a standard should apply as in B (and be enforced), but can be overturned with consensus in particular cases on individual talk pages " The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mick, are you planning to do anything re: the comment above? I'm more than willing to discuss any rules (but for the life of me, (for the English articles anyway), can't think of any rules as to why one club would have FC abnd not the other!)

Am i thinking correctly that, as Option A and Option D werent chosen, that the only rule is basically the one you stated in the poll - that club names should only have FC attached in the Infobox header if the subject has been discussed to the point of consensus on individual article talk pages?? Cheers Sarumio (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will propose one now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And done nicely too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Why can't they choose the Stadium of Light instead?, to be honest its a better shaped more suited and coloured venue. 81.158.178.213 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The official page [33] cites the history of exciting matches held at SJP, and the 'great atmosphere' the fans create. I can't imagine why the stadium of lihgt wasn't considered. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

oh dear me, strange from a tynesider .... 81.158.178.213 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom

I thought long and hard about PSNI, and decided not to include them because they are the territorial police and are therefore covered by Template:UK Police. SOCA and the SCDEA are there, but they are not territorial police. ninety:one 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Mick, thanks for setting up the discussion so swiftly. I am concerned the way the discussion/constant bickering is going though. Could you clarify, either to me personally, or on the template talkpage, what the main point of this disucssuin is and how its different to the previous discussion attched to the original poll? At the moment there seems to be 4 or 5 editors trying to agree with you/making a few stipulations regarding foreign clubs names, but then theres 2 or 3 editors campaigning to have the infobox header the same as the article title (option A (voted against) in the original poll). Its making the votes of those who chose Option C pointless as if they didnt count!! Soo all thats happening is the two sets of editors are bickering again - an exact replica of the previous (now archived) disucssion. We seem to be going round in circles, almost to the point that we're back at Square One in that Dudesleeper and the Rambling Man are, once again, trying to row with me (and others) trying to make us explain ourselves and explain why we dont think it should be the same as the article title. I'm at a loss, i want this to progress properly, but the way its going, we're just going over old ground again! This should be the "next step" in finding a solution/common rule, I feel like we're jumping up and down on the previous step discussing the same stuff we did 2 weeks ago! I don't know if you can help or make things clearer to me/anyone else. Kind Regards Sarumio (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I kept forgetting about this. Yes, I agree we might be going over old ground here in our respective views, but I have no desire to act as 'referee' here, we're supposed to collaborate. If the discussion can't go forward with the imo adequate explanations I thought I had given for doing so, then I'm not particularly minded to get a hernia reigning it back in. Closing as no consensus is just as much a decision as anything else i'm afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Argentina national team

Hi.

What is the problem to include this phrase, that has a FIFA source?: "Argentina and France are the only national teams in the world which have won the four most important titles organized by FIFA: World Cup, Gold medal in football in the Olympic Games, Confederations Cup, and the Continental Cup (Copa America for Argentina, and UEFA European Football Championship for France)."

Am I wrong? I think that it´s a valious record, that -actually- only two teams in the world have: Argentina and France. What is the problem of including the phrase?

See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, my interest is on the spanish wikipedia, where I´m a well respected user (Lancha_8795). I don´t care about what the english wikipedian users say or think about me... I only "fight" against vandalism and lies in the languages I can "harldy" dominate or speak, as english or portuguese... I know the wikipedia rules, and I know that when some user deny the official sources is vandalism here and in China. Oh, I´m NOT out of control nor i didn´t call crazy to anyobody. Please, read carefully the discussions.

--Ultracanalla (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stay where you know what you are doing then, because quite clearly, you do not know what you are doing here. Reverting your opinion is not vandalism. I have read the discussions, that is exactly why I made those comments. All the pages you continually REVERT IN CAPITAL LETTERS were on my watchlist before you ever arrived here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won´t give up. I will stay here until many articles be as they have to be. I will continue in this fight against lies invented by many supporters, that many other users -icredibly- defend. --Ultracanalla (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have a serious problem if you think you are right and everyone else is wrong and a liar, judging by your behaviour now in two completely separate issues, which both have multiple editors who are against your opinions. Anyway, if you carry on this way I am sure you will be banned soon enough. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I´m getting an appointment with the Psichologyst in order to cure my insane... --Ultracanalla (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Hi, I just want to say I've noticed your good efforts in the football club parameter issue (trivial as it seems). It is good to see that you are trying to resolve difficulties in a considered manner rather than attacking them head on. I know Ultracanalla isn't the most co-operative user (some people might say the same about you looking at all the 3RR blocks) but I just thought I'd say using language like "quite clearly, you do not know what you are doing here" is likely to stir the flames. I also think you need to take language abilities into consideration, if English is not their first language, starting or contributing to debates is much more difficult. We need to encourage constructive contributions from editors with in depth knowledge of South American football and Argentina (my areas of interest) rather than argue with them. Anyway, keep striving to make Wikipedia better, all the best EP 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm yes and no. I have honestly tried to work with him rules wise, to the point of actually staying completely out of the actual content dispute even though I have an opinion. My recent comments are pretty much illustrative of me reaching the end of the line (my line is short, but hey, I'm no admin), in the face of a lack of (despite repeated requests) admin intervention (yes I know, embrace, don't banish), but this guy has real language/wp issues that prevent normal process. However, I will absolutely support your proposal to adopt him and reign him in ;) . MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mick, we must stop with this useless discussion. I prommise i will treat with more respect everybody and I want you to do the same with me, please. I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I´m not a bad user and I only try to help in the football articles. We start again at 0? We all have to give the other cheek!

See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would actually prefer it if you took adoption from a user such as EP. It was said as a joke, but on reflection actually makes sense. Your language problems are extremely disruptive because they prevent others interpreting your actions. A case in point is your use of the word 'vandalism'. This has a specific meaning in wikipedia, and you were using it incorrectly. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I want to give you a cookie and apologize for my comments here. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Buses on princes street.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Buses on princes street.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Buses on princes street.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts re template

Hi. Your handling of the recent discussion of deleting the Wikilobby template, was really excellent. it was extremely sensible and helpful. thanks for your efforts. I look forward to being in touch further, and perhaps working together further at some points in the future. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tornado

No I think you are mistaken, I had to change the disambiguation page from replica to new-build. I hope you understand this Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic banned from Betacommand and BetacommandBot's talk page

Per what it says on the tin, I'll block you if you make any more edits to BC or BCBot's talk pages. If you have a problem with the code, you know where BAG are. This disruption stops here and now. Nick (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the selective removal of comments by BC to actively mis-represent the timeline and nature of the discussion. But then again, I know full well that jack shit will be done about it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care, I know you're both causing disruption and that's what I am stamping out. Nick (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't care, that would actually involve looking at the facts of the situation, which just does not happen regarding beta, no matter what he says or does. I swear to god he must have fixed Jimbo's VCR at one point or another, because he sure has immunity for any and all infractions around here for some reason or another. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think you are doing a service to the people who disagree with BC by taunting him like you do? Your attitude is really not helping. Just stay away from each other, please. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realy think he is ever going to change except by coersion?, after 2 arbcom cases and hundreds of AN/I threads? Actually scratch that, because there are obviously enough admins to protect him when he runs into trouble in his latest excuse, or blow off of a user, so in fact, he will never change. I happen to think if you looked up the archives, his behaviour years ago is no different to today. Wikipedia is stuck with him warts and all, and it's a situation they appear to welcome with open arms. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I notice even though there is a topic ban made above, one of the BAG has ridden to beta's rescue and protected his page anyway. Pity they are unable to restore/delete comments on his talk page in the order they were made/removed by him. But that would require just the smallest amount of impartiality and judgement. Oh how I laugh when I recall the lengthy arbcom discussions over impartial monitoring of his talk page. It's quite clear that was never going to happen. BC is apparently using his employers company confidential code for wikipedia and distributing it to other editors he trusts (but does his company?), bc is apparently deceiving the community when he strongly insisted before his second arbcom case that he absolutely could not separate his tasks due to technical reasons, bc is obviously not interested in doing anything the community asks if it inconveniences him, even if it comes from a large demonstration of consensus. He's a law unto himself, and the above statements, as well as numerous other AN/ANI/BAG appeasements only serve to show exactly why he gets away with it, as well as more basic violations of CIVIL and AGF, just days after arbcom 2, and in the days after if anyone excuses that as an abberation. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did consider topic banning you from mentioning Betacommand at all, anywhere on Wikipedia, but came to the conclusion that would be un-necessary, keeping you and BC apart would be enough, but it seems it's not. Do you really want to be banned from discussing, commenting on or involving yourself in anything to do with Betacommand, or are you going to drop the issue and return to productive editing that has absolutely nothing to do with Betacommand, his bot, his friends etc ? Nick (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think it's irrelevant, as it is my assertion that it doesn't matter whether you object to anything bc says or does civily or incivily, he will respond with the exact same behaviour he has always done, ignore, revert as vandalism/trolling, or a basic insult because his knowledge of bots is infinite, even though he is an expert/amateur programmer (depending on who you ask and what the situation is). If you can find a single diff to suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. The fact is, if you ask or say something he doesn't want to hear, he will just act like a child. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've only just spotted this unseemly dust-up. From what I can see, Betacommand is sensitive to criticism on this topic. MickMacNee may not be the most diplomatic editor in the world, but that does not justify Betacommand's edits here, or the edit summaries here and here. Also, the comment here (to another editor) was similarly grossly incivil. Nick, I see that you said "I know you're both causing disruption and that's what I am stamping out" - which is fair enough. In the interests of fairness, could you also deal with Betacommand and tell him how his behaviour needs to change? Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's only fair. I was considering a request to put Betacommand under civility parole of some sort. That said, the regular baiting by MickMacNee is not helping - two wrongs don't make a right. And for what it's worth, I believe Betacommand is a good programmer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you understood what he is on about re. not being able to split tasks, for a technical reason as opposed to a 'its a pain' reason? And do you believe other users have seen his code, if it in actual fact contains company confidential novel technology? Either his company is extremely lax, or their tech is not exactly of interest to anyone anyway. No one has actualy ever suggested he is a bad programmer as far as I know by the way, the problem is everything to do with what happens when you indulge all the other faults of a person just because they are perceived as having an indispensible programming talent to offer. Someone wrote a big piece on it in the arbcom, very informative, and apt. MickMacNee (talk)

I have read it without input (I know nothing of writing bots). If it's a pain for Betacommand then it can be a justification not to do it (i.e. if I ask Betacommand to only use tail-recursion in his code so I can prove it works easily). For what it's worth, Betacommand does do the programming and programming is not necessarily easy. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I had spoken with BC in private, but I've left a note in public too, just so everybody knows the score. Nick (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. In future, please do leave such notes in public. Simply having a private word with one side of a dispute, and giving a very public topic banning to the other side, gives entirely the wrong impression. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just another appeasement as far as I'm concerned. I know full well that he will treat any editor questioning him in a way he doesn't like or suggesting a course of action he doesn't want to take in exactly the same way, I've seen it time and again for months, and seen the complaints of others for years. I posted a query on the arbcom page as to the enforceability of remedies by admins in arbcom case 2 given certain phrases in the policy that state remedies are enforceable by admins. Strangely it met with a deathly silence (I haven't checked it in a while though). MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And Franamax, he was talking to you when he said you don't know what you're talking about, the reply was in sequence with your comment [34], but don't take it personally, this is his standard reply to many people, per above analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seismic Risk

Hi, I was just wondering why you had removed the category "Structural Engineering" from this page? I am a structural engineer and I do seismic risk analyses (among other things). I have to say that I am not particularly bothered by the edit (I feel that the whole page could do with rewriting anyway due to the folksy style), and I am also aware that "Seismic Risk" may mean different things to different people. What does it mean to you?

--Muchado (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was because Category:Earthquake and seismic risk mitigation is sub-category of Structural Engineering. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dust1235

What happened to Dust1235? Did you manage to contact him? Or did he just vanish? 122.54.91.154 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

{{User DGAF}} & {{User DGAF2}}

Hello and thanks for your edits to {{User DGAF}} & {{User DGAF2}}. I was wondering, did you consider the possibility that all of the users who have those templates on their user page liked them the way they were before? Just wondering about the thought process you employed before your edits... thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I presumed they wouldn't give a fuck. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Final withdrawal of Routemaster.

Hi. I've commented on your reversion of my changes to the article Routemaster, along with what drove me to make the changes, on Talk:Routemaster. I'd appreciate your response there. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

replied on talk page btw. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: AQA graph.JPG

Hi Mick. Would you be able to update Image: AQA graph.JPG? The relevant data are:

• 29 February 08: answered question no. 11 million
• 21 April 08: answered question no. 12 million

Both of these are from AQA's own press releases at http://www.63336.com/news/. Cheers Charlie (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your - comments at WT:BAG

You shouldn't let your personal vendettas interfere with Wikipedia. I'm sure it is no coincidence that the only comments you left there were in opposition to people who have blocked you previously. Yeah, the two of them are wrong, of course. [35]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with wikipedia that lazy admins barely go beyond the basics as you have just done, and assume blocks are always justly and unbaisedly given out. If you want a real lesson in the variability of admin judgement around here, just take a look at betacommand's last failed Rfa, something like 70 for 80 against, it should be required reading in wiki admin school. And as far as I know in the current flux in procedure, anyone is allowed to comment in the BAG votes, and an example of bias towards BAG members and the continuation of the cabal suspiscions are wholly valid points to make there.MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're here, I wanted to drop you a quick note about refactoring sections that have been in place for a long time. It's INCREDIBLY annoying, to visit a link that someone else referenced somewhere (say WT:BOTS or WP:AN), and then have to search around for where it is *now*. IIRC it's all already been moved around once, and, it would really be better if these ones retain the original titles. We didn't used to have that section up top, and, it wasn't there at the start of those. But, now that it's there, further noms should probably use the format you were changing them to. For now, why don't we leave them as they are, please? SQL^{Query me!} 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems someone else had a brilliant way to do both! [36] SQL^{Query me!} 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

lolz. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC}

Your Wales edit

You were right to reverse my reversal - I missed your second paragraph. Apologies, should not edit late at night! --Snowded (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, I see you have placed a third option at the Wales page vote for constituent country or country. I believe your option is the same as option 1 ie: country. If option 1 was chosen it would read as you say, Wales, a country within the United Kingdom..... --Jack forbes (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Who have I attacked? MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing another editor to Robert Mugabe who is generally known for his human rights abuses, is a personal attack, personal attacks against other editors are prohibited. Please stop or you will be blocked indefinitely for continued harassment. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be a case of creative interpretation to meet a pre-determined objective, the comparison is the response, not the person, as is plain and clear from the wording of the post. To misinterpret it otherwise is a clear attempt to twist my words. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but you have been warned, the next time, it will be an indef block. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redacted, happy now? MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies MickMacNee, I was unaware of all the facts of the situation when I made the warning, I am retracting the warning at this time. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Shearer poster.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shearer poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag to this image as a non-free use of a promotional poster. I think that it would be better if you cropped the image to leave out the persons at the bottom, and you updated the information to say that it's a cropped version of the original --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Plaudits

I was very impressed by your breakdown of the situation here. Spot on. Enigma ^message 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AN thread

An Admin noticeboard thread has been opened which may be relevant to you. Please see WP:AN#Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry for details. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of sportspeople by nickname

