User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2009

WP:Flagged revisions/Trial/Proposed trials
Can you clarify your proposal #9? I can see that there's something in there that we definitely need to consider, but I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. Happy‑melon 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, the pool of pages needing a review due to having had an unsighted edit made need not be over populated by pages that in all probability will be reviewed anyway by virtue of being on many watchlists, without people coming to the pool to pick up a review job. This creates a smaller pool which should imo be more effective in persuading people to come to it to sight pages. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, I think. Effectively, that we need to test how effective Special:OldReviewedPages is in comparison to direct access from watchlists? That certainly sounds like an important test. Happy‑melon 20:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502‎
Nice (and speedy) piece of researching and writing there. At least some of us appreciate it! 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked at the page nobody had touched it but a couple of IPs. Such is the wiki way. I'll wander over and opine. MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does anyone bother? 8-(   Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland page name poll
Hi Mike. Thank you for this, but would you please move the comment part of your vote to the comment section? That will make it easier for other contributors to find the place where they want to add their sig. Regarding your comment, I do not see how what you propose differs from option 1, which is effectively the status quo. Could you make that clearer? Eg, would you merge both articles Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland into the article now at Ireland? --Una Smith (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not move it, it is needed to explain the rationale behind the vote (when you say, "see discussion" section nobody ever takes any notice). There is no harm allowing long votes as long as you stop threaded comments in the voting section. I'll clarify the content issue over there. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, so far, so good. There are no rebuttals yet and as long as it stays that way it should be manageable.  Are you willing to ask other editors to remove any rebuttals, if they start adding them?  --Una Smith (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I see it. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonty Haywood
I don't believe WP:V requires an English language source. Is there another reason for removal? --Onorem♠Dil 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The cliam it was supporting is a clear WP:REDFLAG, and thus preferably requires an English source, per WP:V. If you can find a Dutch speaking admin that will verify the claim, it can be recorded as such on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

TOPS & Tornado
The reference for the RSL registration of tornado is broken so I cannot verify it (this has happened to a lot of the links to the trust's website.) However, the Network Rail guide to acceptance at indicates that the procedure is "Registration in operational status on the Rolling Stock Library" which is what Tornado has gone through (P6). The entry to TOPS is just a component of the registration. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not broken, it was a general ref - you should read the accompanying footnote text to see that it referred to the Certification page of their website, without actually being a direct link. The direct online version is Tornado has been loaded onto TOPS under painted number 60163/TOPS number 98863. So as I said in the edit summary, the wording you removed was not innacurate as it stood, and was referenced. Please be more carefull when modifying text which has an accompanying reference. It would be helpfull to add, rather than replace, information about the RSL in the Tornado article, but it should be noted that the above document does not mention TOPS at all, let alone how it relates to the phrase "Registration in operational status on the Rolling Stock Library". The above source and any others like this should be used to improve TOPS and Network Rail, where none of this information is mentioned. Then the Tornado article can be clarified. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On second reading, I have changed "registered with TOPS" to "entered on TOPS", pending improvement of the other articles. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That reads better thanks. It still has a dose of RAS though :-) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
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, Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Debate
Hi, I have reopened the discussion at Talk:Bugatti Type 57 since it is still attracting comment. I appreciate your point and respect your actions, but feel that additional commentary is salutary, so I suggest letting the question continue for a while longer. Eusebeus (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded at the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Articulated buses in London
Cheers for sorting this issue out. I was going to compromise, but you've sorted it for me! Whatever the Standard said, it is clear that artics are certainly not being replaced with future Routemasters! It has put me off sorting the article out though. I made a start on the lead but now it's about the same as before!! Arriva436talk/contribs 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Britannia
Hi Mick. You've deleted my inclusion of Britannia. Did I put it in the wrong place? I'd welcome your thoughts. Brixtonboy (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:MOSDAB. I slipped on the keyboard, but the summary would have read 'unecessary'. Disambiguation pages are for immediate context, not for article type sentences that you added. The personification of Brittannia etc is all explained in the article linked right at the top of the page, and readers looking for that information would arrive at the Britannia article itself before they arrive at Britannia (disambiguation). MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re'' Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)''


 * User Red King is another User entierely....My nic is Redking7 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (all one word with a 7 after it)....I do not have a user page and do not want to start one....The fact that we have similar nics was purely by chance....Best regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. It is not even difficult to see the difference in the spelling. --Red King (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on Jimbo's talk page
Hi Mick. I am writing this to ask you to redact your comment about "smart assed graduates" on Jimbo's talk page. I am a graduate myself, and I consider this comment insulting to those of us who have taken the time to put ourselves through University to get a decent qualification which people will recognise. We are not all smart arses who mess with stuff. Some of us have a decent level of useful knowledge which it seems a shame to put to waste when we can have the opportunity to share it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will modify it to reflect what I meant rather than what I wrote. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on 'Islamic' inventions
Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

UK Bus Routes
I have created a quality drive similar to the operator drive, based on some of the points I have previously raised regarding bus routes in the UK. I have noticed you have been involved in previous similar discussions, so your input and participation would be greatly welcomed! Find the page at WP:UKBRQDRIVE. Thanks! jenuk1985 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from a select few examples, and all? the Tfl ones, I am not entirely sure that routes deserve their own articles at all, so I can't really committ wholeheartedly to improving them. I've stayed away from the issue of whether multi-operator lists are noteworthy, under NOT#GUIDE, I can see a day when anything improved in that area might still go up for deletion anyway, no matter how good they are. I should have said in the original drive than any standalone operator lists spun out for size reasons should be examined as being in scope of the main drive. MickMacNee (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you can't put in any time to improve articles, your input into discussions would be very helpful, to stop them turning into single sided discussions. My opinion is similar to yours in that about 80% of route articles should be deleted/redirected as being non-notable. Looking at the West Midlands alone, many of the articles cannot stand up on their own, but I feel its more civil to "remove" them by amicable discussion rather than going through the official lines. P.S. Shouldn't you be in bed at this time? :) jenuk1985 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. I keep odd hours. I'm always on hand for any input if requested, just drop me a note. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks
This is a serious personal attack; putting the name of the original creator of an article into a biography in order to draw attention to him because you disagree with the creation is beyond the pale. You have been blocked for 24h. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Realizing, belatedly, that you would not see the deleted revision) I am referring to the inclusion of the username "Giano II" with wikilink in the text of the article Giles Hattersley (a biography of a living person) as its author with an emphasis on the matter during a dispute about the propriety of the article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't answer the questions, I am forced to assume that no, you don't have any reason to assume bad faith on my part, or indeed know of any policy wording that proscribes the relevant linking of user names in article space. And I don't appreciate having unblock request handled by an admin who I have previously had major disagreements with in the past, especially when they cannot give anything more than a 1 line answer that amounts to a personal opinion. I request an admin that I have never had any dealings with look at the original request please. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the guideline Self-references to avoid. Surely you realize that edit warring with an editor to include his user name in an article looks like provocation. How is it not?

