User talk:Maccy69

Clackson101/Claxson
Wouldn't worry about this too much if I were you – see the various Claxson accounts here. 62.169.159.216 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blimey! I had no idea... I'm not especially bothered, although it is frustrating to get into a dispute with an editor doesn't seem to understand your posts and who starts accusing you of unrelated stuff. I just thought it was worth pointing people at the discussion, in case they came across his page and were curious about why he'd left. However, if this is another sock account it's reassuring to know that I didn't put a reasonable person's back up with my posting style - not what you want to do, and I do worry sometimes that things don't come across as intended. Anyway, thanks for dropping by and letting me know. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the history of sock puppet behaviour, it probably explains why two of Clackson101's edits were this and this. Hmm... Maccy69 (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed so I've edited my user page accordingly. For the record, this is what was on my user page:

''I seem to have inadvertently got myself involved in some Wikipedia drama, causing Clackson101 to leave Wikipedia in a bit of a huff, due to my supposed unreasonableness and apparently rampant egomania. As Clackson101 has linked to this page without further explanation, I encourage you to read the discussion here and come to you own conclusions - that's assuming you're interested in this sort of nonsense, and I wouldn't blame you if you aren't.''

Maccy69 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Numbering is all Messed up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) For Exemple says 127 While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_DVD_releases Says 128

Does this mean The other ones needs to be changed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who) 198.103.152.52 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Region 1 DVD releases use a different numbering system, so the DVD list follows that. The differences are explained in Doctor Who DVD releases and List of Doctor Who serials and all of the affected individual episode pages (there's a footnote next to each episode number). There is no official numbering scheme, so this is the best way we've so far managed to deal with differences between the R1 DVD releases and the list of stories in Doctor Who Magazine 407. The consensus on this is here - if you want to suggest something new, then you need to add to that discussion, not discuss it here or on your talk page, see WP:BRD. For more discussion on this issue, see here. Maccy69 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who - End of Time sourced character names
Can you please explain to me why Russell Tovey is listed with 'TBA' rather than his established (Surely I don't need to point you to the Voyage of the Damned page?) character name of 'Alonzo Frame'? Can you give me a reason why he wouldn't be playing the same character? Darkglasses (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's likely that he is, but it is not confirmed by a reliable source so there's no way for the reader to verify it - therefore the name cannot be included. There's no need for me to give you a reason why he wouldn't be playing the same character as speculation should play no part in Wikipedia article writing. For the record, though, Freema Agyeman, Karen Gillan, Peter Capaldi and Eve Myles have all played different characters within the same fictional universe in recent years. This isn't a personal opinion, either, it's Wkipedia policy - so many other editors would have done the same, if I hadn't. For this reason, if you want to discuss it further you should do so on the article's talk page. Maccy69 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Pandorica Opens: OR statement
The claim that the characters theta and sigma happen to also be the Doctor's nickname is not original research as you claimed. It is a canon fact that you can verify easily by watching episodes four and five of "The Armageddon Factor". Many fans of the original series know this. Calling this original research is like saying that noting an original line of dialogue and its component sources (if there are any) should be discarded as original research. Just because some producer hasn't spelled out how something originated does not mean coincidences are invalid or connections should be discouraged when discovered. Otherwise, what is the point of having many eyes on a particular collaboration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealklein (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it hasn't been remarked on a by a reliable secondary source then it probably doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. By Wikipedia policy pretty much all the continuity entries should be removed from all Wikipedia Doctor Who entries. Now I don't especially care, which is why I left the Theta Sigma stuff in, but what you've said above is entirely incorrect it is original research to make these connections without a source that also makes the connection. That's Wikipedia policy and by its strict application all of that type of analysis should be removed. It more properly belongs in a wiki with different policies like The TARDIS Index File. Like I said, I don't especially care, but don't be surprised if strict editor prevails with this sort of thing, they'd only be following policy if they did. As it is, I only removed the stuff that didn't accurately describe what happened in that episode and in "Flesh and Stone". Maccy69 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to see how this kind of thing tends to go, look at Talk:Planet of the Dead. The exclusion of any kind of continuity section from that article probably helped it to Good Article status. That's how they like things here. Maccy69 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I may not like the explanation, but I appreciate its explanation and detail. It looks like I've some reading to do before I post and edit. Thanks.--Neal Klein (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

RSN
You forgot to sign your post. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who
Hello, ummm i made a edit on the rebel flesh, about the doctor being a Ganger, but you removed it. its on The Almost people that he is a ganger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.95 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2011
 * Simply following the credits as broadcast. The article makes it clear what happens - no need to over-complicate the cast list. I'd suggest that deviating from the credits at the end of the show is original research. If you want to discuss this, you should make a post on the article discussion page - that way it can be discussed and a consensus reached. I've edited The Almost People to match. Maccy69 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on Celtic F.C. supporters
Hi Macy. Could you give your opionion on the RS Noticeboard here if you have time as you'ce commented on this page before. Thanks. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Went away and then came back
On the off chance that someone reads this page, I thought I may as well leave a comment from my new account. I couldn't use this account even if I wanted to since I randomised the password and deleted my email address from it. So it's effectively dead. Amedee123 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)