Hi MickMacNee. Thanks for the good work you did splitting List of sportspeople by nickname into separate sports. I notice that quite a few of the names have a dash and an equals sign between the nickname and the full name. Was that intentional? Or did you just miss changing some of the dashes into equals signs? I was going to remove the dashes, but when I saw there so many, I thought I'd better check first. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Equals is to identify colums if later tabulated, so I think the dashes are supefluous, a result of it not being uniform before. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone it down please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry#Proposal_for_drama_reduction is over the line. Clearly you dislike Betacommand, but please try to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Much as it pains me to say it, please consider this a warning. Any more and I'll be very moved towards the block button. The phrase: "rise above it" comes to mind. Martinp23 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"I would point anyone looking at this comment from you, to the input you made at the last request for approval of another betacommandbot task." --- That is now the second time you have made this type of comment. What are you talking about? I have never commented on any of BetacommandBots BRFAs. Check for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the BAGRFA page. Same difference to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a diff? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If/when required. And more. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle Central station

I've partially reverted your edit because it doesn't follow other railway station articles. For example, you would see Cardiff Central station rather than Central station, Cardiff. If you feel I'm wrong, please 'discuss before reverting as not to cause an edit war. Thank you User:Welshleprechaun) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied. It's safe to say from my POV and by sources that you are forcing a made up name to satisfy some unadopted wikipedia standard, rather than actually reflect reality. The whole issue is a complete joke, and is exactly the kind of thing that makes normal people laugh at wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sven

Hi, I saw you reinstated the rumours of sven being sacked. I have not reverted until I discussed it with you. However it is a rumour until it is confirmed by either source in the discussion (in this case the employee (sven) or the employer (man city)). No statment from either party has been made to this effect and as such it is still a rumour. The friend of one of the parties involved is not a reliable source. Please let me know if you think I have it wrong, if not I believe this kind of edit should be reverted, at least until the decision has been made one way or the other. Pbradbury (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have not seen any respoce, I have reverted. Please let me know if you have a problem with this. Pbradbury (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, reverted, sorry, forgot about this, and wasn't clear which revert you were talking about, I was reverting rumours from that page all week, but now I see what you removed, my objection is the fact that the BBC article quoted Tord Gripp, who is Sven's agent, not just his friend, plus it's not exactly a secret that this has happened, tabloids or not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not true Athole Still is Svens agent, and he has stated that he is in the dark about Thaksins intensions see [37]. Please don't re-add before discussing here. The sources you provided merely say that someone said that, they do not verify that it has happened, wikipedia is not a newspaper or a magazine Pbradbury (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, stay in the dark all you want. MickMacNee (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fasach et al

Mick, good shout on the straw poll. Most of my energy has been consumed by trying to convince him and Grant not to edit war each other to hell and back. Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, that's not to say it will stop anything mind... MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Anyway, Champions League final calls. Enjoy (if you're watching), have a relaxing night (if you're not, or both!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Maybe the nominators did not know Dust is a SPA. Please recreate it! PLEASE! 122.54.93.104 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They know. Freaking H Christ they know. Go and have a lie down in a dark room. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Then recreate it! 122.54.93.104 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City / Board

You reverted my recent edit to Manchester City F.C. with the edit summary standard in many team articles. Exhaustive lists of every official, major or minor, may be present in some articles, but seldom in featured ones, where it has generally been viewed as undue weight. Several of these people are not sufficiently notable to merit an article, which is a good yardstick for what to include in the main club article. In any case, the information is still present in the daughter article Ownership of Manchester City F.C., where it is more pertinent. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I'm the same guy as the one who is bothering you. I am recreating the template. If you are an admin, ban Dust1235 This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this post is about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it's all about, this user says their other account was indef blocked. It seems to have to do with deleting Template:Seconds From Disaster and the DRV for it. Maybe you'll remember after seeing it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know its about the template, I just have no clue what he is actually trying to say. He's been bouncing around the wiki bothering everyone and anyone about this template. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with Betacommand

I haven't really had any interaction with you before, but I've seen your comments about Betacommand in multiple forums recently. It's apparent that have a real animus towards that editor - I'd like to offer the advice, as I did at this MfD, and as AuburnPilot did at WP:AN, that you walk away from the Betacommand situation. The tone of your arguments is completely undermining the concerns that you have. I'm not saying that you have no basis for your criticisms - just that it should probably be someone else who raises those concerns. Betacommand seems to be under close community scrutiny, I think you can rest assured that if he does something against policy it's going to be called to his attention. Kelly ^hi! 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say, given the nominator attacks at the Mfd, I am not minded to set much stall by your supposedly neutral 'advice' here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Attacks"? Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you view any kind of criticism as an "attack", then it's probably best to disengage from this conversation - it's unlikely to achieve anything productive. But I'll warn you that you're likely heading for some kind of dispute resolution forum or topic ban in regard to Betacommand - when it happens I'll be happy to endorse as someone who tried to talk to you about this. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is good advice Mick. Not everyone who disagrees with you is attacking you, and you have been demonstrating that you have an ax to grind with Beta. If Beta's behavior is a problem then other people will notice it too, it is probably best if you just avoided Beta. _{1 != 2} 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have no appreciation of the difference between addressing the nominator and addressing the nomination. That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Thus any topic ban would be demonstrably be a complete joke, and even worse, to uphold an agenda. If I ever actually make an action towards beta himself, and not a perfeclty legitimate nomination per policy, then you can come back to me. Otherwise, keep your bias under control. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very important distinction. Let me be more clear, I am not talking about the MfD, I am talking about the fact that you are clearly bias when it comes to Beta and that you would do better to let others handle him and just stay away. You don't have to accept this for it to be true. _{1 != 2} 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't both be right, and I'm confident in my position. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well lets just see what the community thinks at the noticeboard. _{1 != 2} 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have raised the subject of a topic ban here. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

It could very easily happen. Since Al's name is actually 'Alan', and Alan Shearer's first name is often abbreviated to Al, it is perfectly reasonable to assume this could occur. As such, I have readded the hatnote. asenine ^{say what?} 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree with MickMacNee on this one . It's a needless distinction, just serves to overcomplicate things. The footballer has pretty much never been named as "Al Shearer". No need for the hatnote. MattM4 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for disruptive editing, namely, needless incivility, provocation and personal attacks. Telling someone they don't have balls is a personal attack; provoking others, namely Beta, being intentionally disruptive, and adding gasoline to the fire, just in the last few hours. I asked you to tone it down on AN, but you continued on, and told 1=2 he has no balls a few minutes later. This is unacceptable behaviour and is harmful to a collaborative project. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What an amazing aggregation of ingredients to concoct a block pie, from a BAG member surprise surprise. Per 1==2, demonstrate he is willing to change the consensus at WP:WBE instead of doing a runaround in an obscure Mfd, otherwise he has no balls, simple as (if you prefer I will call him a chicken if that gets people out of a block); per Beta, provoking? hardly (all things considered) - that was the implication towards me, that I was wrong in both occasions (and you're talking about provocation elsewhere), so I assume you mean I am not allowed to defend myself; and finally, as for getting blocked for quoting an essay in a talk page, then you are so far out of the block park, home base is a dot to you. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

otherwise he has no balls, simple as (if you prefer I will call him a chicken if that gets people out of a block) and then you are so far out of the block park, home base is a dot to you. — I rest my case. Maxim_(talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm laughing my tits off at the mere idea of Maxim ever even considering blocking Beta for 24 hours for, let's say, telling someone to "shut the fuck up" a few days after his second arbcom. Or the thought of 1==2 ever giving full disclosure before faking neutrality at AN. Userpage protection in 5..4..3..2..1. We must silence this user, before he says too much! MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with this block and was coming here to warn/block you myself based on your persistent stalking of Betacommand and general incivility. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The way you are being railroaded is ridiculous

You've done more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misdeeds to light, and the fact that some of the admins and users who support this are routine supporters of Betacommand says much. Jtrainor (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on you towards Betacommand

It is the consensus of the community that you be placed under the following restriction:

MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Due to concerns that someone may attempt to take advantage of this topic ban to get you into trouble, the following provision has been added:

If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban

_{1 != 2} 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See above section. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocked

If anyone wouldn't mind doing the honours. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Mr.Z-man 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tesco

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tesco. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)

Well, don't say I didn't give you enough of an opportuinity to read the relevant policies. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

creating a page

let me ask you a question everone elese creates a page about them selves so why was mine deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Trace (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you meant by this question, as it was your first ever edit. However, you now appear to be the reincarnation of a user indefinitely blocked as a vandal. If you continue to edit the way they did, you will likely see the same result. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One-armed bandit murder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Translation

Oh I see the message at the top. See village pump bot page ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Swansea Metro

Please don't drag me into an argument: [38]. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you retracting your viewpoint then? 'Dragging' you into something is irelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I still agree with you; I just don't like my name being used in an argument you're having in edit summaries. Anyway, I have posted to Welshleprechaun's talk page here. --RFBailey (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing articles bot

Regarding your recent comments on the missing articles bot, I thought you might find it interesting to read this page: WP:TALK, regarding actually confining comments to the subject at hand. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As said, I'm not sure how the state of the wikiprojects are irrelevant to that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland et al

Thanks for your contribution to the Ireland talk page, I had posed some questions for you at WT:FOOTY some time ago, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with so we can move on Fasach Nua (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you ever accepted consensus anywhere on wikipedia. Your wiki life seems to consist entirely of going against the norm, and basically pissing people off. Maybe you don't get this, maybe you do. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do accept WP:CONSENSUS it is mob rule I have trouble with Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's common sense you have trouble with. You're a joke to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil/incivil

Yes, indeed, which is why Wikpedia needs to be careful not to spread these things, although having said that, spelling mistakes are the least problematic of the things we spread around. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustang

I think we need to discuss changes to this article on the talk page. It is one thing to be bold, it is another to go in and make drastic changes to an article with other active editors without at least a warning or inquiries about why things are there. Some of your changes were stylistically not too bad and I was intending to review and work them back in today, but you have removed sourced content in violation of MOS, you removed other content without asking for clarification, and you added unsourced material. I am going to look over your edits again and restore the deleted content. If you have a problem with that, be my guest and ask for a third opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a good faith attempt to merge the new material you added with what had been in there, but I kept most of the original structure (not that it's perfect, but it is more in line with MOS). I am open to ideas that improve the article, but let's discuss before making any more drastic changes. And per WP:MOS and WP:CITE, it is really poor form to delete footnoted material. The answer to POV issues is often to explain both sides and "teach the controversy," not to remove things. Hope I have produced a reasonable compromise. I have asked some folks at WikiProject Equine to watchlist the article in case we cannot come to an agreement, this is a more informal way to help bring in some other perspectives is needed. Also, if it helps, sorry I got upset and snarky when I saw and reverted your original edit. I didn't have the time yesterday to do what I did today, and not knowing you or seeing any discussion on the talk page, I was quick to react. Hope things go forward in a more positive fashion from here on. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Carolinas AFD

(I'm "Mr. IP".) I am somewhat mystified by your claim that attempts to keep the article The Carolinas from being deleted are some sort of elaborate attempt to resurrect the Cackalacky article. Although I probably (probably) would have voted to keep that article as well, being generally of an inclusionist bent, my attempts to keep "The Carolinas" from being deleted aren't really related to that. I originally found "The Carolinas" while searching for the term "Cackalacky", which is now a redirect to it. On searching that article for the term, I found nothing, so I checked the talk page and saw the history. From there, I went back and re-added much of the information from it with sourcing. I had no involvement with either article prior to my arrival, and I frankly don't care that much about the "cackalacky" issue. I live in the state and think it's a pretty dumb nickname. 65.190.92.196 (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hatrick

But will the referee chalk them off for offside? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging by Euro 2008, nope. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, there's an editor lying behind the goal. Jack forbes (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the chance to warn you, Mick. Seek consensus first before making changes (exspecially those 4 articles). GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good one. I'll solve the middle east problem while I'm at it. There's nothing wrong with my version, except in the bizarre world of wiki, where common sense dissapears. So, here we are, all four of the countries within countries have a different status according to wikipedia. Right arm meet left arm. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me and go to the respective talk pages if you want to change the intros. It's not that hard. A personal attack on me is not going to do any good.Pureditor 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is extremely hard, as you well know, all you have done is remove a solution that satisfied both viewpoints, with a source. I'm not surprised at your dismissal as you clearly have no factual reason why my version needed reverting instantly, your only contribution today. Like I said, telling someone to go to the talk page in this instance is a complete piss-take, you haven't solved a thing here today. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see the above editors idea of being 'bothered' here, as he prefers to remove comments rather than answer them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Editor; I do not waste my time responding to immature trolls who have no concept of the five pillars of Wikipedia.Pureditor 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute and total rubbish. In case you were unaware, I'm an editor too, with plenty of experience of the five pillars, but thanks for the patronisation though, it helps me confirm where you're coming from. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See here anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

afd

I do expect an apology. The way to do it is on the afd page, using strikeout. Not that I need defense from the other editor, as Ive commented to him) DGG (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Quick and the Dead

Thats an idiom? Since when, where are your sources, why does it have priority over the disambig, why is it also listed in the disambig? Personally I rather doubt any of the cowboy movies with that name have any relation whatsoever to the sentence in the Bible, rather I believe its talking about gunfighters, your either quick or your dead (because the other guy is quick and shoots you, thus every duel can be considered to have one quick and one dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not my doing, I merely shuffled the content around into more appropriate locations, I never added any of the original content. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass Tours

Hi MickMacNee. I just wanted to ask you about this edit, as I was not sure that you knew that everything in that paragraph was extracted from the cited article, the one by Vicky Anderson. It might have been a trivia issue, but I did not think it was a BLP issue—unless there is an aspect of BLP that I'm not keeping in mind...? Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah right. I'm not fussed, it looked as if it had been added by themselves, hence probably not sourced. I would note that the claim about being the youngest comes from them themselves though. Mostly it is just trivia-ish to my mind, is the full history of how the company started all that notable?. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was the one who had added it all, but really I was just picking and choosing a few things from the Anderson article, to demonstrate (to those involved in the AfD discussion) that there is some content that could be added. I wasn't all that careful about what to pick and what to leave out, thinking that I did not want to put all that much effort into it unless it was clear that the article here was going to be "kept". It could well be that the "interesting" tidbits I had selected are a little trivial. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello MickMacNee. I recommend you let SFC's revert stand, as the re-adding of constituent country was on a trial bases (see what the reaction would be). We don't want another 'fight' there. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a procedural revert, he cannot revert simply on the basis of where a discussion took place, he can only revert on the merits of the change made and its justification, which he clearly did not. If he needs the arbitration committee to tell him that, then I guess that's whet it will take. MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll I ask is that you don't re-add constituent country; I've been there & done that (and got bruised up, over it). GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're getting bruised up because, you, as the reverters are doing, is treating it as a fight. Anything on wikipedia can be justified if you follow policy, and it will be those who choose to exist outside of the normal procedures that will suffer. Franky, their position is not grounded in policy, therefore, you are effectively being bullied off of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Mick. Hope you fare better then I did (all those weeks ago). GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

clue

Thanks, didn't know about that essay. Still, it's sad that disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning is often only wishful thinking. Dorftrottel (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit per MOS on Chernobyl disaster

MickMacNee, I'm afraid I consider your edit somewhat disruptive. I posted a note to you on Talk:Chernobyl_disaster. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Response re. my signature