See also WP:V and our requirements for independent secondary sources when making claims about living people. Giano is one, y'know? Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I was not edit warring. I cannot 100% be sure now without access to deleted logs, but I am quite sure I added the info once, then complained about its removal on the talk page. And if you look at the talk page, my issue was with needing to add the creation time, I wasn't even thinking about Giano (had I known adding his name was such an issue, I would have left it off, had I known I was going to be accused of harassment, I would never have even thought of adding it). As for WP:V for making claims about people, I just find that seriously bizarre. You are saying Wikipedia logs are not reliable sources for what Wikipedia editors do? That's pretty ridiculous. The log information stating exactly that information is precisely what readers would have to have had to look at (if they knew how to do it) to even understand the article. Finally, as for not using self references, look at the article context. It was quite clearly nonsense not to refer to the fact that that article had only existed for a few hours. How can you not self reference in that situation? Or are you honestly saying that was not pertinent information, about a claim being made about an article having existed or not? The situation falls squarely between the radio host example and the Siegenthaler incident. Adding a self reference was the only way that paragraph could be written to make any sense. MickMacNee (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough, and are familiar enough with our behavioral rules, to know this was a provocative gesture; especially given the context. Frankly, if your only defense for this action is that you were oblivious to the consequences of pointing a finger in mainspace at an editor despite the fact that this is never done, then it is a poor defense indeed.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't post repeated unblock requests, your unblock request has been reviewed. Chillum  05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, have we disagreed in the past? I don't remember. Chillum  05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What rubbish:Coren, you are basically saying - 'On the basis that you must have never seen this done before, and the length of time you have been here, I have concluded that, without any evidence at all, you were stalking another editor, by making a single edit.' As for you chillum, just don't insult my intelligence, and do not undo the below unblock request.

I don't see how Coren can be right that this was a WP:NPA violation. It is however fairly obvious that this was a WP:POINT violation; i.e. that Mick knew in advance the edit wouldn't be acceptable, but added it because he was frustrated about something else. This point violation was unacceptable, and Mick doesn't seem to acknowledge that yet. For that reason and the because of the big recent block-log, I'm reluctant to unblock with only an hour or so left. I am concerned however about the assertion made by Coren in the block-log, which will mislead other administrators into handing out tougher future blocks or interpreting Mick's future behaviour in a more unfavourable light that is justified. The idea that it was a WP:Harassment violation would depend on Mick's long-term pattern of behaviour (against Giano, presumably). Coren, can you substantiate this claimed violation in reference to previous events? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I had not noticed that the default NPA block message conflates with Harassment, which is indeed neither applicable nor appropriate in this case. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee MickMacNee I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence I really don't remember our past discussions. I deal with lots of people on Wikipedia and I really cannot remember every disagreement I have had. Regardless I assure you that my review of your unblock request was directly based on the merits of the block and not some trifle from the past. Chillum  02:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to self MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC) further MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bloody ridiculous block, in common with all the other blocks and admin actions related to that article. DuncanHill (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
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, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 02:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Folkestone White Horse
Congratulations on your Folkestone White Horse hook. As shown on the DYK Stats page, the hook drew 17,700 views to the article while it was on DYK. That's the 5th most for the month of February. Top 5 listed below. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete my revision?
I know CRaig personally. the revision was accurate. it was more accurate than some of the other information on this page! Im new here, and Ive actually had messages from others already saying you go around deleting at random. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, facts are facts. Just because YOU dont personally agree with my comment should not mean you should delete it. everyone has the right to enter facts on here, and you are not judge and jury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetblonde (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the edits/reverts in question and your edits were right to be reverted. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  12:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we need to think about WP:BITE, I have put up a welcome message and assumed good faith in reverting the latest entry. --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ive actually had messages from others already saying you go around deleting at random". Looking at your talk page, I can't see them. If you give me their usernames, I will investigate further. As for your deletions, I think eveyrbody else has already given you all the information you need. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia RULES on Editing
First of all, there is no "Wikipedia management" — contrary to newspapers and other similarly organized media, there is no "editor in chief", no "editorial committee", in short no centralized editorial authority.

There is also an OBLIGATION to provide a neutral point of view. You deleted my balancing sentence. That is in breach of Wikipedias rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetblonde (talk • contribs) 12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchair Accessible Vans
I don't understand why you felt it necessary to remove the information on the various conversion companies. It seems like all you did was strip useful information. --Iamhrh (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely unreferenced, and comprises a mixture of a how to guide, and blatant self promotion. There was zero evidence in the article to back up the claim that this actually is usefull information, and not just random free advertising (and besides, Wikipedia is not merely a collection of usefull information) MickMacNee (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest using as references? All of the players in the industry have significant bias. I'd like to get something together with accurate information and the correct citations.