Thanks for the suggestion. I will change my signature's colours tonight as I have nothing to do with that other guy who also uses a "4" in his username and hope you're not implying otherwise. --uk4ever 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this is better. --uk4ever 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Gang

Why have you removed my comments from this talk page? 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk page guidelines. The talk page is there to discuss improvements to an article only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not my personal views, every point I made is verifiable. 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cat got your keyboard? 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're trying to say. Points being verifiable is a matter for article space, not talk pages. If you have something to add to the article, do it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would but do you know something, in retrospect I can't be bothered. The Day that shower went down the drain, was a great day for English football. 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rare indeed

So is this level of wit. Thanks for possessing All the Clever. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

DRVs and userfying

Hello! While I cannot speak for all of my colleagues (Nick Penguin is also good about continuing to work on articles beyond AfDs and DRVs), as the initiator of the thread in which you commented, please note that I for one do in fact continue to work to improve the content under discussion as seen by [39] and [40], as well as [41]. So, if I initiate a DRV, please rest assured that I will in fact keep working on the article should it be restored or userfied. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

etiology

From etiology: "In medicine in particular, the term refers to the causes of diseases or pathologies", from the print dictionary closest to hand "The study of the causes of disease", please note that a homosexual sexual orientation is not considered either a disease or a pathology. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the article is about biology. It's a perfectly valid term. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a reasoned opinion on this subject

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about some sort of unofficial inclusion guideline for IPC sections. It's clear that some subject are genuinely notable when it comes to popular culture, but we don't have a proper gague of the lower end of the notability spectrum. All thoughts are welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear heavens

Do I have to be your example? Durova^Charge! 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are eminently notable according to coverage in the reliable sources :D Anyway, I have my own thread on WR now for voting on the DRV, so my comments are also presumably now discountable as a bad faith conflict of interest. I guess I won't be around much this afternoon, I will obviously be busy taking calls from Guardian journalists all day :p MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Shakes head) makes me glad I nominated one of those Guardian journalists' biographies for courtesy deletion; gives me a leg to stand on. BTW could you give me a link to our site's statement on WP:UBERADMIN? I never did understand that op... ;) Durova^Charge! 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DDStretch

Hello MickMacNee,

Whilst I think it would be more offensive than helpful to you for me to point out WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL (you're clearly an experienced editor), I would ask, respectfully, that you please give User:DDStretch less of a hard time on the mediation page and elsewhere. He is (AFAICT) the only gentleman who has taken action against multiple sockpuppets who've tried to spoil the process, and has, if you read through, done nothing but try to help on the UK/country mediation issue.

Although your posts are clearly written with an element of frustration with the process, I don't think it's fair to channel that towards him at all. Even if you haven't intended to, your messages come across in a way that continually disapproves of his actions, IMHO, when really, it needent. I'm as equally frustrated with the process, and have infact stepped away from it today (I don't think with that particular userbase a resolution will be made), but I'm confident that DDStretch has not only acted in total good faith, but has been prudent, patient and offered alternative ways of looking at things, when others haven't.

Remember, it is not DDStretch's responsibilty to manage the participants of that process - not only is he a brand new administrator, he is merely an interested party (as opposed to a mediator). I for one think it is worthwhile having both of you on that page, working together on the issue in hand. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here - seconded. 80.41.215.137 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Biology and Sexual Orientation

To answer your rude and unnecessarily inflammatory comments in the edit history of the Biology and Sexual Orientation article, yes, English is my first language. You could try being more polite; rudeness tends to make people rude in return. Your preferred wording is, 'Biology and sexual orientation describes the research into the possible existence of biological influences on the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in humans.' There are several problems here. Firstly, the word 'existence' is totally unnecessary in this sentence, since if there are possible biological influences on human sexual orientation, then by definition biological influences on human sexual orientation may exist. The concept of possibility includes the concept of existence. Secondly, the word 'ultimate' is totally unnecessary, since 'development' implies a final outcome. Thirdly, the word 'specific' is unnecessary, since 'human sexual orientation' implies specific orientations. All three of these words could be removed, and the sentence would have exactly the same meaning. Since sentences do not become clearer or more impressive just because they are longer, I am going to undo your edit. Try seeking a third opinion before reverting again. Skoojal (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't be, you are clearly owning the article now you have reverted two separate editors, and have little or no understanding of the lead section guideline. I absolutely have to question your knowledge of English given your interpretation of the words 'may' and 'appear' with regards scientific method, and your total obsession with grammatic succinctness. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, I don't understand English because I like keeping sentences short and simple when possible? A more detailed explanation of what you think is wrong with the way I phrased that sentence would be more helpful. Incidentally, I am not trying to 'own' the article. I've encountered this attitude in others, and I dislike it intensely. Skoojal (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

You've made it into my funny/clever/witty things list. Read and enjoy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Honoured :D MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Heat (film) article. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we cannot accept sources which appear to be the original work of the editor. If the material you added can be attributed to a reliable source, you may add it back if you cite it. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in the verifiability of the article. Trevor GH5 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't understood WP:V with regards films. Nor have you understood WP:OR. Finally, please DNTTR, when you have been reverted with a valid reason, do not simply repeat your revert with the exact same summary you used the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England

Hello Mick. All of us will have to let the 4 articles decide for themselves individually, as to what they want in their lead. Currently - England has [constituent country|country], Wales has [constituent county] might become [constituent country|country], Northern Ireland has [constituent country] & Scotland (surprise, surprise) has [country]. Perhaps we should all follow Scotland's lead; (if we can't beat'em join 'em). GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy (if not continually restarting after half a day), but there isn't much logic in each edit being made on one article with the justification of achieving consistency with the other articles, when the principle of consistency has been rejected. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep our fingers crossed, that each article will decide on it's own & those seperate choices happen to be the same. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Norfolkline wikipage

Hi Mick

I just saw you deleted/edited my additions to the page earlier today. Accidently I wasn't logged on when I made these changes (I just noticed after taking a look at the page history). I just wanted to say that the changes I made today under were done IP address 193.172.150.254 (since I forgot to log in) but even though our IP adresses are the same I am absolutely NOT that spammer who edits the page and leaves messages like (BOLLOCKS TO YOU ALL), (CLOSEDMOUTH IS A TOSSER.) and so on and so on. I have no idea who that is, but am aware of the fact it might look like I am that person.

The text I entered on the wikipage (about Norfolkline's history) was indeed from the Norfolkline homepage, but the company has asked me to put it up there as it is much better (complete) and easier to read than the bulleted text/years that's on there now. This text was not promotional whatsoever. Can I please upload this text again, perhaps with a reference to the url-source with it?

Regards, Lieke —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiekeMuller (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't enter text word for word from a commerical web page, as it would be a violation of copyright. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. First of all, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#What about fair use?. I have not reviewed the subject situation, but I'll assume that this did not fall within the fair use exception. So, from the circumstances described, I'd assume that the editor can obtain permission from the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, and see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. If not, then, yes, Mick was correct, substantial use of copyrighted material is not allowed without permission. If in doubt, get permission. It may be simpler to rewrite the material, and that may be necessary anyway, substantial text from a commercial site about their own company or product would only rarely be appropriate, in toto and as-is, but for reasons other than the copyright issue. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I also replied on this user's Talk page and gave him some information about SPAs and COI, just in case.[42] --Abd (talk)

Wales/England etc

Good to see we might be moving towards an agreement. I think (from one entry) that you share my suspicion about our new editor (as do others). Feels to similar to past sock puppets to me, including the evasive answers on the talk page. Any thoughts as to whether we should do something (in the spirit of mostly disagreeing but respecting your integrity as an editor!) --Snowded (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would just ignore him. Everyone knows the score it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

your unsourced edits to Routemaster article

It is Wikipedia's policy that content should be sourced, please comply with this before you make further edits to the article. Statement like "in my experience" aren't credible sources. It is absurd to insist on picturing a completely different subject to the one being written about on purely personal experience, the onus is on you to prove your assertions Oxyman42 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly a pathetic episode of wikilawyering and disrupting to make a point. Have a barnstar. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems common sense to me that the article should picture subjects relevent to the subject it covers, frankly I can't see why you are being such a dick about this and obviously I can't see how you are right!

Obviously, you presumably can't see how it's relevant aven though it was explained in plain English many times, because you probably have trouble putting your pants on in the morning. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you can't even manage to sign your posts, I'm probably right. Pathetic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The arguments I have herd seem very weak "in your experience" etc, why the lame insults? and yes I forgot to sign that post Oxyman42 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because sometimes people's actions are so stupid, you can't fail to call a spade a spade. It is so obvious to anyone who knows the subject it doesn't need an 'argument' to be made, it frankly doesn't need explaining at all, except maybe to you. I wonder why. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The arguments you use seem to be very weak "in your experience" etc I have come across many types of buses mistaken as RM's I can't see why an RT type must be pictured and not say a Leyland Titan your posts seem increasingly to contain the lamest of insults Oxyman42 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A Titan that looks exactly the same as an RT. Thank you for proving my point though. Do you think someone who thinks an RT is an RM could ever tell the difference between an RT and a Tiger? What exact point are you trying to make here? Go back and read the caption again. You have been reverted by two different users now, so you must be getting a clue that you're not doing anything amazingly principled and worthy right now, just vandalising an article to make a point, and worsening it for normal readers. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is obvious it makes no sense to post a picture of every bus that looks vaguely like an RM, why Must we have an image of an RT in particular? Oxyman42 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So now his argument has totally unravelled. He can't cite a policy, should there be such a policy he's applying it selectively - where's the sourcing to indicate a bus pictured was in Montreal after all? Every revert digs his own hole as he doesn't realise reverts made by you or I are reverts dealing with vandalism, not covered by 3RR, whereas he's smashed that line. Minkythecat (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule (which you've been blocked for violating in the past and cited when editing this very article). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—David Levy 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Southern

who are you and why did you delete material from the great southern wiki page? seemed odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.112.155 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what page you refer to. "Great Southern" produces Great Southern. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

i refer to "great southern television" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.54.6 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Great Southern Television. Basically, the info is completely unsourced, so there is no way of knowing its accuracy, or importance. It basically looks like self promotion. Please read WP:AUTO, WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:COI.

right you seem quite an expert, so how would you recommend we get information on the page about our owners without you deleting it ... sourcing? our industry is a people industry - so such companies don't exist without key staff. no key people, no company, no wiki. companies like gstv do not make widgets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.54.6 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If the above links don't help, perhaps you should start at Help:Contents/Getting started. Basically, we can't accept you adding information about people you know personally just on your say so that it is correct or worthy of note. And as you are writing about someone in your company, you must be carefull not to appear to be writing for the purposes of advancing someone's CV or promoting the company, rather than writing an article for an encyclopoedia. If you look around, you will see wikipedia has plenty of content on notable people, even business people. See Category:Businesspeople MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

David Davis by-election campaign, 2008

While I think the move was done a bit hastily, you seem to be the only one objecting to it, plus there is still no material unrelated to the by-election campaign in the article. As I noted on the article talk page, unless either is rectified within a week, I'm definitely going ahead with the move to David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 as it seems to be both appropriate and consensus. (I do wish that when you'd undid the move, you'd just moved it back rather than to a new name, but an additional redirect at the end of the day isn't that great a bother, even if I doubt it'll ever be used.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Shearer and the Alan Shearer Centre

Hello. I think you may want to take one more look at WP:EL. In the section "Important points to remember", it clearly states (point 3):

• External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox.

The external link you are inserting is within the body of the text. Also, in "links normally to be avoided", point 13 states:

• Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
  

The Alan Shearer Centre website provides no information on Shearer, I had a look at it when trying to make the article meet WP:GA, and decided to use it as a ref instead. Certainly the page you are linking to has no information on Shearer. Now these guidelines seem to pretty much determine that this link shouldn't be in the article body, and seeing as there's no info on Shearer, there's no reason to make an exception to the guideline. So yes, I have read WP:EL. - Toon⁰⁵ 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid use of an inline external link because that is the only place in the entire article it is referred to, and it also meets the purpose of an external link as further reading. It is useless as a reference because it is not a reference, your previous version of using it as a cite was quite misleading to the reader. I think you have misinterpreted the guideline if you think every external link has to be about the subject. Quite clearly this is an appropriate link, in an appropriate place. MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... no. Where does it come under "What should be linked" or "links to be considered"? Where's this mention in the guideline of something which should be linked inline if it's the only place in the article it's referred to? It in fact comes under the "important point to remember" as a negative and "links normally to be avoided". If we link to this, why not "Full Stop campaign" website? It's pure linkspam; we even gave the centre a little explanation, it's unnecessary. It's quite obvious that external linking is only to be used to provide more info about the subject: Re-read all of the guidelines; it only suggests interviews, reviews, Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources etc. - otherwise it's pure external link spam, a link purely to benefit the organisation. - Toon⁰⁵ 01:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. If you can't see it is different to the full stop campaign, and that it's a valid in line link, and that it is relevant tot he article, then I couldn't give a fuck about trying to convince you. Remove it if you honestly think you are improving the article by doing so, I've got better things to do with my time than try and convince you of the obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but it's not obvious to me at all. I'm not bothered if you want to re add it in the "external links" but I'm going to remove it from the main body. Thanks - Toon⁰⁵ 01:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no point, the 'spam' link as you quite offensively label it will be quite useless and overlooked in the EL section, given the complete ambiguity of the site name and the single reference to it in the main text, 99% of which is not about the site. Still, I guees we could replicate the relevant part of the main text in the EL section, but then again, that isn't what the EL section is for. Yet another case of what I clearly see as obvious just passes you by. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD:List of main battle tanks by generation

Please don't vote to keep this list based on your perception of the discussion. Have a look at the substance and nature of the references which have been found over its eleven-month existence (sorry, you'll have to read Polish because the editor who added them refuses to translate any passages). And have a look at the amount of time newbie editors have wasted on revert-warring, visible in the list's history, because its substance is based solely on speculative extrapolation from a non-source. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:35 z

Hi again. I don't know what “rp” means, but I assumed you blanked the AfD request by accident. Am I correct? —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 20:24 z

How bizarre. rp stands for reply. Not sure where it went but I'll repost it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I've had stuff like that happen a couple times. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 21:31 z

"Countless admins"?