Do you consider references to companies who actually offer the service / product that is being discussed on a page? What about pages like Platform virtualization? They seem to mention the specific providers... --Iamhrh (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a case for adding any ordinary manufacturer information as Wikipedia is simply not a user guide, but if you want to add it, I've jotted down the minimum requirements on the article talk page. See Talk:Wheelchair_accessible_van MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ranger (disambiguation)
I see you've had a go at this mess! I've got some sympathy with the view expressed on the talk page that "Rangers" very commonly means Rangers F.C., and that this is buried a very long way down the page. Looking at the incoming links it does seem that the vast majority of the plural links are in the football context. What do you think about having a dab page at Rangers which points to (a)Rangers F.C., (b) plural of Ranger (ie to the dab page)? Possibly also offer a link to the sports section of the dab page? (Possibly restructure that so there's a "Sport" heading with subheadings for the various sports?)

And I suppose that we ought now to move the dab page (back) to Ranger, while we're at it, as there is no primary usage (well, that's what I asserted some time back and no-one seriously challenged). PamD (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got no opinion realy, that was pretty much a spontaneous fix. I do think it might be useful to start splitting out Rangers (sports) and Rangers (military), but other than that, not really fussed. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements.

GnevinAWB (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Game image
Hi Mick, can we discuss the image I added to The Game (mind game)? I don't think WP:BLP has any rule which would disbar the inclusion of the image, and I included it to try to improve the look of the page. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It offers nothing to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to discuss this on the talk page. But as I'm here - is there actually anything to rule against it, or do you just personally not like it? Images in general improve Wikipedia, and this image illustrates the subject of the article. Images can illustrate articles and make Wikipedia more attractive without a need to 'educate'. Fences and windows (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not illustrate the subject of the article, and it most certainly is a breach of BLP. It's a simple matter of common sense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of rail terminology
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.

Please do not add unreferenced items to this list. Referencing a Wikipedia article is also considered unacceptable. Referencing a Wikipedia article that is itself unreferenced is totally unaccpetable.If you wish to continue to make edits to Wikipedia please familiarise yourself with the guidelines. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just where do you get such a patronising attitude from? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably from having to interact with editors that cannot follow simple guidelines. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you might wish to study some of Wikipedia's guidelines yourself. Perhaps the ones about not deleting content that can be fixed by editing, or the use of the citation needed tag. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Cheers Andy. MickMacNee (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Westoe Netty
I take your point about a location map being unsuitable for a painting so I went and looked for a painting infobox {infobox painting}. You have also deleted that - why? Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I'll restore it. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Craig Busch
As this is a BLP, we need to be more careful and ensure that we have adequate sourcing for the information there. I ask that you not restore it without further as this is an OTRS issue and you are not privy to all information. I'm sure if it really is a valid claim we should be able to find multiple reliable sources to back it up and to allow for a greater chance of verifiability by our readers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am a fan of Busch, which is why I am the person who expanded most of his articles and is why I have them watchlisted, but the section you blanked already had two sources which I have no reason to believe are not independant or reliable. Plenty more seem to exist also. So without you being more specific about exactly which facts are believed to be unreliable, I am not currently convinced it would be worth my time investigating further, because the 'you don't have all the facts' argument is pretty effective when used against someone without OTRS access. All I know is the article was the subject of recent attempts at whitewashing by people claiming they do have the facts, but were blanking sourced information from the article with justifications that to me and others simply resembled WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, such as this, so reverting those people was a simple no brainer. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand why you reverted it and I did notice the history of the article. Would you mind adding a few of those other sources in and re-adding the section?  That should be fine - the more sources the better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I get round to it, I will give you a shout to look it over. It could be days, it could be months. MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. That really should take care of the issues.  Thanks for the help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility again
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked for being abusive to those who disagree with you. Suggesting that "Welsh and other provincial peoples" are lacking in "intelligence or culture" is right out of line. Since you have such a long history of blocks for this sort of thing this block is for 1 week. If you continue to act abusively towards people here the blocks will get longer. Chillum  17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What specially are you referring to? I remember warning you about personal attacks back in early Febuary, you said the same thing about me not being impartial. I don't see anything from me in your block log(prior to today). Again, what are you talking about? I deal with many people on Wikipedia and cannot remember each little thing. Chillum 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, your unblock request does not address the reason you have been blocked. Chillum 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to address the block reason if the judge is impartial, otherwise, you might as well have Giano blocking Jimbo with impunity. My archive page is a true and accurate record for anyone, if you still want to carry on claiming ignorance MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I do not follow what you are saying. Are you now saying I am impartial? How does that excuse the need to address the block reason? What do Giano and Jimbo have to do with this? I haven't even communicated with either in months. Chillum 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop acting fucking dumb. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spare me a task in searching - please post the URL of a relevant diff. Is this Bugatti-related, by any chance? As a comment by someone who has backed you up previously over issues where you were working to build a better encyclopedia against others being "fucking dumb", I have to say that you're out of line on this one. What we call Central station is no reason to start ragging on the Welsh (The Welsh?! What have they done?) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so I see what the problem is with "the Welsh". You have a point there (and they so do not), but that's still not how we do things. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are not going to inform me of the nature of your grievance then I have little alternative but to simply disregard it. Chillum 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any other administrator coming to this page and seeing the above exchange, me among them, would have to do the same thing. If you are going to make such an allegation, it is incumbent on you personally to supply the evidence. Telling others to, basically, look for your evidence for you is not going to get any sort of positive response. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you got off easy with only a one-week block for a remark like that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any need for that comment, or are you poking him with a stick expecting a response to justify further action? Minkythecat (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it was completely uncalled for, no wonder MickMacNee has issues when editors such as Orangemike just provoke it. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Zion logo
So you are saying that you can use a copyright logo on a page even when the owner of the copyright does not give permission for it to be used. Are you saying that as copyright owner they have no rights on Wikipedia? (JigsawMan2 (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * No, they have no right to remove their logo from an article, if it is being used in accordance with all relevant policies, which it is. See WP:Non free content, and specifically, WP:LOGOS. MickMacNee (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a registered trademark so your argument is not appropriate JigsawMan2 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:LOGO. The logo's use is non commercial, and is not being used to give the impression the article was written by the rigths owner. Unser US Law, it's use is therefore completely legal. MickMacNee (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle AfD
Thanks for re-opening that one. It gets frustrating when you're trying to play by the rules and people are claiming you're being disruptive...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. If you two and a few others fail to understand that thousands, if not millions, of people are coming to Wikipedia to read what is already shaping up to be an informative and well-written article, then I don't know what else to say to you. Nightmareishere (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't said anything to start with this post that I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also frustrating that some people think "the rules" are more important than common sense. Alex Middleton (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * " Common sense. " One of the 23 terms that usually mean "In my opinion."
 * Carptrash (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Western Holdings
Hi, you edited Great Western Holdings to say that it was part owned by Badgerline rather than FirstBus. Badgerline merged with GRT Bus to create FirstBus in June 1995. The Great Western franchise, owned by Great Western Holdings started in February 1996 so this was after the merger and FirstBus would have part owned the company. ZoeL (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The source I added states "He credits Smallwood with leading First into railways. Badgerline already had a stake in Great Western, which First acquire outright in 1998". ("He" is Moir Lockheed).