Not sure if you realise but myself, Gnangarra and several others who commented against the passage in question are admins. I count only one - Matilda - in support. Not that it should matter anyway, as admins have no higher profile than anyone else, but thought it needed highlighting as an obvious factual error. Orderinchaos 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected on "the right version"? You mean my diff? Glad we agree on something. rofl --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us want to take this issue seriously, if you're just going to be a sarcastic nuisance I would suggest you not give your opinion next time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider attempting to remove non-notable, undue weighted, possibly OR, borderline BLP-violating edits from this encyclopaedia to be a "nuisance". It's fine for you to disagree, but I think the absence of any meaningful media coverage means that this issue is not taken seriously by any reliable commentators. If JWH really were likely to be brought to court for war crimes, I think we'd hear a lot more about it from the media, current pollies, and all sorts of sundry commentators. The absence of any such commentary means including this accusation (which was clearly POV-pushing on the part of those who accused him) is WP:UNDUE. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If it had any chance whatsoever, I could see Anthony Albanese or Stephen Smith making it a huge issue for weeks. The fact that nobody in the governing Labor Party, who got in mainly because of antipathy against Howard, has said a word about it really says where this is at. Orderinchaos 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations

Is this some sort of technique to try and ward off either me or the IP address? How do I disprove it? (Can I give you my assurances that I wasn't in at the time of the edits being made the night before?) I don't know if you've had experience with sockpuppets before but you shouldn't just throw around accusations. The accusations levied by you and Mcli7kg2 appear to be pretty hostile, and I think you should withdraw them. There's no bunker mentality on my part - I'm not using a sock to push my case more aggressively, I don't care that much about either the issue at hand or warring over it. It isn't vandalism either. Can I at least plead insanity, or diminished responsibility, on that count? Apologize if I sound slightly pissed off but I am (that's a justification, not a threat). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for the pointer to the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for User:Yohan euan o4, which would have allowed the "suspected sockpuppet" notices to be placed. In any case, blanking the pages without any checks made or confirmed would seem to unwise as it could be viewed as simple vandalism. So I hope the relevant pointers to the CheckUser request can be posted (They should also have been given on the relevant user or user's talk pages as well.) In the meantime, in the absence of any pointers to a checkuser request, I have reinstated the pages. I suggest they are not blanked again until a positive result for being a sockpuppet is obtained and made publically available via a link on the pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I never filed a request as I chose to employ page protection instead, however, this lasts only a week so the process may be started if the pattern returns. The talk page notifications are only required after starting a request, tags are exempt from the procedure and are for information only. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bedford twin steer coach, GUP 743C.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Bedford twin steer coach, GUP 743C.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Bedford twin steer coach, GUP 743C.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Leyland Leopard badge.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Leyland Leopard badge.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Leyland Leopard badge.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you like the nice, quiet state of Routemaster

Problem editors could show up again, whether true problems or merely appearing as such. Please, if another problem appears, try to remain scrupulously civil, no matter how frustrating it might be, and get help. Let me know on my Talk, because my Watchlist sometimes becomes overwhelming and I might miss a problem. Semi-protection has expired, I notice. But, so far, so good. --Abd (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation idea

Hi MickMacNee, You recenly wrote on the JH discussion page that mediation would be a good way to proceed. The advantage of mediation is that because it puts a lid on the incivility that often plagues article discussion pages. But you don't need to ask everyone's permission first. You just submit a request for mediation, then you send out invitations, and see who turns up. Hopefully everyone will, and arrive at a compromise with this content. Cheers, --Lester 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late :) Let's see where the survey goes. MickMacNee (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul?

Hi - I find it confusing when you refer to User:Skyring as Paul - at least I think that is who you are referring to. I know it is confusing to have somebody sign themselves as Pete which is quite different to his username. He is however a real-life identity associated with the name Skyring on various forums, written up in the local newspapers (we both live in the same city), ... so could I please beg you to not confuse the mug-punter in this already confusing enough discussion by giving him a 3rd name.

On the other hand I appreciate what you are doing in trying to gain consensus and define the points of difference so that we can hammer these out. I do not appreciate argument from repetition - I would like people to make their point once we work on teasing that out and then if necessary we work on the next point or we can work on several at once but they need to be arguments related to content not editors. We do not each need to keep restating the same points. Ad hominem arguments are obviously false. WP:NPA is quite clear - in the lead it states Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I believe I am being harasssed. I recognise of course that some of that is my problem and of course walking away - taking myself on a wikibreak is a solution. I find however that when I go (I am not good at wikibreaks) that Skyring suggests that because I am gone the issue has gone away [43] - at least that is how I inferred it in part - she isn't here, there is no other reasonable opposition, the status quo is leave it out - let us move on (but without mediation).

Anyway I am not here to solicit (or canvass) and I apologise for whingeing at you but we haven't ever dealt with each other before and I wanted to explain where I was coming from. I don't think referring to another use as Paul when that isn't his signature or user id is appropriate and it detracts from the content arguments. You are doing a good job by focussing on those - please keep focussing on the content and not on the editors.

If I have misinterpreted who Paul was or am mistaken - apologies but could you clarify which user. Or if you were merely confused that Skyring = Pete not Paul and it was a slip - could you fix it please. Thanks --Matilda ^talk 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Pete=Paul, complete mind fuzz there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you won't listen to the talk page

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Hulk (comics). If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I didnt realise you were also one of the new editors to the article. My humble advice to you, please take it easy. It was nice working with you. Docku^Hi 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming that you were a new editor there. Guess you are involved in editing the John Howard article before. Docku^Hi 17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR at John Howard

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Howard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. , I see you have made 4 reverts at the article over the bunker information please consider reverting your last edit. Gnangarra 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

I just blocked you for 48 hours edit warring on John Howard. I was going to block you for 24 hours but then I saw your block log and it's apparent that you're just not getting the message. The edit warring on John Howard is going to stop. Use the talk page to sort out your disputes in future. Sarah 11:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a frankly disgusting block. The fact that you cannot see a WP:POINT edit right infront of your eyes beggars belief. Orderinchaos and Skring, plus the templating twat Gnangarra above, have played you like an idiot. The material was added on 24 July without incident [44], and is only now being disputed after it came to light it was me who added it, in a spitefull reaction to having their ownership of the articled questioned. Skyring has since removed it twice, despite having a source. If you fail to acknowledge these basic facts then I will formaly request a block review. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute - you're blackmailing me with an unblock request? Is that right? Please request unblocking in the usual way, I don't respond to threats, thanks. For the reviewing admin- revert 1, 2, 3, 4. Sarah 00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Though he made a technical mistake by violating the 3RR rule, his edit reversions did not involve addition of contentious material to the article. He could have listened to Gnangarra's warning and undo his fourth revert. Again, there is discussion going on in the article talk page how to add it back in. I would recommend removal of block with a promise of future non involvement in edit warring. I am not sure how it works, But I guess you may need to use the unblock template. Docku^Hi 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest strongly that Sarah is not an uninvolved administrator given her commentary at WP:ANI and WP:AN and should have left the block and the page protection to absolutely uninvolved administrators. Although she notes at User talk:Skyring The only reason I'm not right now is that he was edit warring against two of you and reverted four times, but another admin might decide that you should be blocked too. I don't see how that material violates BLP so I don't think you were reverting under that protection. Given that she did the block, there is no apparent report at WP:3RR there is no reason for an uninvolved admin to even be aware of the case. Skyring asserts he It's still a 3RR vio, and I'll hand it over to the admin cadre for action. but did not report (and nor did he necessarily need to. Sarah may be within her rights to perform admin actions but her assertion So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it at WP:AN is disingenuous in my view. She cannot watch, comment on WP:AN and ANI on it and not be involved - she has strong views and has expressed them as is her right.
  Sarah ahas suggested that I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. ... I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. - I suggest she looks at her own actions and reconsiders whether she is uninvolved. That applies to any admin who has been watching the dispute and has formed a view. I call again for uninvolved admins - not pseudo-uninvolved. --Matilda ^talk 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So matilda, I've recently been very critical of your administrative actions, are you trying to suggest that under your own definition of "involved" that you are "uninvolved" with me sufficiently to assess my actions? Pft... You haven't seen straight with regard to any other matter recently, including hardblocking alternate accounts being used to write an RFC about yourself, I fail to see why this would be any different. I think you have a very unique definition of "uninvolved" but I can't say any further about that without violating OTRS. Sarah 00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I by no means suggest I am uninvolved - perhaps to quote Orderinchaos While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. - to suggest that your actions cannot be questioned by me or any other editor is an extraordinary defence - so is the ad hominem or pot calling the kettle black argument.
I have already explained on your usertalkpage and on ANI that I hardblocked sockpuppet accounts used by an abuser in the past of sockpuppetry only when he had finished using them to file the RfC - I in no way interfered with his preparation or filing the RfC - the block had an unintended consequence of inconveniencing Skyring slightly, which he did not ask me to fix but took to ANI. I acted in good faith to try not to inflame an already inflamed situation - I failed - quite prepared to admit it and that it would have been handled better if handled differently.
Your actions (and inactions - for example not blocking Skyring for editwarring too) subsequent to your comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI have not helped to calm the situation.
My definition of uninvolved in this case is that there are in excess of 1500 admins out there, many of whom have not been talking on or off-wiki with involved editors and admins. I suggest that almost any of the Australian admins comes with prejudices about the content and some of the participants and has quite possibly been corresponding off-wiki on the subject. This has become an incredibly complex situation which is incidentally very little to do with content. I can write further but ... I will save it for another time. I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. This situation is not dying down and needs proper resolution and that in my view is best supplied by uninvolved admins who come to the issue with little to no prior involvement with involved editors. --Matilda ^talk 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am apparently blocked for 3RR, however the third and fourth reverts 34 are different to the first and second revert 12, as they included a source, and as such are sufficiently different as to not qualify as edit warring. Furthermore the blocking admin is not uninvolved, and has also declined to comment on the fact that the revert was to restore the removal of material added on 24 July, only now being contested as a WP:POINT violation due to a recent, completely unrelated issue.

Decline reason:

Not only am I uninvolved, I'm not even Australian. You are edit-warring over the inclusion of this specific information in the article; that it is a slightly different version does not mean that you are not edit-warring. In general, when you know your edit is controversial, you should finish achieving consensus on the talk page before restoring your desired change. Also, the use of the 'undo' function is generally reserved for vandalism and other edits that are obviously without merit. Using it on the good-faith edits of experienced editors will often be perceived as insulting, which perhaps you did not intend. In the future, remember that there's no emergency; there's time to discuss and reach consensus before making your desired change. If you are indeed correct that Wikipedia policies support your desired change, and if you can clearly explain why they do, then consensus will support you. Edit-warring is disruptive and counterproductive; achieving consensus first will get your appropriate edits on the article more quickly and with less trauma for all. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You might like to read the WP:3RR policy. It says: 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.' Please note the material does not have to be the same each time. I am not involved. I have never interacted with you before, have I? I certainly don't remember it if I have. I'm not involved in editing this article or with regard to this material, am I? Just because I've commented on a AN report doesn't mean that I can't implement a block when a 3RR violation is reported. Sarah 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. By that interpretation, no article could ever be improved. It was removed (if you ignore the POINT aspect as you clearly have no problem in doing so) for not having a source, so re-including it with a source is so screamingly obviously not edit warring that I just have got no clue where you are coming from here by blocking me for 48 hours for this. Your ignoring of the POINT issue, despite being aware of it having commented on that exact discussion, means you are quite clearly involved. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relation "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" has here. There's a specific paragraph you want in the John Howard article. You added that paragraph four times, twice without a source and twice with a source. Three of those times, you used the 'undo' function to undo another user's edits. That's what edit-warring is. When you moved toward the 'undo' button that fourth time, I assume you said to yourself, "I've been blocked already for 3RR, and this is my fourth restoration of this paragraph. Should I wait and make sure that the consensus is clear? Should I let someone else restore this paragraph, since the consensus is clear, so I can avoid 3RR? What can I do to be sure that I'm not guilty of a 3RR violation in this situation?" And after thinking that, you chose to use the 'undo' button and a mildly insulting edit summary. If you find yourself in a similar situation, remember that there are better ways to make it clear to outside observers that what you are doing is not edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR. If you think that adding text modified per a "good faith" request is edit warring, then I don't know how you think articles get written at all. You clearly haven't investigated enough, as you seem to think that this information was not in the article previously and the "edit war" is a result of me trying to add it, this is not the case. Its removal was made as a POINT edit because of who added it, not because of what it says. When compared with the comment, "good-faith edits of experienced editors ", this is clearly a one sided and mistaken view. With regards "merit", what merit is there in removing text that has been re-added with a source, which is that was apparently the problem (if you ignore the POINT reason fo removal). If you want to talk about insulting acts, I find the repeated reversion in that circumstance, and this block, is the insulting aspect of this, not the wikilawyering interpretation of the use of the undo function. The edit summary was justified given the timeline, and the apparent failure to even realise that a source had been added. Frankly, if you don't see that the two editors were working in tandem to make a point edit to avoid 3RR, and that they would not be willing to "discuss" the edit in good faith given the very recent history, then I condemn your administorial judgement and investigatorial abilities. MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw it while reviewing the section, recognised it was an "orphaned paragraph" as my edit stated, and removed it. On a first pass, the paragraph looked like it might have neutrality concerns in its wording and focus. I didn't even realise you were its originator on 24 July until your second edit summary which inspired me to look in the history (in fact, to that point I didn't even know you'd edited the article prior to the 28 July dispute) - all I knew was it was fairly new, and that there was now more about some bunker than there was about the entire period 1996-2003, which would leave readers wondering if he'd spent the entire eight years in a bunker. As I said somewhere else, this article already looks far too much like one of those snowmen constructed by throwing snowballs at the one spot, focus needs to be on improving it. Orderinchaos 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I dispute the rationale of FisherQueen. For a start, being Australian or not is irrelevant. Secondly, he/she is making out I had just included and was pushing for keeping the material, I was not, it was happily present in the article until being removed as a POINT edit. Thirdly, there has been no attempt to even examine the POINT nature of the removals given the recent history, nor the fact that this is not a simple case of one crazy edit warring editor acting against two who were acting in "good faith" about a piece of text they just happened to notice now.

Decline reason:

Sometimes when your edits are constantly being undone, for better or worse, you should consider stopping and asking why and maybe even discussing it. — Prodego ^talk 03:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, as an entirely uninvolved admin, I'm obviously unfamiliar with months of editing history on this article. If you are right, and you had no choice but to revert the fourth time, and some wiser admin than I unblocks you, I will bear that person no ill-will. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop implying I made the same edit four times, I did not. There is no need to know months of history, the facts are quite clear, I added the text on 24 July, then as a result of the article now being on my watchlist, in the last few days I became involved in a dispute with Orderinchaos and Skyring about a conpletely unrelated aspect of the article (see the talk page, it makes up 99% of its current contents). Since then, having had to explain my arrival at the article in the face of their accusations about my motives for being there by explaining this, they have since miraculously thought to remove the material, and continue to remove it even after their "good faith request" for a source was satisfied. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You sound so certain that you didn't add the same content four times that I had to check a fourth time, but they're still there: 1, 2, 3, 4. I have acknowledged that they differ in that the last two, while the same content, have added a source; I have also said that, in my opinion, this difference does not make them so fundamentally different that there would be no reason for you to worry that the fourth might be perceived as 3RR. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I still feel this block is unfortunate, I understand that technical violation of 3RR rule is strictly adhered and therefore I would suggest (humble suggestion, you may ignore me) MickMacNee to take it easy and wait the block time. I dont see a third administrator overruling the decision of two other administrators. Docku^Hi 02:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not add it, I restored it. If you think that even after adding a source, as Skyring disenguously requested and then subsequently ignored, is still 3RR, then we will have to disagree on the precise difference between officious obstruction in support of bad faith actions, and an attempt to preserve valid information. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would be stronger if this "John Howard" person were so obscure that you were the only person monitoring changes on the article, or with any interest in improving it. If that's the case, you could have taken it to WP:ANI or WP:3O. You always have the choice to refrain from making that fourth edit. If you believe that 3RR doesn't apply when the other side behaves badly, then you do not understand 3RR. The difficulty with that is that, if you don't believe that 3RR applies even when you are right, even when the other side behaves badly, then you'll probably violate it again. And get blocked again. I've been involved in an edit conflict in which the other side was behaving very badly. I never violated 3RR. I enlisted the help of other editors via a relevant WikiProject, and I brought the problems to ANI, and I let the 'wrong version' stay up for a few days before making changes, all to avoid violating 3RR, because I understood that it's a rule that is enforced for everybody, and I knew that it applied to me even though anyone who knew anything about the subject could see I was in the right. If I had lost track of the count and broke the rule, I would have accepted my block gracefully as the natural result of my choice. And that article was about a pretty obscure subject, and I really did feel sometimes like I was the only person of good faith working on it, and I still managed to fight off bias without breaking the rules. If you didn't learn it with your first block, you know it now- 3RR gets applied very rigidly, to everything but the most obvious vandalism. It's worth taking a few extra steps to avoid breaking it. I happened to be the reviewing admin tonight, but anyone else would have said the same thing, and some would have been less polite when you turned your demand for a non-involved, non-Australian editor into a claim that nationality is irrelevant and knowledge of the dispute history is essential. Me, I felt pretty angry, but managed to restrain myself from saying anything I wouldn't want to have as part of my edit-history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's such a thing called Gaming. The deleting editor uses the edit summary to say "you need a reference". When the submitting editor re-adds the content with a reference, the deleting editor reverts it and says "you need a reference". It's virtually asking for the submitting editor to revert with the summary "but I have a reference", as what happened. The content was added/deleted repeatedly for a period of around 24 hours, but during all this time, none of the deleting editors engaged in discussion with user:MickMacNee. Why not? None of the deleting editors bothered to bring it up on the talk page either, though after MickMacNee's final edit, a discussion was then started on the article talk page when it was too late. Anyway, the whole John Howard / AUSPOL situation is currently poison, and this latest incident was only a symptom of the wider situation.--Lester 03:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify in response to FisherQueen's remark: ... when you turned your demand for a non-involved, non-Australian editor into a claim that nationality is irrelevant and knowledge of the dispute history is essential - the request for uninvolved non-Australian admin was not from MickMacNee, it was from me.
Note also that MickMacNee had taken the matter to WP:AN - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard
--Matilda ^talk 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that AN was about the previous battle, not this one. In this case, unlike the last, editors are generally agreed that the matter to which this new one refers will be in the final article, but the article's already an extreme embarrassment to the Australian politics wikiproject in its present form without making it moreso by randomly appending text to the end of an already disfigured section (which, even so much that it had a form, was in chronological order). Orderinchaos 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mick, you said several times that I "ignored" the allegations you made in your first post that other users engaged in POINT violations - "if you ignore the POINT aspect as you clearly have no problem in doing so" and other similar comments. I thought it would have been clear from my response at 00:53, 11 August that I chose not to entertain your appeal at all because it was couched in personal attacks and came attached to a silly threat - "do this or I will do that", instead deferring to unblock reviewers. I don't like blocking people and I am quite amenable to unblocking or reducing blocks if I see that people recognise their errors and indicate how things would be different if they were unblocked. But you haven't given us any room to cut you slack when you start off your appeal with name calling and personal attacks - calling Gnang a "twat", ABF vios, accuse Orderinchaos of engaging in POINT violations and infer that I am an idiot and refuse to see any wrongdoing on your behalf. I can only advise you to refrain from edit warring when your block expires because you are getting a rather lengthy block log and if you continue this way you are now looking at blocks of increasing length since you have made it clear that short blocks do not affect your behaviour. Sarah 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead-ins and Weasel Words

Hi MickMacNee, I thought I'd let you know that I have rebuilt the lead-in on the Jonty Haywood article that you reverted as "weasel words". I originally added more content to the lead-in following the guidelines in WP:LEAD, which state that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." While I do not of course dispute that the lead-in could be further improved, I don't believe that inclusions such as "Haywood resurrected the hoax in 2008 by placing a set of fresh Porthemmet roadsigns around the Cornish countryside", "in 2007" or "attracting local and national media attention and causing controversy after" can fairly be classed as weasel words in this case for two reasons. First of all, from WP:Avoid_weasel_words, "Weasel words" are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing data for which sources are not readily available. This does not apply here as these facts (and their implications) are backed up by the sources, which are cited in the main body of the article, for all the facts stated. Secondly, note that an ideal lead-in is intended to be a summary of the main article, and as such you would not expect every statement in the lead-in to be explained explicitly in this part of the article. If you disagree with any of the statements in the lead-in feel free to bring them up with me here or on my talk page, or the article's discussion page where we can get the views of some other editors. Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is for big articles that actualy need summarising, not half page vanity pieces where it would take as long to read the article as your suggested lead. Your attempts to pad out the article beyond its basic facts are simply not justified, and smack of the efforts of Haywood/Rabidfox to promote himself on the wiki. I see even before I replied that another editor has taken the same view [45]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that you seem to have taken offense to my attempt to discuss this. I'm not sure where you found the consensus that WP:LEAD only applies to articles above a certain size, but I have seen plenty of editors making lead-in improvements to articles of a similar size to this one citing WP:LEAD. I'm also not sure where you get that I am "attempting to pad out the article beyond its basic facts" - perhaps you'd like to cite examples of any facts I've inserted that you feel are unsourced? I honestly don't know or care about Haywood or Rabidfox promoting someone; as far as I am concerned, an article and its subject should be judged on its own merits and not on who or what "wants" the article to exist or not. I only edited this article in the first place because the admin who closed the AFD asked me to. I am not sure why you have been so hostile regarding this article and it's subject. But assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and I do take offense at you constantly responding to everything I say that you personally disagree with with accusations of bad faith, just like when you kept calling me a sockpuppet in the DRV. Wiw8 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There have only ever been three users actively trying to promote that vanity article. The subject, an obvious sock of the subject, and you. You can wikilawyer about good faith and purposely misreading policies like LEAD all you want, all I can hear is quacking. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, by "actively trying to promote that vanity article" I presume you mean "voting "keep" in the AFD"? In other words, disagreeing with you? By the way just out of interest, I presume the "obvious sock of the subject" is rabidfox; who is the third editor that you refer to in your post? Wiw8 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent edit to the Jonty Haywood article lead-in - I thought about replacing the phrase you deleted, but as I'd like to avoid a counter-productive edit-war, I'm bringing it up with you here first. Please could you kindly advise as to why you feel that the phrase "misleading tourists into searching for a nonexistant paradise beach" is an inaccurate summary of the Porthemmet hoax? A read through the sources makes it very clear that this was exactly what happened, unless I'm missing some very subtle yet profound point regarding the whole thing. Wiw8 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport notability discussion

You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado

Although this started a good while ago it would seem your dispute with the other user is continuing in the form of a slow edit war. I must say that the conduct of both users in relation to this issue has been very disappointing. Please be more civil to other contributors and do not continue to remove comments by other users without good reason. This message is being left for both users. Adambro (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by you action here Adambro. For a start, I am perfectly alowed to remove them per WP:TALK, because they are not relevant to the page in question. And secondly, yes after edit warring over it in a comletely lame fashion, it was him himself that decided to remove it completely, not me. My preferred version was perfectly adequate [46]. MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that a more appropriate response where you feel comments are not in an appropriate location would be to move them there leaving a quick note linking the new location from the original location rather than simply removing them. Adambro (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure that moving this discussion after at has run for so long at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado is really appropriate and I would apologise if you have interpreted my above comments as a suggestion to do so in this situation. As we stand currently there is no mention on this talk page as to where the comments have move and all the discussion that followed the initial comment by Britishrailclass91 seems to have disappeared. This certainly wasn't a "request" for you to move the comments, had I thought this was the best solution at the current time then I would have simply made the changes myself. Adambro (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do what you think is best, I seriously don't want to waste my time on this issue or this user, but I will say the version you restored it to when placing this message is quite irrelevant to that article's talk page, and not helpful to any reader arriving at it, so I don't see the problem in removal per WP:TALK. Anyone actually interested in the excahnge itself can still find it in the history. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of football (soccer) players by nickname

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of football (soccer) players by nickname, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football (soccer) players by nickname. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Alexf⁴² 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua RfC

I'm going to move the discussion to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2), as that's where it's really meant to be. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Coward

How am I a coward just for AfDing a page? Sounds to me like you're in denial and knew that list should be deleted. You're a joker. --Jimbo^[online] 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not only a coward, but you're a complete cunt. You knew full well that I was online and didn't even start a discussion page, and your reasons for deletion are complete horsehit per the deletion policy (which you obviously have got no understanding of). As I said before, congratulations, you are obviously doing good work, and you are completely blind to the fuck ups you have created in the wikipedia with respect to other 'nickname' lists. Obviously you didn't have the balls or the intelligence to form a group nomination, that basic failing is just typical of you. I hope you have fun "maintaining" the football hooligan list, you fucking hypocrite. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I suggest you see a specialist. Catching feelings over a gash article like that on Wikipedia can't be normal. --Jimbo^[online] 18:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretending you are seriously interested in the future of that article in good faith by proposing it's deletion is also a sign of being a complete cunt, when you quite clearly could not give a shit. I would be surprised given your comments if you were even over 14, you come across as a complete child. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And just to be sure, exactly why are you not nominating all the other nickname articles? Is it because you are a cowardly prick who has no clue about the structure of wikipedia as a whole, or is it because your reading ability limits how much you can type in a day? 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for calling another editor a "cunt" twice, and a "fucking hypocrite". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck you and fuck him. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But you're more intelligent than all this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Realy? Until now I actually thought this Jimbo person might be over 14. And per his comments at the Afd supposedly about improving the encyclopoedia, fuck him. He is clearly an idiot who has no clue about the deletion policy or any policy for that matter, who is content to make shit up about "maintainability" of articles, but unfortunately also seems to have too many retarded followers to be able to counter properly at Afd. If he had even the first clue about his stupiditiy of nominating just 2 of the ten nickname in sport lists, then I might give him an ounce of respect. As it is, he has demonstrated he is a complete juvenile tool, so once again, fuck him, and fuck anybody willing to give him even an ounce of credibility. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok well perhaps that was patronising for which I apologise. You know the score here, calling someone a cunt is simply unacceptable. If he's an idiot etc, by all means treat him like one but don't resort to that. The block awards zero credibility to the discussion in any sense, it simply reinforces the fact that you should avoid personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will sit the week out and work on the articles I was working on before I stupidly highlighted this article to this idiot. It also saves me having to source a list that this twat clearly thinks is not a proper article despite his claims of 'unverifiability' being proven to be utter shite, as no doubt it will be deleted in that time, despite the idiocy that creates regarding other nickname lists. I fully expect the juvenile coward not to even be able to nominate the other lists that meet his exact nomination criteria, and I dont expect him to ever admit he was stupid enough to only nominate one article without listing the others that existed (although he was idiot enough to nominate the sportsmen list, thereby deleting the only nickname list he considered """official""" : boxers - fucking idiot that he is. Once again, I nominate this complete tool for a barnstar of unbelievable stupidity. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I, for one, hope to never see any of your edits again on Wikipedia. You are very close the top of the list of people who are problems-makers for this entire community. I wish you'd find something else to occupy your time. John (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one agree with user:Jkaufman on this, from what I've seen it's obvious that you are incompetent original part of the comment later removed by this user, i'm keeping it for posterity. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) . Kelladam96 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have an idea which other user name you edit under, so I think that comment is rather ironic. As for this John bloke, I've never interacted or even seen him on wikipedia before, so I'm not entirely sure why he thinks I care what he thinks. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I see, no that's my brother, not me, sorry for any confusion. Kelladam96 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider both comments ignored then. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kelladam96 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Surviving

Hello MickMacNee. It was good to see you at the John Howard article. It's one of the roughest articles in Wikipedia, and there are some people who will look for something you've done wrong that you can be blocked or banned for. It's not always fair, either. I guess the way to survive in there is to keep clean. Don't give them anything that they could use against you, especially the 'three revert rule' WP:3RR and incivility WP:CIV. I hope you are not put off, and will venture over there to edit again. Cheers, --Lester 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say our mutual friend is one of the worst editors I've ever seen on here in terms of sheer dishonesty and willfull ignorance/rudeness/stubborness. I don't mind people who have genuinely misunderstood the aims/or just disagree with good faith but can appreciate others and compromise, but he is on another level. I'm pretty sure he knows it too, making it even worse. I've had a recent encounter along the same lines above at Afd, and have reacted not in the way I usually would, through sheer frustration at the ignorance and spite on display. Still, this is the nature of the wiki, on that I think we agree. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, MickMacNee. I'm trying to get a behavioural change at John Howard, to restore some order to the chaos and unruliness. If someone deletes vandalism, or unreferenced information, I don't care. But I think referenced information is different. It should be allowed to remain on the article until the community has had a chance to judge it. If anyone doesn't like the content, instead of reverting it, they would be expected to remain civil and take up the matter at either the discussion board, an WP:RfC, or if that doesn't work, an WP:RfM. Do you think that's a good idea? I'm tired of some people uncivily reverting newly added referenced content, and am looking for a way for it to stop. Then the JH article might be a nicer place to be. --Lester 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology

S'ok. I've nearly got over it... ya bollocks...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm thinking (a day later...) can you discuss you thoughts on the Template talk:Famous players on the template's talk page? We're in a bit of a mess at the moment because it's transcluded in loads of places and the wording is changing twice or more a day... Cheers.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Ross Kemp in Afghanistan

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your brilliant contributions to Ross Kemp in Afghanistan I award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. It nearly sent me barmy doing it. It still could do with moving all the references to the end of paragraphs, although that's tricky to do while keeping track of which references what. I'm not entirely sure how you do do it, short of using inref quotes. So I decided to commit it with them in the relevant places as a permanent record, and then address it later. As you can probably see I then forgot all about it. Also, a good many of those refs are primary sources, something to remember. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shearer banner pic

Your input is requested at Image talk:AlanShearerBanner.jpg. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist error?

Did you know your bot was adding {Reflist} to articles that also contained {reflist}, thereby producing double entries? See here [47]. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that article contained {{refist}} (no "l"). Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 2 September 2008 (GMT).

Bizarre, it still seemingly displayed the references with it mispelled as refist, see [48]. ? MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see {refist} is redirected to {Reflist}. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I will Tfd that template, as it's probably better as this case shows just to make users aware of the mistake and fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 2. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these. 79.71.56.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: UK operator article guide

Hi! Yes I would be interested in becoming part of this, it seems a sensible idea. Before I say anything else, I should probably tell you of List of bus companies of the United Kingdom, would List of United Kingdom bus operators be the same then? Hopefully we can get all operator articles up to standard. Arriva436^talk 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I knew about that one, this is going to be a pure alphabetical list of current and former operators, public and private. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonty Haywood article

Hello. Jonty's apparent editing of his own articles is getting a bit tiresome, but I'm not sure I understand the rationale for dropping "the largest", when a source supports it - it'd be worth bringing this up on the talk page rather than edit-warring, so that if there's a consensus we can just point to it in future.

And I'm sure you're aware of it, but you should watch tha tyou don't hit the three revert rule. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was drafting a post right now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to this issue on the discussion page as the last discussion seemed to lose track and reverted to people making accusations about who I am again. As McGeddon says, the source supports this fact, as does any reasonable evidence such as a Google search. It is not as if some large chunk of irrelevant information is being added. The issue here is whether LoseTheGame.com is just a website about The Game (which infers there are many others of similar content and notability) or whether it is in fact the largest website about The Game (as supported by sources, Google and Alexa). I feel that replacing the "a" with "the largest" is a genuine improvement to this article providing a more accurate description of the website that is being described. Rabidfoxes (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lion Rampant at Talk:Scotland

Last "circle" from me for you to go around.