 * Given that the franchising process (and thus the setting up of holding companies like GWH) would have begun well before the actual start date of the franchise, it is probably correct to say that initially the stake in GWH was first held by Badgerline, but of course had transferred to First before the franchise actually started, before their eventual outright purchase in 1998. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Jaspipers' addition/revision
Hello Editor MickMacNee, This a complaint/request for explanation or advice, re your and several other Editors undoing of my addition to the One-Armed Bandit Murder site. I belatedly realised that a source must be identified, regarding any work to a site. My fault. Sorry. However, on my last two or three attempts, I did point out that all of my wordage was to be found within evidence given at the Trial. The form I used was...."(Trial evidence)". My efforts were not at any time a matter of opinion, although I can now see that this would not have been apparent with regard to my earliest efforts. I did think that it was made clear during my last two or three attempts. Perhaps you can advise, when you have time. Yours faithfully,  JaspiperBeLegal (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that if this were accepted trial evidence, it was never reported in a secondary source, but even if it is true, simply writing "Trial evidence" within the text is not really good enough, you need to provide more information so that a reader can verify it for themselves. You would need to identify using a citation template the details of how this information can be accessed. If it can't be accessed by a third person, and has not been reported, then it cannot realy be added, because it is not verifiable. Other than that, I have no experience in the actual formatting of legal citations like this, so you would have to ask somebody else about that. Probaly the Law Project would be best, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unecessary (?) deletion of my attention to the One-Arm Bandit Murder page.
F.A.O. MickMacNee. Hello to you again, as you appear not to have received my previous correspondence. Or, perhaps you have not had time yet. Do let me know if my efforts have reached you at all. Thanks, Jaspiper4me.BeLegal (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ??? I already replied, it is directly above this section. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Digital manipulation in railway photography
Hi MickMacNee. I placed a notability tag on this article, because it's a non-notable branch of digital manipulation. Toirdhealbach (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a notable topic within railway photgraphy though, specifically the ethics of doing it for published photos, as well discussion of what is actually done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for defending me on my talk page! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also could I talk to you about this edit.
Could we also discuss this edit on the articles talk page. []. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Famous players template
Well I explained the reasons for all my edits: what is there left to say? You seemed determined to place discredited proposals and a disclaimer that undermines the template. On what grounds would you want to have a template deleted that reminds and encourages editors to improve the articles? Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take the piss and even pretend you are going to individually discuss this issue on the 1001 articles you are pointily and disruptively mass tagging, in the same way that got Fasach Nua roundly condemned when he attempted it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations in List of Rail Accidents
Hi,

Noticed that you'd re-instated the (empty) References section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom.

The reason I deleted this section was not becuase I thought the article should not have any citations, but that all of the many existing citations were of the inline URL style not the ref style (which produces listings in the References section, as I'm sure you know). Citing_sources

What it needs is for someone (else, that is) to go through each citation and convert clean it up, adding a Title, Authority and Date.

Cheers, Matt Whyndham (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why I tagged it as such. There is simply no point in removing a references section where it is needed, just because it is empty. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * alternatively, the references could all be left as is, i.e. not in the footnote style.  In which case there wouldn't be a references section per se.   It's not as if the article hasn't got _any_ references at all,  Merely that they are in a style which doesn't generate numbered footnotes. But I will defer to you, since I'm not at all clear on what is recommended, if anything, for citation styles in WP.   There seem to be about five different ways of doing them.   Cheers, Matt.Matt Whyndham (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Numbered footnotes are preferred over simple inline citations, and properly formatted inline citations should always be the goal, albeit basic inline forms are better than nothing for start class articles. Even so, a References section is still usefull if someone happened to use a reference work covering the whole topic, such as RailwaysArchive.org. The issue here is probably the less than accurate wording of the tag, but I found none better. Removing the section when someone has added one before simply makes work in the future really, and acts as a belt and braces way to highlight to others the lack of footnotes. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For deleting this thread. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into such an insipid debate. – <font color="black" style="background:#FFFFDD"> j ak s mata 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Air crashes are always nailed on NOT FORUM messes. Best to nip it in the bud straight away. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Bedford JJL.jpg
File:Bedford JJL.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bedford JJL.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:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland amendment - thanks
That should clarify the issues nicely, whichever way it goes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year
Whatever the conclusion is, I'm confident Mies & Tharky will accept it. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) - Television Programmes
Please familiarise yourself with WP:PROSE regarding this section. Thanks, DJ 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When you intend to use shortcuts instead of explainning yourself properly, try and make sure first that they point to a particular policy section. Don't insult my intelligence by insinuating that I have never seen the Manual of Style. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Annoying when an editor points vaguelly to authority. Like a 30something pointing to the authority of a parent to win an arguement...