Cheers. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Hey MickMacNee, just want to say... thanks very much for your contribution to the LHC safety article! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just killing time before the end of the world, lol. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we should get the LHC safety article featured on the main page on October 21, what do you think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I'll drop a note on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, you seem like an experience editor who maybe can help explain/discuss something with me, as I've had problems with it before. I got your name from some AfD that is going on right now, and perhaps we can use that as a specific example (however I just need general help on notability as well). I really try but I can't see the argument you are making that Muslim Massacre does not fit the notability guidelines. I've read Wikipedia:N maybe 100 times, haha, and everything within that seems to point that it is notable. Here is an excerpt from the article which I've read over most: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it." Then when reading the guidelines it goes on to say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." Using the AfD as an example, or any other example, can you show what you are arguing? To me it seems like if it is covered by several independent major newspapers/websites/magazines then it is notable and therefore should be an article. Basically I've had problems with notability before and I want to make sure I'm not missing something completely. Thanks --Banime (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The key issue is if the sources are all news reports about a single event. Currently, based on the sources, the article should actually be titled Muslim massacre video game controversy, because the game itself is completely unworthy of note, only the name. And per WP:NOTNEWS, if coverage of that event (the release of a controversial video game) does not ultimately extend beyond temporary news exposure, into analysis of a theme, then it arguably has no right to be here. We do not have a list of controversial video games for this precise reason, and this non-entity of an event is harldy worht including in video game controversy. The games given as examples to create an other stuff exists defence, on closer inspection, all seem to be coming from Video games notable for negative reception. Now, comparign that list exposes another major flaw in that argument, all games on that list are official releases, and that list is actually supposed to list games with bad reviews, and appears to have been hijacked by the Google news addicts by adding one or two games that were controversial. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your train of thought. Because the news sources are only covering the controversy associated with the game, then the controversy if anything is notable, not the game? I'll have to think about this more but you bring up a good point that I had not thought about before. Thanks for your reply. --Banime (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

Well, if you hate the idea of leaving articles alone that clearly has a vast consensus against you, I recommend leaving Wikipedia, because you're going to run into that a lot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. As usual. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to explain "you're fighting against a vast majority of people" better. You've been attacking anyone who dares consider this notable - and how dare they indeed, based on those few (read: many) sources from reliable sources establishing its notability through its controversy. And the infobox was added by another user, and I readded it after you removed it. Obviously you were the only one who felt it necessary to remove the infobox, and conversely, you should have left it alone. Oh, and I added content - how unlikely was it that there was a developer for it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, multiple sources proving controversy (over one day) = article? If you don't understand what an absolutely wrong statement that is by now given the myriad of explanations, you never will. But, I am gladdened that at least I know I am not being faced with any form of serious intellectual opposition, no matter what the number of sheep there are, given your support for inclusion of a virtually empty infobox on a two paragraph article. I'm afraid you have got me there, consensus or no consensus, I just can't argue with that kind of ....... logic. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Over a day? Why the Hell do you keep saying "over a day"? It's been several days since it's release, and there are news and reviews in reliable sources. You've decided that one day is the magic number for development, and there have been nearly a dozen sources appearing in just today, many of them from Muslim sources. You complain about gameplay, and it was added. There was reception, and there's plenty of controversy, including a major figure in the Muslim community. You complain about "controversy over its name" and "created to create controversy", without explaining why V-Tech Massacre wasn't created to create controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not re-arguing the Afd here just because you didn't get it the first time. You don't understand the not news policy, I get it, you don't understand the difference between this amateur pile of crap about nothing versus an official game about a real world massacre, I get it; you don't understand why quoting other stuff exists is a bad thing, I get it; you don't know what the article naming policy is, I get it; you generally have no clue what wikipedia is, I GET IT. Your ignorance of policy is not in doubt here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

V-Tech Rampage was made by ONE PERSON. On NEWGROUNDS. It was NOT an official game. Why won't you give ONE single explanation for why V-Tech Rampage is notable besides creating controversy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested. "Other stuff exists" is a lame argument, end of. Why that article exists, I couldn't tell you, maybe its Afd was frequented by the same clueless people as this one, I just don't know. The fact youe are obsessed with trying to claim some precedent just shows you have no proper argument to make. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, hi? I added developer, publisher, and platform? And have just added genre and media? And merely reading a review shows what controls are used? That's more than enough for an infobox. You seem to really dislike this article, to fight over trying to drop the infobox of all things. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is redundant to a two paragraph article. Seriously, how hard a concept is that to grasp? MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you and no one else can define which articles get infoboxes? I've added plenty of legitimate content to the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Content? Don't make me laugh. You are pushing the realms of reality here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I can see why you might have such an agenda, since you seem to have history editing Muslim-related topics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong (as usual). However, in the interest of fairness, I will give you the opportunity to withdraw that statement, otherwise, I will bring you to task over it, with ample evidence that you do not have a clue what you are talking about. 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, once you drop your attitude to anyone who thinks that succeeding notability standards is enough to pass notability standards, I'll take it back. Agreed? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, respect is very give-and-take, and you seem to owe a lot of respect to roughly everyone in the AfD discussion who voted keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you had the ability to back it up. But it's nice to see you can't even admit that, along with your absolute failure to know basic policies such as vandalism, let alone more sophisticated policies such as not news. As I've said before, I make no apology if enough people turn out to be as mis-informed as you, whether you want to use 'he's not nice' as a lame ass tactic to excuse your ignorance. Like I said, there is an essay around here that illustrates that problem perfectly, a hundred people making a dumb point does not equal a valid consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more like I don't care about respecting someone who decides that cries whenever people don't agree with his imaginary policies. Are you prepared to act as if you deserve editing Wikipedia, or are you gonna continue acting like a child and insulting everyone who says things you don't like to hear? I'll just assume your next reply - "waah no, it's stupid crap but V-Tech Rampage am totally notable because it was made in Adobe on Newgrounds, NOT NEWS". I'm outie. It doesn't matter what you do, since common sense is going to prevail, and the article will be kept because you've failed to present any reasonable policy or guideline it fails (or, Hell, ANY policy or guideline). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No Policy presented? Now I know you are just out and out fantasising. You have to be stupid if you think I haven't given you ample reason why you are wrong. If you want to claim superiority based on the fact enough people are daft enough to think wikipedia is a newspaper, go right ahead. I am sure that in a couple of years time we will all be able to bask in the glory of the article you have worked so tirelessly to improve (infoboxtastic), and how it was a seminal piece in the general theme of controversial video games that people actually documented and analysed in the third context (I will understand given the evidence if you don't understand what this sentence means). Or alternatively, we will all ask ourselves what the hell it is doing here at all wasting bandwidth, as nobody, not one single person, has bothered to mention it since this week, and its creator is still an attention seeking nobody. It was your call to make, you failed. Compared to your logic and reasoning, even this game looks good. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

For purpose of closing this dispute, I have requested a third opinion to try to resolve this ongoing AfD dispute. Be advised that if this does not work, I will have to initiate a request for comment on the dispute per the dispute resolution process. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, MickMacNee. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with your involvement in the previous AfD. Thank you. --Kizor 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chanelle Hayes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. In fairness, although your intentions were seemingly honorable; I have to warn you over the 3RR rule. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to take this seriously, Mick. Looking at the AN/I report, I'd say you are on thin ice. A block history like yours could result in much stronger action being taken than has been the history for you. I'd hate to see you blocked, for I believe you are acting in good faith. But sometimes that isn't enough. Do not edit war, period, not matter how right you are -- or think you are. As soon as it appears that someone else is willing to edit war, back off and use WP:DR. Seek consensus (even with stubborn POV-pushers). Making strong good-faith efforts to address issues raised by other editors, as manifested in their edits, soliciting further comment from them explaining why they want, for example, to remove sourced material, and then slowing down the pace, so that you don't even get near 3RR or even 2RR, may protect you from being blocked, or help recover if you are. Get help. Be patient. You can ask for page protection in the meantime, and while a page is protected, if you can find consensus in Talk, you can fix problems with the protected version. Page protection simply stops the warring, and if you get lucky, it gets protected to a decent version. I'd help in detail if I had the time. I don't. If you specifically ask me, I'll try to make time. But good luck, in any case. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you're saying, but 3RR and RFPP are not as helpful as you would think faced with low speed but obviously wrong edits. 3O usually works especially for obvious cases. I'm sticking with that having used it many times before. Getting help in an asking specific people kind of way is not my style, and not very fair to my mind as it is often abused. The 'system' should be self correcting to the right content whoever is/is not aware of the dispute at the time. Unsolicited comments in a disupte are always welcome from my point of view though, when it is clear they are not as a result of canvassing by one 'side'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mick, please be aware that I think you are usually correct, as far as content is concerned, when I've seen you edit warring. WP:3O was fine, that was a very good move. What wasn't good was not waiting. With BLPs, there is a strong bias toward removal of possibly defamatory content, applying what works elsewhere to BLPs can, in fact, get you blocked. I once reverted an edit by a banned editor to a porn star article (it was planted, I'm sure, to attempt to trap me; the editor vandalized my Talk after making the edit) restoring material about the star having contracted AIDS. It was, in fact, legitimate, and not controversial. But, nevertheless, I was warned by an arbitrator, no less, to stop. Normally, a banned editor's edits can be removed without even paying attention to the content....

Be very careful about falling into the trap of responding to incivility with incivility. You are being attacked. It's actually ancient advice to not respond when attacked. 3RR may not seem to be helpful when dealing with a content dispute and the other side doesn't care about edit warring. But, remember, you are here for the long run, I assume. The article can be missing some material for a day. You can solicit comment and wait. You don't have to edit war to get the article back on track. Get a comment or some comments, find consensus or at least rough consensus, you can then make an edit that would have been edit warring if you'd done it the same day as others. Slow edit warring is still edit warring, but finding and implementing consensus, if that is what you really do, isn't edit warring. It's what we are supposed to do. You just don't *insist* by edit warring. If it is really consensus, you will have help. If you can't get help, you don't have consensus! Further, if you actually try to find agreement with the intruding editor, the article may end up better and easier to maintain.

I'll note that RfPP would also have worked in the article in question. The page ended up being protected anyway; instead of edit warring, consider this: you can realize that an edit war is starting when you have made one revert, if you are reverted. Right at that point, you can go to RfPP, file the request, then make one more revert. It's a crap shoot, but you've got a good chance of having the article protected in the state you want. Don't abuse this, if you did, it could be considered gaming the system. But it really doesn't matter which version the article is protected into, unless it's BLP violation. As you might notice, the protecting admin removed the controversial material. Even though protecting an article into a preferred version can be a conflict-of-interest act by an admin, here BLP was involved, plus there was already an apparent consensus. Regardless, what properly happens then is that the involved editors -- and anyone properly brought in, or even otherwise (numbers don't really matter, in the long run, it's a mistake to make a big deal about canvassing unless it's massively distorting things, and even then the solution is to bring the matter to the attention, neutrally, of a wider audience) -- seek and find consensus on the Talk page, and if they can't, use WP:DR, and then an admin can be found to implement what they agree upon. And thanks for listening.

By the way, I learned about WP:3O by watching what you did here. I'd somehow missed that, it's much faster and more reliable than content RfC. Thanks for showing me that. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Routemaster

You dodged a bullet here, Mick. You could easily have been blocked for edit warring, and with your history, it could even be indef. As you may know by now, Oxyman42 was blocked, apparently as a result of the RfPP that I filed for the article. The admin could easily have decided to block you as well, I was a bit worried about that risk. I'm aware that you were doing a number of things right: you were not being uncivil, even when faced with incivility, and you were, at least to a degree, explaining what you were doing. When there is a conflict like this, it's very important that we seek consensus and, where we cannot, as can happen with a tendentious editor, we seek and defer to broader rough consensus. As I've said before, you are a valuable editor and it would be a shame to see you lost to the project over one photo of marginal necessity, as the matter stands. Oxyman42 is an editor who clearly has serious interest in London transport, and who can, potentially, be very useful, if he can avoid his own incivility and edit warring when he's convinced he's right. Much of his work has not been contentious. Let's help him participate. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I know what you're saying, but I very much doubt an indef block would have stuck. Communication and consensus building is fine if you know who you are talking to. Valuable editor he may be, but I have never resorted to socking, and anyone that does is clearly a major threat to the project. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You might or might not be right about the indef block sticking. I'd have argued for it being lifted, given the provocation you faced in this situation, and, my guess, with your history of positive contributions, it would, as you think, not have stuck. But I'd rather not try to find out, and the loss of one day of your work isn't worth this image not going missing for a day. A new IP has appeared, purely disruptive, it looks, supporting the position of Oxyman42. It could be him, or it might be some other editor with an agenda, trying to provoke either you or myself into getting 3RR blocks. I've got one of those; Plus I've assumed that the older edits to Routemaster from 87.112-87.115 aren't him, but that is known IP for him. And a lot of others who living in the area. (He also uses other IP available to him, so the current IP warrior could be him, though I've not seen him use this range before. And he usually has better spelling.) I've requested, anew, page protection. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Oxyman42's block was lifted to reset it to "infinite," for threatening suicide. Definitely unstable. Socking wasn't the issue. (Though his choice of language seemed to assert that, he was really claiming that others edit warred, which was true, perhaps, but nobody else crossed 3RR. You hit 3, I hit 2 when the new IP showed up.) My worry was that, given that you'd been blocked for 3RR violation on Routemaster, you'd be blocked short of 3RR next time, or that you'd be tempted to add just one more.... but you did not. My second RfPP was ignored (it was a note tacked onto the previous one that had resulted in Oxyman's block instead of page protection, and so it was either overlooked, or it added to the unblock denials on his Talk, no way of knowing unless someone tells us). The new IP was not blocked, but neither has it reappeared yet. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

There has never been a Prime Minister of Scotland & the last Monarch of Scotland was Queen Anne pre-1707 Act of Union. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Armored car (VIP)

Thanks for sorting the tags out on the above page... I'd used Twinkle to tag it, couldn't decide which one was relevant and not un-ticked the other two. Cheers anyway. Booglamay (talk) - 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eddie Stobart logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie Stobart logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Track maintenance

I don't think you intended this redirect page to loop! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

lol. Good spot. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perma stubs

These not are isolated hamlets or villages with no government sources or data but they are municipalities or districts. Hell we are missing municipalities in Mexico with over 10,000 km2 and information available to expand them to GA class. And you still think they are perma stubs about non notable subjects when they are an abundance of reliable sources available to expand them immediately. Myself and Ed have worked our arses off to expand some of the crappy stubs we have on here. Sandhikharka in Nepal and La Palma, Chalatenango would have been your original idea of perma stub? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Shall we have an Administrator give a third opinon? GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm drafting one now, I'll list it at WP:3O in the normal way. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, we sit & wait. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on tenderhooks, lol. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm always reluctant to edit other people's talk page contributions, however your summary of the UK country-within-a-country dispute contains some clear factual errors. Since you present your edit as a summary of the preceding argument, maybe you could change what you wrote. Particularly 1) there is an official description of E/S/NI/W as "countries". See my edit for the reference 2) given an official description, that also counts as a primary source; 3) many other Wikipedia articles do say what the subdivisions of the country are called. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've covered that, to say the above in a 3O request wouldn't be neutral. It is a fact that one side rejects the existence of a primary source, and the other articles, I have to state that. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stained Glass

Can't understand your removals! You leave in the link to one solitary studio, Judsons, which shouldn't be there, because it is or ought to be covered by "glass artists", leave in the link to something as twee as Suncatcher and remove the link to the leadlight article which one of the major links as it explains why some glass is historically termed "stained glass window" and other glass is historically. Amandajm (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) termed "Leadlight".