--Contributions/82.39.76.120 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your BB2009 sense
You are possibly the only one on the Big Brother 2009 (UK) talk page who is making any sense. There are people on there who are on this FA warpath and are deleting my edits (and disregarding your important messages) under the guise of making the article better only to take ownership of it without consensus. The same users who have deleted my ratings edits because no consensus was made about the issue are the same ones assuming that FA status is what every editor is aiming for, despite saying such a thing without consensus. Thank you for all that you've said, at least you know someone appreciates it. Geoking 66 talk 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors project
Thanks for your thoughtful comments about this project. I am trying to be optimistic about it, but it is good that people are skeptical. The "members" of it have not yet defined its scope. Once it gets off the ground and adopts a more concrete agenda, I would certainly invite more scrutiny, as I agree that its goals and activities need to be consistent with those of the project oveall. The basic concept of a convenient forum for communication among the project's most prolific content contributors seems worthwhile to me, but if it doesn't lead anywhere, so be it. I certainly disagree with the premise that arbcom is "corrupt", and some of the statments by the organizer concern me, but as I said, I want to see what happens. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a wiki project, and it's not a discussion forum. It is a proposed organisation of privelaged members, elected from within. Nothing good can come of it that does not fundementally go against the basic foundations of Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * About to endorse your view Mick. I think there's an "if" which should be an "is". I wouldn't point out the typo, but it does make the sentence read a little oddly. Though you might want to change it early. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Caught. Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North
Well done on compiling an interesting, detailed and well referenced article. Hope you enjoy watching the item tonight! Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quayside
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quayside, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. //Melonite (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes and see also
Hatnotes are instead of disambiguation pages when there are two articles that could have the same natural title. See also is only for terms that will eventually be included in the article, as I did with quay. Please review the style guidelines for see also sections and disambiguation pages. Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep it on the article talk page, your moves have already created enough confusion. And while Quayide redirects to your new title, the hatnote is perfectly valid. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on User
Please refrain from attacking users

''Hanky Panky? Whatever, I personally cannot stand users like you, who ignore others, do not understand the difference between being bold and being a dick, and then flounce off in a huff whenever they are challenged on their actions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)''

The tone and those comments are not for Wikipedia. Calling someone a dick on User_talk:Drawn_Some is not acceptable nor is it professional. It just shows you as the person you actually are. Just because a person does not following your ideology do not revert to attacking them, it only makes you look pathetic. //Melonite (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully decline to take advice from you about anything. MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is perfectly ok. I wouldn't expect you to take advice. Melonite  23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it was pretty fucking stupid of you to waste my time and yours by trying to give it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, your comments are nothing more than insulting and harassing. I refuse to discuss with someone who has to resort to using that sort of language. Melonite  23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure how I can harrass you on my own talk page, particularly when you came here with a 'complaint' about something I supposedly did that didn't even concern you. So, no, I can't be particularly bothered if you no longer want to discuss it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't have to understand or care about why Melonite complained. Just kindly abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA (unless you want to be blocked).  —David Levy 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As it appears that Melonite refused to advise you that he had already taken this to WP:WQA, please consider this as your advisement. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. It appears the party's over. Cheers for the detailed defence. MickMacNee (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
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.

Talk:Michael Jackson
Do not presume to give me orders. Based on your talk page, you have a history of being uncivil, using profanity, and being generally aggressive.

This is an important point which should be researched. It contains factual information relevant to Michael Jackson's death. Was a precordial thump tried, or not? There was no indication of that in the 911 call.

To preemptively *remove* something like this *without consensus* from the talk page is fundamentally absurd. Shiggity (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's your choice, don't be surprised at the outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North
Have you thought of submitting the article for good article, or perhaps even featured article? This article, at first glance, looks extremely well-written to me. Also, this article would have qualified for Did You Know? main page feature if it was nominated within 5 days of its creation. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nom, I have all the print sources and a recording of the show if needed, but I don't tend to bother actively with GA/FA as I prefer working at the coal-face rather than the finishing shop. I already have far too many article ideas not even released yet through lack of time. Cheers for the feedback though, much appreciated. I think this is my most popular article yet! I didn't even think it was that good, but I was on a clock to finish it in time for the show, once I'd decided to write it, and by the end I became a little bit nuts and just released it warts and all (check out all the typo corrections in the history). MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my congratulations too. I saw the article linked from the TG S13 page and just thought "Uh oh, here comes another half-arsed fanboy article by some 12 year olds". So imagine my surprise! :-) Bradley0110 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers! MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing content from Talk:Main Page
Talk:Main Page gets a fair amount of off topic chatter. This is sometimes removed on sight, but when it is not, this should not be removed at a later time as it is easily possible someone may want to find this at a later date even if it's in the wrong location. (Both issues you removed were perfectly appropriate issues of discussion in WP:Help Desk at least initially.) If you feel some offtopic chatter has gone on for long enough, please don't be lazy and instead manually archive it (as I did for you). If you are too lazy to do so, wait for the bot to archive it when it eventually dies down (and yes it always dies down in the end). As I noted, if you are expecting timely admin intervention on Talk:Main Page, you're at the wrong place. This has never been the way Talk:Main Page works, and although even though we've done our best to reduce OT discussions, they still occur and besides that, issues raised on Talk:Main Page should never require timely intervention anyway since it's intended for more long term issues with the main page as there are appropriate sections for timely issues. For example, any errors should be reported to the error section. And yes, this includes wording changes and linking changes. If you wish to make a substive change to the way Talk:Main Page occurs, like removing long term discussions that are OT, then I suggest you propose this on Talk:Main Page rather then trying to implement a policy change unilaterally Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Telford Steam Railway
Thanks for your additions to this page. I've been trying to work out when the new images were taken, early 2008 judging by the lack of lineside vegetation and the colour of the DMU?