Agreed, leadlight was a mistake, I hadn't meant to remove it. Suncatcher looks relevant, if a small topic. The studio seemed to assert notability, so I erred on keeping it in without knowing any better. Make any repairs you deem necessary, but the original list was way too big. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images in Riot control

Please discuss your reasons for bulk-deleting the image gallery in Riot control. I have gone throgh them twice removing those that seem to be irrelevant. I have read Wikipedia:Image use policy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image galleries are not appropriate for articles, that is what commons is for. And sizes should be thumb except main image. The removals have nothing to do with copyright. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? Thousands of Wikipedia articles have image galleries. These images are all or mostly in Commons, and the article points to them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Yes, hundreds of articles have {commonscat} links to commons, this is not the same as having image galleries. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat. Thousands of Wikipedia pages have galleries. Also, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries says that galleries are discouraged in main article namespace, not forbidden. What is the <gallery> ... </gallery> facility for, if people are not allowed to use it? Please tell me how else to present those images?, which are useful to add to the general picture of what riot control is like. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Put them on commons if they aren't there already. You can make an article gallery page on commons if you realy feel the need for long captions. The only galleries that are specifically allowed on articles is where there is a compelling reason to have them, i.e. it is a primarily visual topic. Riot Control is not, it is no differnet ot any other article in that respect. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• "only ... allowed'" means "forbidden elsewhere", but what text forbids them? Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries says that galleries are discouraged in main article namespace, not forbidden. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK then, if they were allowed in Riot Control, what articles would they have been deleted from to produce that precedent? There is no special reason why Riot Control warrants an on wiki gallery, this is clear if you look around other articles. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska, Murkowski & Palin

Hmm, Governor Murkowski gets into trouble for appointing his daughter (his successor) in the US Senate. Now, Governor Palin is in trouble for firing a person who wouldn't fire her brother-in-law (at indirectly her request). Alaska Governors & their families don't mix. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yes? Was this post meant for me? MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's just a general comment on my part (OK, a blog). Anyways, my guess is troopergate would get more prominance at the McCain presidential campagin article. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In my ignorance I have no idea who Murkowski is so, er, no comment :) . MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Frank Murkowski, Palin's immediate predecessor as Alaska Governor. PS- No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Troopergate has been added to the lead of Sarah Palin article. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Box (book)

Sorry didn't realise they couldn't be moved there. I don't see the purpose of having a 'notability' question that has existed on an article for nearly a year. Either it is unnotable and should've been removed by now, or the book is notable (as comments in the discussion page suggest) and it can have the thing removed. Is there no way to get the notability resolved one way or the other? Seems pointless to have it there if no action ever comes of it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag exists to point experienced editors to fix the problem, but yes, if it remains tagged for long enough without fixing, it can be put up for deletion. For information on how to prove notability, see the book notability guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

National Debt Clock

Very well done, thank you! Everyme 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. :) MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NewcastleGateshead Quayside

Section moved to article talk page where it belonged. See Talk:Quayside. MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Emmalina

A youtube event is only notable for a small time frame. During that time frame, youtubers will watch the youtube video. This video, by Emmalina, did not recieve the needed national attention. It is not covered in multiple reliable third party sources. It's a one event deal. Yeah, for a small time, people watched her deal, but that was it. There is a general consensus here that unless the youtube person has done something very very large, (laughing baby, numa numa, or tay zonday), then they are not notable. Those people have recieved very much attention online and in national news. Emmalina has not. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I recalled two reliable sources, national news sources. And once again, there is no time frame to notability. If it is established once, it remains forever. If you mean fame, you need to explicitly state fame, because the word notability is not interchangable here. And for a final time, I never ever said she had notability for being a youtuber itself, she had notability for an extraordinary rapid rise to attention on the internet just for being a particularly cooky youtuber, and the subsequent hack and withdrawal. Both events were recognised outside of youtube, as you correctly require. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

She had a "rapid" rise to fame? How so? Seriously, her event compared to the other youtubers is not that great and the rest of the Wikipedia community agrees. It was a one time news event. For it to be notable, it should have been covered for longer than a few days. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing NOTNEWS and BLP1E. This wasn't a trivial news type event in terms of NOTNEWS at all, youtubers aren't in the papers everyday for just becoming popular on youtube. I know of no guideline that specifies a set number of days of coverage anyway. 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." That was quoted from BLP1E. That falls right into this discussion. She was in the news for a while, less than a week. It also falls uner NOTNEWS, but it's a dual issue here. It was deleted because of it too. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no deletion reason given, so you are making assumptions there. It is not breaching NOTNEWS unless you are saying this falls into the realm of everyday news coverage, it clearly does not. And the BLP1E policy has a lot more text than the portion you just selectively quoted, read it. She reached reliable sources for a specific noteworthy event which is part of a wider theme, not for doing something that constituted trivial news coverage such as the local sports results or man bitten by dog. It is a dual issue, the misreading of two policies with regard the meaning of "notable event". MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If she were notable, she would have had more than a few news mentions. She didn't. The consensus on the deletion discussion gave light to that too. If there were enough sources out there, the result would have been different. The editors who voted on that discussion have had much experience in AfD and would not have said delete unless it was truly necessary. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle Central

I have never seen in a timetable or on platform signs Newcastle Central. I understand the usage of the term Central Station or Newcastle Central, but it's not in this case. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never introduced the term Newcastle Central, this has been made up on wikipedia. The proper terms are Newcastle, or Central Station, supported by sources and common sense. 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Suing God

Hi. I cannot understand why you keep adding that link. You may wish to read what the newspapers wrote about that loco murderer (he was diagnosticated mentally ill, and he's sentenced 20 years in prison): [49] [50] [51] [52]. You'll find that not only his complaint was not accepted in court, so it was never a "trial against God" (adding to the story some official/juridical thoughts, or at least 3rd party comments), but also that the most probable reason for him doing it (apart his mental illness) is the opportunity to spent several hours outside the prison walls.

I kindly ask you to tell me what's the relevant link between the above story and a particular denomination (Eastern Orthodoxy), considering there were no official, juridical, or ecclesiastical POV expressed (the trial was dismissed on a procedural basis - not finding God's address)? Or, we should hunt all stories about e.g. men opening fire inside churches (or anything else) and polute WP with such "information"?

Also, I cannot see what is not trivia in the story. adriatikus | talk 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of trying to support anything you say by providing terrible automated translations? If your level of English understanding was as good as you claim on your user page, you would know they are next to useless to an English speaker. If you think the church being sued is unimportant trivia, then we clearly disagree on the definition of that word also. Maybe this happens everyday in Romania to make it a trivial occurance, I just don't know. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was kind enough to give you better refs in a form you could understand. Have you expected to translate them? How nice. So they are next to useless because you cannot read. Back to the topic: the guy sued God, not the church. They failed to found God's address, not church address.

Please keep your suppositions for yourself. The world is smart enough. adriatikus | talk 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoing my revisions

Just wondering why you keep undoing my revisions. If I am doing something wrong please point it out so that I stop making the mistakes that I am making. Thank you.

Tbritton83 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)T

This undone revision [53] read like an advertisement for the Trainline, rather than about the subject of the article, NX East Coast. This undone revision [54] is against the Manual of style, again with the appearance of advertising Trainline. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, still newish to the site and trying to get a grip on everything. I will do my best to make all other changes according to the manual of style. Quick question though, how can you tell if something is advertising vs non advertising. On thetrainline page, who I will admit to knowing a lot of people who work for this company, I would assume the section titled booking fee which has a section about national express (their "competitor") that to me reads like advertisement for National Express. What is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbritton83 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the trainline article specifically, I just reverted your title change. If you want specific adivce or help on policy matters, you can always post a request for assistance and someone will steer you in the right direction. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RMS Titanic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out, since you are so up-in-arms over my misrepresenting you as having done a revert how do you feel about removing the warning on MickMacNee and apologizing. He did exactly two reverts (one because you were editing content under discussion), the other edit he did was a change in content. If you're gonna threaten someone with a 3RR block it's probably best they have violated 3RR first. Padillah (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, you may wish to reread the part of the message that says "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule". If you are able to do so, you may find your current sense of confusion will be alleviated. --John (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not gonna turn this guys talk page into an flame war. If you want to talk to me, we already have a discussion open on my talk page, go there. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

mclaren school system

When the East India Company, took over India, the way the got rid of Indian culture, was to destroy the culture through the school. the school system made a higharchy, that made it imposible for Indians to revert to their own culture. They destroyed the culture first, that was their main priority. Northern Ireland is the same, the culture is destroyed, by creating a false higharchy, that says the Northern Ireland, are Anglo, and they are above the Irish. Then the Northern Ireland people are offended by being linked the great culture that saved civilization. The school system also creates words, and grammer, that says anglo can never go seccond. Well, I think it does, and I think all the bagpipe playing cultures should unite under mel gibson, and kick their english ass. By the way, I ask this question again. I understand why scottish people are in northern ireland. But why can no one answer this: Why are the english in northern ireland? mathematicly, england being northern ireland, is no different that northern ireland being apart of england. So why doesnt queen liz, speak ulsterscotch? a better question, why doesnt england, bow to a Ulsterscotch queen? Why doesnt queen liz, bow to a scottish king, so he could be the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodLovesTheIrish (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't give a monkeys to be honest. Even if I had half a clue about what you were on about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You do understand it, you just do not want to. This culture is the culture of opium, and the death of the old way. This is the British culture. This is the beatles. This is intentional. They want to destroy the Ulsterscotch, they want to destroy the Irish, they want to destroy the scotch. They do it through the school system, that creates the heigharchy, that makes moral disfunked people, that dont care about the old way. That is how they destroyed the chinese, if you do not run an opium den, you have a low heigharchy. you understand it. you just do not want to admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.55.16 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How long have you been using opium? Is Guinness also a conspiracy?70.48.64.24 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Modes of Public Transport

Template:Modes of Public Transport has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional nuclear explosions in film and television

Category:Fictional nuclear explosions in film and television, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

List of motorcycle clubs

Hi. I notice that you have cleaned up this article to remove red links. Is it a Wikipedia policy that List pages should only include entries for items that already have a Wikipedia page? (If so I'll keep my eyes peeled and edit accordingly). Best regards, Oscroft (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) .

Red links are allowed where they are likely to encourage new article development, however their right to inclusion in lists is not set in stone by policy. In the case of this list, various editors have independently formed the conclusion that the benefits of allowing redlinks are not outweighed by the damage done by the continual inclusion of clubs as red links that are never going to pass the notability rules to allow an article about them to be created. If redlinks were allowed, as happened recently, the list in its current form would likely be nominated for deletion as being unmaintainable and redundant to a category. Anybody who wants to request an article on a club can still make a request on the article talk page, or use the request for articles page. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response - it makes a lot of sense. As you suggest, it's all down to notability, and I completely agree that for this list the majority of redlinked clubs are unlikely to be notable. Thanks for the guidance - I'll keep it in mind when I come across other lists. Oscroft (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Task_Force_terms_of_reference and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bowler hat wearers

Was not created to make a POINT-- on that you're totally wrong. It's section out of Bowler hat, made to avoid an edit/deletion war. Much of it is referenced in the same way as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_beheaded, often with photos in the links of people wearing bowlers. Yes, it needs work. If you delete everything in Wikipedia that still needs work, you're not going to have much left. I"ve said more on the Talk page, but please research things a bit more carefully before you decide that some article was created for nefarious purposes. I don't give a fig about bow tie arguments, and knew nothing about them yesterday. SBHarris 02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I will strike the point part. In my defence I did say seem to, and the timing is a hell of a coincidence (although maybe the deleter of that article portion was motivated by the mentioning of bowler hats in the bow tie Afd). But no, photos won't do as references, that puts you in the position of saying this is a list of people who wore a bowler hat once, which as you will see if you study the bow tie Afd, is not going to fly. And on a minor technicality, you don't need the words notable or famous in section headers or article titles for lists, it is implied for things like lists of people (i.e. wikilinked lists). And in my experience, for better or worse, borderline lists always have a better chance of survival if they remain inside an article, I too have done what you did and spun a list out of an article for style reasons, only to see it disappear down the plughole later. MickMacNee (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

Nice one. : ) Daicaregos (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Saw your edit to the Northern Ireland page. Would it not look better and be easier for someone unfamiliar with the UK if it simply read.... Northern Ireland is a Country of the United Kingdom rather than Northern Ireland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom even with the redirect to Countries of the UK page by clicking on part of. The page for country isnt very detailed because no agreement can be reached on the term so whys it need to be included BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The format for explaining the country within a country aspect of the UK has been discussed to death recently at Wales, with long mediation, settling on the part of pipe link. Nobody proposed the format above, and I personally don't see what it brings to the table. Country is included because that is what it is described as in reliable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept the need to call each part of the UK country, but i understand why some people have concerns about doing so. I thought Country of the United Kingdom is a good compromise because it keeps the term Country which is important to many, but is also very clear on its relationship with the United Kingdom which is why people have problems with the term country in the first place. "Part of" being the pipe link is not as clear as Countries of the UK would be.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

great southern

nick

how is the award verified?

it has been reported in screen international and in international press.

you assert it is unverifiable.

the great southern site needs lots of verification - it is all available - question is - how do you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.51.60 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Citing sources. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

cakes

I modified your comment at the AfD for list of cakes. Never say anything at Wikipedia that could possibly be construed as a mention of legal proceedings. I know it wasn't meant that way, but still.... DGG (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Good call. Thanks for watching my back ;) MickMacNee (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

More delicious cake

I call your [deleted] bluff and have raised a concern regarding your communication style at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Request_for_advice. Feel free to comment there. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article dabate at Ireland

I'm asking you not to 3RR on bringing important article deabte to the bottom where it belongs. You have no right to hinder the progress of the article. It is locked and there are things people must agree on, whatever you own sour feelings are.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to ignore policies because it doesn't suit you, or your personal opionions of what is important. You are already treating these pages as your personal project, do not compound that error with basic defiance of policies. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/LNER Peppercorn Class A1, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Biscuittin (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock unblock request

I don't understand this block, my IP is a million miles away from 62.30.249.131

Your ISP apparently uses a proxy server to route all traffic through that IP address. There's like ten people who have been affected by this already. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki bug :x See WP:AN#Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

drop by

Proposal to end the template conflict and let the users decide. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Things are happening at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-05 LNER Peppercorn Class A1. You might like to participate. Biscuittin (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hiya Mick. By the God King, do you mean Jimbo Wales? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you deny his existence by usurping him with any other false idol? Be you the IWF? Mwuah ha ha ha ha. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I'm an atheist, I believe Jimbo is human. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. Your lack of faith disturbs me, Mr Day. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You might like this --Snowded TALK 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(resp to Mick) Episode IV: A New Hope. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(resp to Snow) What?, that's blasphmey. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No way, Jimbo is a supporter of Ayn Rand, and that particular form of libertarianism is blasphemy, I'm just playing inquisition --Snowded TALK 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still gonna do my Wayne's World salute, when I meet the guy. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs is nothing but a wannabe, and an irredeemable blasphemer to boot. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You archived a discussion in-progress on the Talk page. I've removed the archive tag. I note your concern that arbitrators might find something objectionable in the discussion - what is the solution/alternative? Not to discuss anything? Do you have a different suggestion? --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I archived a requested move, initiated and withdrawn by me (as explained at the top of the header). If you want to carry on discussion outside of the archived move, feel free to do so. MickMacNee (talk)

Kerrang link

Hiya Mick. I noticed you removed a load of sourced information from the Jonty Haywood article with the reasoning that the link to the source is blacklisted. However, did you check the blacklist before doing so? If it was blacklisted then it wouldn't have been possible for user:Jessi1989 to add the link (unless it's been whitelisted somewhere in which case there's no reason to remove it either). If this link is somehow otherwise circumventing the blacklist then ignore this notice and feel free to revert my undo. Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitelisting of losethegame.com is news to me. If it had been, surely Jonty would have just added it to the EL section straight away. Anyhow, if it has been removed, I stand by not using the interview in its current location per the talk page. It is simply not acceptable to host a source of verification on the site it purports to be about. This is a clear COI. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Jonty hasn't edited this article at all, so I'm not sure why you think he'd come along now and add a link to his site to the EL section of this article. Anyway, it looks like that link is on the whitelist now (search the whitelist for "losethe"), which is probably why Jessi1989 made her latest additions (which I think are much improved on her original attempt that you reverted here). Regarding "COI", I don't see how the location of the recording matters at all, unless there are genuine concerns that the interview is some kind of fake, and honestly, it doesn't sound like it. Also you cite all these terms like WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT but the information you keep removing doesn't appear to contain any of that, unless I'm totally mistaken as to the definition of these terms. Could you point to the terms you refer to? Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest website claim as fact mysteriously reappeared as fact while totally unrelated information was being added. The sentence "The site is now used by players from different countries" was added. Is this a fact or just another claim directly from the mouth of Haywood? "Haywood is a regular guest on Kerrang radio". Can this claim seriously be made based on one interview? "Haywood is known in various countries for his website" patently not proveable.