WaltTFB (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. Cheers. I really wouldn't know to be honest, I just found them on Geograph. MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Michael Jackson funeral BBC video 8137700 frame 27s.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Michael Jackson funeral BBC video 8137700 frame 27s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring to keep non-free content in an article is not acceptable. If you disagree with me, take it to the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Metro" vs. everything else debate
I'd like to invite you back to the talk page for rapid transit again. There appears to be widespread consensus that the "rapid transit" name is not acceptable, which also appears to be the case in the archived discussion as well.

You appear to have been the primary "dissenter" in the previous discussions, so I would like to ensure that your opinion is properly represented. But before jumping in with a "strong oppose", please take a moment to read over the numbers posted in the thread, as they appear to invalidate your two primary arguments:

Rapid Transit is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous descriptive catch all term

There are a total of six systems in the entire world that use the term "rapid transit" to describe what would be called an "underground" in the UK. There are, however, hundreds of systems in the world that use the term "rapid transit" to describe something utterly different.

a cursory glance at List of rapid transit systems reveals a significant proportion of the world (not just N. America) that either completely or partially uses an alternative to Metro in the name of their systems.

I did more than take a cursory glance: I copied the list into a text editor and regexed it. The results are:


 * 1) 91 are "metro"
 * 2) 21 are "subway"
 * 3) 6 are "underground"
 * 4) numerous one-offs

Additionally, in every example but one of a continent or "major nation" where the term "subway" is prevalent, the term "metro" is used as well. So again, I don't believe this argument holds weight, and there appears to be no portion of the world that uses an alternative, let alone a "significant" one.

But that's just my take on it, which is why I'd like to hear from you!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It apppears I missed it. My views are unchanged, the article is not called Rapid Transit because it is used most often in system names, and it is not confusing just because somebody put 'bus' infront of it in recent decades. MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Association of Established Editors is back
See WP:AEE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Madness. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Don't do this again please. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your presumption over other people's wishes is not appropriate, ever. You may think it is, but it is not. MickMacNee (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea and Wikipedia isnt "failing", lol. OOO, now that makes sense. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing about this comment makes sense to me. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TT
Dude, this link is already dediacted - it goes to a templates page. You are free to continue with your proposal concerning think tanks, but you need to change the link, and my advice is only do it afte there has been discussion and decision. My advice to you is, when proposing something new, do NOT create any new links, do not have a direct to a non-existent (or the wrong) page. let people discuss your actual proposal, and see if it has any traction, before you create a project page with a link. In the meantime, you have to unlink all your TTs. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew it was extant. I am hoping to hijack it as a common usage. I will delink it for now. MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * May I propose an alternative: WP:THINK goes to a dead proposal. It should not be hard to get community support to change the shortcut to a dead proposal (just post something, publicize it an AN, give it a few days, I am sure no one would object) and then use it for your proposal.  But there is no need to rush - let there be discussion precisely where you created space for discussion, and if it takes off, then you can create an essay/project page with its own shortcut. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in
this, this, and/or this. Particularly the first. I understand where you are coming form with the think tank idea, and FWIW I agree with it, but consensus is very clear that the community does not support such a group if constituted by ArbCom. → ROUX   ₪  16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Think tanks
Look, I stand by my objection which is sincere and thought through. But I did want to acknowledge that you are one of a very small number of people to propose alternatives, and I appreciate that. Your proposal hasn't gotten much support, but you clearly put time and thought into it and it was worth it. Even if the community rejects it, you did something constructive. Thanks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just bored :) MickMacNee (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are still bored, could you chck out WP:Areas for Reform? It fits in with your "reboot" idea but it is not a "think tank" in the sense that it does not have an elite and closed membership.  But it is a place for people to discuss areas of Wikipedia that need reform.  There is a fine line here: the project page is not meant to be a place for people officially to propose policies (the way you do that is by creating the proposed policy page, and providing space for discussion and a vote).  But it is meant to be a place where people can develop proposals.  The diea is, once people's discussions about possible proposals has reached a level of clarity, the leave this page and create the proposed policy page and open it up to the community.


 * So I want a space where people can analyze problems and discuss them freely. But it has to point in a practical direction, it cannot just be endless talk.


 * You seem both the care and understand process and have some ideas about how to make things work. I hope you can watch the page and perhaps comment periodically to make sure discussion is constructive, and to encourage people to develop policy proposals when there has been enough talk.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam BB7's article at AFD
See Articles for deletion/Sam Bettay. DJ 09:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

POV fork?
Uhh, I did not fork that from any other article. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Equality of misery
Thank you for your kind words. Sometimes in Irish politics, a lose-lose outcome is more satisfying to the warring parties than a win-win! --Red King (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Sadly, yes. Onwards and upwards. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lofty Wiseman page
Dear sir,

I represent Lofty Wiseman and the Trueways survival school. I would like to highlight that a legal dispute is commencing with one of your new editors (Trevor D Gamble) with relation to the trademarked name 'Lofty Wiseman'. Mr Gamble has been attempting to disassociate Lofty Wiseman with Trueways and in doing so has removed a valid reference from the page. May I suggest for accuracy of the page that you restore it to a previous version. Mr Gamble is a working associate for an organisation who competes with Trueways Survival school and I believe that this is the driver behind his actions and his only reason for becoming a wiki editor.

You can validate the Trueways / Lofty association through this website (http://www.survival-school.org/Default.aspx?tabid=372) and with this registered trademark owned by Trueways.

Lofty Wiseman - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2503646 - Trademark number 2504636

Lyndon Docherty - Trueways Survival —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.192.146 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously there is some sort of off-Wikipedia commercial dispute here, but as a normal editor I'm not really in any position to verify anything for or on behalf of anyone. Ultimately, the need for verification is what matters on Wikipedia if people challenge article content, and all I can personally verify is that both Trueways and ChrisCaineSurvival mention Lofty on their websites, and that Trueways appear to have trademarked the name Lofty Wiseman. If you are not happy with the current version of the Lofty Wiseman article or with any edits by , you might get further with an authenticated communication through the open ticket request system (OTRS) if you send an email to info-en@wikipedia.org to the OTRS team, who are volunteers who make certain types of edits on the basis of any authenticated claims, if they meet certain policy criteria. Or if you are instructing lawyers, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation formally. I would caution you to be careful in detailing any pending legal actions publicly on Wikipedia, as we have a policy to block users who make legal threat to editors, see Wikipedia:No legal threats.

Lofty Wiseman page update
Hi- I do take your points. However, the page has been accurate for quite some time. Therefore, is it not better to revert to the previous and longstanding page including a link to the official school partner of Lofty Wiseman (Trueways) until any disputes are fully resolved? Lofty does gain contact to the public through Trueways and the details on him on the Chris Caine website have now been changed/corrected due to their inaccuracies.

Also, see http://www.Lofty-Survival-DVD.com or http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trueways-Survival-Skills-Wiseman-Interactive/dp/B001KVVIJ0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1250205961&sr=8-3 also confirming his association with Trueways. This is his latest release as referenced in the main body of the page.

Thank you for reading.


 * Like I said, I'm not in any position to say this relationship per the two links above is current any more than anyone else is free to come along and say it isn't. Can you possess someone's nickname as a TM without their consent? I honestly have no idea. I will restore purely on the basis of the content of the Trueways bio page, which is still a reference in the article (and add the trademark fact which is pretty handy), but you must realise that if that page, or any of the above is false, Wikipedia has strict rules about not mis-representing living people, and if a verified complaint was received via OTRS, it would have to stay out. And again, I am just an editor here, you are free to contact anybody else for other opinions. The BLP Noticeboard is a good start. Anyway, if you are still in contact with Lofty, can you ask him if he knows anything about Johnny Wiseman? (official secrets aside :) ). I created that article yesterday after I was ironically digging around for info on Lofty to improve his page after all this. I think it would be a stretch if they were related, but it must have been pointed out to him there was a vet with his name. Anyway, this would just for my own curiosity - word of mouth cannot be added to articles, especially not biographies. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. The PO link is offline, but probably due to maintenance. I did verify it yesterday. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I will ask him re: Johnny Wiseman. It's apparently not that uncommon a name. I will post back here once I've asked unless you can think of some other way you would rather I let you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.192.146 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of guest appearances in Doctor Who
Is there much of a purpose to the "fame" or "other work" column in the article above? Is it there to counter the AfD? Alastairward (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's purely informational. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be simple a collection of indiscriminate information. Since the list is now no longer about "notable" or "celebrity" appearances, it's not needed. Alastairward (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing that would help in retaining both the article and the column would be some citations of the sources from which the information was drawn. The nature of Wikipedia culture is such that it is much harder to delete clearly sourced material. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez intro
Hi Mick, you had previously tagged the intro for the Matt Sanchez article as having insuffient information. Since that time, it has been expanded and clarified to highlight the subject's notability. Would you be willing to review it at your convenience? If the rewrite is sufficient, it would be nice to take the tag down from the top of the article, but I don't want to remove it until you are satisfied with the new content and context. Thanks for your time, and congratulations on your DYK (above). Doc  Tropics  16:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. It's still pretty bad, but at least now people have a clue who he is and why he has an article. Keep up the good work. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You comments
Note that Masem has not ruled favorably in your case. Reflect. Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What case? I don't think he even knows what you are on about to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would make two of you - but I disagree in the case of Masem. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NUSC logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:NUSC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re List of guest appearances in Doctor Who
Come on, please try and be a bit more civil in this, its hardly the most important article on wikipedia and not worth getting this worked up over. I'm aware that some of my replies to you have not been as neutral as they should, for which I appologise, but the language and tone you're throwing about now is really not needed and will not in any way advance in the article in any direction. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of guest appearances in Doctor Who
I don't think your comments on the page above are helpful at all, especially the comments that are quite pointedly directed at other users. If others' attempts to improve the article are counter to what you believe should be happening, you might politely point out what might be done instead of making personal attacks like this and this. Alastairward (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just fuck off you lying hypocritical cunt. MickMacNee (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Diversity
Thank you very much for your comment. I apologize if my response seemed defensive or jumpy. It's been a difficult time and getting hounded is very tiresome. I just didn't want to get pinned down as someone pushing a particular point of view, because I'm not. My committment is to toleration. Maintaining the encyclopedia's integrity means we aren't used for one-sided propaganda, but represent notable viewpoints consistent with our core policies in appropriate context and with appropriate weight. Censorship and bullying around some subjects is a real problem as I think you are well aware. I hope you understand what I'm saying. I just wanted to thank you and to apologize if I was overly prickly. Take care and I hope you enjoy your editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

 * Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices
 * It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template