It appears only the mp3 link has been whitelisted. I would be interested in hearing the rationale for this. I would also be interested to see how accusations of it being a fake/extraordinary COI could be rebutted given the history of Haywood and his attempts at self promotion (and no, anonymous editors saying it isn't are not going to convince me).

I am afraid the problems with this article are so bad, that I am not going to accept the addition of material by mixing claims together in between references. That goes for the radio interview especially. Either you correctly attribute the context and exact 'facts' being cited by each source, or it will be done for you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"The biggest website claim as fact" - this appears to be explicitly taken, word for word, from the source to which it is referenced, which does not attribute that fact to Haywood, but states it as fact. I'm not sure why you have such a big problem with this.

"The site is now used by players from different countries" was referenced to the paper print of the metro article, which I presume is a non-weasel way of saying what the Metro says about "graffiti from around the world" being used to make people lose, with a picture of this website's address graffitid on signs from different countries.

"Haywood is a regular guest on Kerrang radio" - looks like this is referenced to the "friends of the show" page on Kerrang (which incidentally doesn't say that his ownership of the website is the reason for him being added to that list, as you wrote). I can't see frequency of appearance described on that page, but the end of that sentence also references the Kerrang interview - I'd need to listen through the radio interview again to find where, but I'm pretty sure the DJ refers to previous conversations he's had with Haywood on the show. This may be where she got that from.

"Haywood is known in various countries for his website" - this is attributed to the Kerrang interview. I would assume this is a deweaselisation of when the DJ describes Haywood as "famous around the world" for his website.

I actually felt Jessi did a good job of keeping her edits NPOV and avoiding weasel words here, compared to her previous attempt. Instead of stuff like "Haywood is world famous" or "Haywood's site is graffitid around the world" which is what the sources could say if you took them word for word, she appears to have restricted it to the underlying facts i.e. "around the world" --> "in various/different countries". Hence I felt your revert and especially the edit summary that accompanied it were harsh.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at with your middle paragraph. I've looked at Haywood's edit history but I can't actually see much by way of self-promotion, at least not in recent years. Which anonymous editors are you referring to?

To the third bit, I thought the editor who added this information had done a very thorough (perhaps too thorough!) job of referencing the claims. She seems to have sourced almost every adjective in that paragraph, and it looks like the sources do support what she wrote, see above. Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you re-read what you just wrote it will be clear that particular adjectives and assertions of fact need to be clearly delineated between sources on this article. If this farce continues, I will let the community decide if the ducks are clearly quacking here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

hi. this has already been discussed and resolved here. an admin approved the whitelisting of this link as a source for this article. if you dispute this maybe you should take it up with him. thanks. Jessi1989 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

as for your claims of some of my edits being unsourced. this is rather annoying. i spent a lot of time sourcing every single statement made in my addition to this article. please read each source and listen to the interview. you will see that eveything i added is verified information. Jessi1989 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yae, you have spent an awful lot of time on this issue. And so has wiw8. And you two never seem to edit at the sime times of day. Strange that. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to discussing the subject matter rather than making accusations against those who apparently disagree with you. Honestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say here regarding the sourcing being somehow invalid. If there is a particular sentence you have a problem with, then discuss it here and if there's really a problem with it it can be fixed. Don't just keep reverting the whole lot as that just leads to edit warring. Wiw8 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I shal repeat, as you are clearing not listening: "the problems with this article are so bad, that I am not going to accept the addition of material by mixing claims together in between references. That goes for the radio interview especially. Either you correctly attribute the context and exact 'facts' being cited by each source, or it will be done for you." MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In your latest revert, you gave the comment not at all. Attribute specific claims to specific sources, do not imply what has not been said. While I didn't write the whole paragraph so may be wrong, as far as I can see by looking at the sources to which each piece of information is referenced, everything is attributed to the correct source. If your persistent reverting is just because you think some facts have been cited to the wrong references, then instead of continually reverting it all, why not fix the erroneous reference. Or if you refuse to do so, at least paste here the specific referencing you are talking about being wrong so that I can fix it. Wiw8 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just follow the example in the current article. It is quite simple. "In source X, claim X was made. In source Y, claim Y was made. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting the historical problems with the article necessitating clear attribution, making different claims in the same sentences by inserting citations mid sentence is simply against the manual of style. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ok mick, let's take a look at an article you've been involved with a lot, such as Ireland. according to your ridiculous misrepresentation of how wikipedia should work, the second paragraph should read "In a 2006 report by the Central Statistics Office of Ireland, the claim that the population of the island is slightly under 6 million was made...The Demography and Methodology Branch of NISRA claim that there are almost 1.75 million in Northern Ireland." this is not how wikipedia works and you know it. the entire reason we have a referencing tag system is so that we don't need to include the names of the sources in the text. and we don't have to infer that everything is untrue by using the word "claim" (which is clearly non-neutral). that is why sources must satisfy wp:rs. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem intent on continuing this argument on the SSP page you raised, which is not the right place, let's finish it here. Please look at the latest revision of that section of the article here, before you made your fourth revert. As far as I can see, everything there is referenced to the correct source now. If you disagree, please list each instance here, and we'll sort them out. And no, I'm not going to go through writing "In source X, claim X was made. In source Y, claim Y was made.", because that looks totally ridiculous and unencyclopedic, and I've never seen another article written that way. Wiw8 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And I've never seen an article that makes such ludicrously unverifiable claims of fact as this one. The waffle above from 'Jessi' about Ireland is surely meant to be an insult to my intelligence, there is no other way I can take it. Simply reading the first line of your version [55] shows a violation of the manual of style with citations in the middle of a sentence. And a ludicrous claim to boot. Who has verified that he is known around the world? It's pure crap. At least read the manual of style if you won't read any of the policies about what constitues a fact and what constitues a reported opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've given one example. If something "violates the manual of style" as you put it, that doesn't mean you should revert the entire edit, you should simply fix it. Here that appears to be simply a case of removing the first [7] link, which I shall now do. On one hand you argue that each and every fact has to be explicitly linked to the source that supports it, and on another you complain when this is done that it violates the manual of style. Can't you see how this is going to cause problems? Regarding "who has verified that he is known around the world", I presume that Kerrang radio has verified this, otherwise they wouldn't have said so in the source. The exact words they used were that Haywood is "famous around the world". That would be inappropriate to write. I think "known in different countries" is an acceptably neutral way of writing it. Remember that an article is supposed to assert why the subject is notable. Wiw8 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In an interview with Kerrang Radio, Haywood was described as being "famous around the world" (full stop)(reference). That is the only acceptable way this kind of promotional BS is going to get in the article. You have just admitted that the BS is being refactored away from what the sources say to be made to sound more legitimate, a clear case of synthesis. So, to not make more work for people who suspect the entire article is not legit in that manner, claims need to be properly separated. That is in the MOS, and that is why it is in the MOS. If you want me to open a poll on the talk page to gather opinions as to whether people think that claims made in the article can be trusted, I can do that. But it would just be quicker for you to write the article properly as has been explained. You are actually quite wrong about how sourcing works on wikipedia, stuff that is obvious promotional BS but still sourced is a legitimate target for removal, per PEACOCK and ADVERT. Stuff that is clearly unverifiable but appears in a source is still required to be qualified (otherwise, wikipedia would be full of Heat Magazine quotes and other nonsense). But let's get is sorted as to which BS comes from which source before we have that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't refer to anyone's contributions as "BS". It's uncivil and vulgar. No, nowhere did I "admit that the BS is being refactored away from what the sources say to be made to sound more legitimate", I said that "known in different countries" is a more neutral way of saying "famous around the world". Change it to "famous around the world", if you really think that's better. And no, synthesis is when you take snippets of information from a number of sources and form from them a new piece of information that isn't in any of the sources. Summarising information from a source without changing its meaning is not synthesis. As for "getting sorted as to which BS comes from which source" - as I have asked above several times, are there any facts there which you feel are attributed to the wrong source? State them, and we'll work together to fix them. Wiw8 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm done with trying to teach you how Wikipedia works, you have an astounding ability to not get the point of any post I make, and now you are just trying to waste my time. If I get the time, I will draft a proper third opinoin request or even an Rfc on the article, and detail all the issues it has, stemming from this relentless promotion campaign, which will hopefully garner outside opinions on your quite bizarre way of using sources and manipulating text in the name of NPOV (seriously, you actually think that NPOV says rewrite what the source you are trying to cite said?). I am still laughing that you honestly think that "famous around the world" is allowable as an acceptable verifiable fact on an article, for a bio based on a single interview of the bio subject hosted on the bio subject's website. It's quite luidicrous. Which actual articles you claim to have seen to give you this idea of what is and isn't correct doesn't bear thinking about. That is if you and the sock who are gaming 3RR on the article are not rightfully banned first. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why, instead of actually trying to resolve editing disputes by talking about it in a civilised manner, do you resort to personal attacks? I'm totally open to me being wrong here, but all of your explanations so far have been based upon obvious falsehoods, for example you just stated that this article is based on a single interview but it clearly isn't; it's based on like 10 different sources. If it really upsets you that much, I'll remove the "known in different countries" sentence completely and change it to the way you suggest, especially since you have gone as far as making a SSP against me and are now laying down the wikilaw and suggesting I should be banned. If "gaming 3RR" was my goal I would already have reported you for the violation. Which I haven't, because that solves nothing, and I can see that despite your repeated violations of pretty much every guideline regarding interactions with other editors, you do make constructive edits to Wikipedia in articles other than this one. So, if it's really this important to you, I'll remove that line and put it in the Kerrang section as you suggest. Hope "winning" makes you feel good. Wiw8 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP

Don't be surprised if it comes up negative. Given that this user has been at this for awhile and is aware of checkuser, I would suspect he has access to other computers or has friends helping with the promotion. Email me if you'd like further info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a behavioral filing based on actions and timing of edits. I have no expectation that they will be the same IP. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Perhaps from lessons learned from RabidFoxes (talk · contribs · logs), the accounts were active in other areas briefly before turning their attention to Haywood-related articles. I'm strongly suspicious of one, a little less so of the other. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Arriva Southern Counties Maidstone centenary bus.jpg

File:Arriva Southern Counties Maidstone centenary bus.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Arriva Southern Counties 3176.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Arriva Southern Counties 3176.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

8F

In response to your points, which I think were getting a little off topic, I have outlined how I think we should proceed with the 8Fs at talk:LMS Stanier Class 8F. I'm sure that your opinion will be welcomed there. --Tony May (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be participating over there, the point was a general one. If somebody decided to list locomotives on that page, it could not be prevented by your need to only list stock in the way that the books do. Such a list would be a List of Locomotives, a standard heading on Wikipedia. Calling such a list a stock list would not fit your supposed professional definition, unless you finally concede that stock lists with customer/owner or whatever columns are valid (but you can't because it negates your position on Tornado). MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure such a list would be potentially useful, albeit long, but would also be a combined stock list of LMS, WD, LNER, TCCD, FS, Persia and Egypt. Personally I think such lists should be split down as appropriate to their railway company concerned. IMVHO the stock lists of each company is informative as regards to that company. Don't worry, I'll get there eventually. All I am reporting is the terminology I found used in books. Would you care for me to recommend such books that could be useful? What is your area of expertise? For me, it's mostly LMS/MR. Such books would be useful for citing in Wikipedia. Tony May (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing dumb, stop pretending you haven't read replies about each and every point you make, and stop patronising people. Learn the difference between Wikipedia and a book. Learn the difference between a style edit and a factual edit. Learn how to properly use sources. Learn what JARGON actually is. Learn about who reads wikipedia and why. Learn how Wikipedia works - learn some basic policies, (start with WP:CONSENSUS), learn how you are supposed to use a talk page even. Learn what vandalism is. Learn what tags are for. Learn to recognise that when you are the only person advocating a particular approach on an article, that is a bad thing. Learn why that is even worse when the issue is wholesale, and more properly dealt with in a manual of style. Learn to recognise that when nobody endorses your view, no matter how much you think you are right, or how often you repeat it, on Wikipedia that is always going to be more harmfull to you in the long run than it will be to other people. Do something, anything, except coming to my talk page and being so obviously deceptive and duplicitous. You might start with editing in a topic area that is actually watched by a significant number of other experienced editors. Then, rather than me continualy telling you, you would actually learn by experience how/why you have got it so wrong so far. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course, I should be taking advice off of someone who's been blocked 13 times for general incivility, 3RR offences, etc. Tony May (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When you don't edit high traffic articles, nobody scrutinizes your behaviour, let alone your content. It's probably why you have picked up the idea that you are doing it right. No corrective action = no learning impetus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What I edit is my prerogative. Perhaps I should call people c***s more often. Tony May (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/LNER Peppercorn Class A1. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Why Did You Edit My Addition To The Davy Crockett Nuclear Device???

What was your problem with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzman313 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have no idea what you are on about. Do you have a diff?. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peppercorn Class A1

Issues raised at WP:AN/I Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

You list WP:NOT#NEWS as part of your reason to delete. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikinews is. Have you ever considered transwikification instead of deletion? -Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid option, people can vote to transwiki. Afd's do occasionaly result in a consensus to transwiki, but as you can see by the initial voters, any attempt to have done that unilaterally would have been reverted. They honeslty believe that Wikipedia is a newspaper, that is the central problem. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Future Routemaster

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future Routemaster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Untitled post

If you must add the {{Sockpuppet}} template on my page please list the reasons you suspect this in acordance with the rules, if not please leave my page alone Oxyman24 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)