 * leaky_caldron (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A straw poll has now been added to the discussion about sources in order to gather consensus. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.
Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. SteveO (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * done. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New name
Hi. For the record I am marking a change in direction in my editing. I did try to rename my old account but Brion Vibber wouldn't permit it because it would put too much of a strain on the server. Besides which I have started afresh and no longer create stubs and am aiming to improve overall quality now than before. You may continue you any resentment you may have had for me but I'm a different editor nowadays. I did not vote "keep" to try to deceive people into believing I was a different user. It wouldn't matter either way. I think the film stars notable actors, the problem is the lack of information. I would support merging into a list, in fact redirecting lots of the silent film stubs into lists which only have info on cast. Himalayan   18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what your intentions were, it is what it looks like to others when they see that sort of thing occuring, especially when you have placed {retired} on your old account. The only time that tag would be appropriate is if you comply with WP:CLEANSTART, which you aren't. If you originally intended a rename, then you should remove the {retired} tag and redirect the user page to your new account, because that would be the outcome of a rename. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I redirected my old user talk page didn't I?. I left a retired notice on my old user page because I have indeed retired from editing as Blofeld and want people to know this and that I wanted exactly a CLEANSTART. There may be more reasons why I didn't redirect my old user page to my account now than you may think. Maybe I don't want it to be glaringly obvious that I am the same person, not for mischevious reasons but to avoid people in seeing my name like you have and having the same misconceptions of my purpose on wikipedia and me as a person as that they had of me as Blofeld.....Creating a new account was exactly intended to be a fresh new start and change of focus on wikipedia and so far my approach has been a lot different than it was as Blofeld. And it will continue to be... Himalayan  18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a CLEANSTART though. The tag is innappropriate and potentially misleading, and like it or not, the way you gone about this rename is fooling nobody who has a real dislike of you and wants to really find out if you are retired or not. I became aware of the change a while back, which is why I came to your talk page when I saw your new name on an Afd of an article started by your old name. You will note that the retired template says This user is no longer active on Wikipedia, not This account is no longer active on Wikipedia. Its a wording I've been meaning to have changed actually, because this is not the right way to go about renaming an account. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Infact, as your old talk page is redirected, I see no logic in using the tag at all. Infact, it has potential for more confusion, as who is to say your old persona hasn't actually reitred and somebody else has redirected your old talk page to their page. I've no idea why anyone would want to do it, but it isn't impossible is the point. Again, in this respect you aren't complying with CLEANSTART because it is quite simple for someone having that doubt in that case to quickly verify the new and old accounts are the same person (or at least shows the person behind the new account has the password to the old account). MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, "account terminated". Does this address your concerns? Himalayan  20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah hehe LOL, that should do the trick.... Thanks for pointing it out... Regards! Himalayan  19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment
For engaging in harassing behavior and personal attacks over something as petty as how a user chooses to express their retirement I have blocked you for 1 week. Your very long history of personal attacks shows that you are very much aware of our policies and have not chosen to follow them. Shorter blocks have been ineffective in preventing this behavior in the past so they are starting to get longer. When we have a user on the verge of retirement the last thing we need is someone nipping at his toes and tossing insults about. <font color='#F22C19'>Chillum 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attacks and your ability to edit this page while blocked due to continued personal attacks. I don't think I need to increase the length of your block. If you wish to appeal the block you can e-mail unblock-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org. You can also use the "E-Mail this user" button on any admins user page. Considering this is your 6th block for being abusive to our volunteers don't get your hopes up. <font color='#EF2D18'>Chillum 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello MickMacNee. After discussion with Chillum, he has agreed to me unblocking you on the understanding that you will refrain from 1) interacting with Vk about his choice of retirement template, and 2) making person attacks on the editors involved. I was hoping to email you to make sure you are amenable to these conditions, but your email is not enabled. I am therefore going to permit you to edit this page again. If you accept these conditions please indicate so and I will unblock you. However, should you use the page to further attack Chillum or Vk, I will reinstate the block and protection. Let me know. Rockpock  e  t  20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Thank you for your intervention. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have unblocked you (I apologize for the delay, I have been busy at work). Happy editing. Rockpock  e  t  22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. P.S. I'm still autoblocked. MickMacNee (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be sorted now. Rockpock  e  t  16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages that are at AfD
Hi MickMacNee, regarding this move, I understand that we use (film) rather than (movie) in article titles, but when an article is at AfD, it is best to wait until it is completed before moving it. Reason is should the closing admin rule in favour of deleting the article sometimes they inadvertantly delete the redirect rather than the article, and the article has to be listed for speedy deletion based on the previous deletion discussion. It's not a big deal, just can (and has been) a pain at times. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. MickMacNee (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for standing up for civil conduct at WP:DRV/SV/ONS. Putting aside any issues of literacy, we can still expect that user's can use their subspace for at least drafting their thoughts, if not working with others on putting articles together. Regards, -Stevertigo 23:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK queue edit re Scotland
Looking at the various edit times, it does appear that your edit was made while I was in the middle of copying the update to the queue. The process takes several minutes, most of the time spent in the process of uploading an image from Commons to allow for its protection while it is on the Main page.

As to your assertion that "an image of a flag will draw more people to DYK than a picture of a person", I must disagree and suggest that your judgment may be influenced by the fact you are the creator of the article associated with the flag. --Allen3 talk 18:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the assumption of bad faith, but my observation about what would be better for DYK had nothing to do with the fact I created the article, it only meant that I noticed the image had not been used when I went to see when the hook would make the main page. It's too late now, but I think it's pretty obvious the flag has more potential for exposure of DYK than the image of a person. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm requesting it to be done on the main page, if you want to repeat the above there. See here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Crashgate
Nice article. I noticed it was at T:TDYK, it wouldn't have passed with all those bare urls for references though so I fixed that. cite web is your friend there. You can generally get away with. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know man! Just being lazy this time. Cheers for fixing it though. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lazy maybe, but you won't get it through DYK without correct formatting. <g> Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the ITN. They are much harder to obtain than DYKs! Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Beulas photos
Hi. I have seen that you substituted the gallery of Beulas bus photos I upped for one photo. The summary of the edit says this is according to the MOS. I just wanted to ask where this manual is so that I can follow it in the future. Please note, this is not a complaint or an attack, just a question. I'm still learning (I always hope to be :-). Thanks. El monty (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Top level info: WP:IMAGES. Supplemental info: WP:IG. Generally, if a gallery is not illustrating particular visual topic, they should be avoided in articles in favour of single image placement. Note however that Wikimedia Commons does not just organise images in categories, you can also create actual galleries with captions and text, and link them to articles. See Metro Cammell Weymann for a bus example, which might be handy for Beulas. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind.....
We still have policies about NPA and AGF. This was a very minor issue but sometimes we all need reminders. User talk:William M. Connolley Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The irony. I hope he runs again, he has it coming. MickMacNee (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal
I have removed some of your recent comments. Tfz    16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an ad hominem, and it's completely out of context, and uncalled for.  Tfz     16:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What better context than to refer to an example of you talking utter shite about Ireland, and than claiming you are the one who wants to compromise? You cannot hide on Wiki I am afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were at this nonsense 2 weeks ago with another editor, and I think you got indefinitely blocked, you should learn from that, I don't want to see you blocked. Please refrain. Tfz     16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's a shite? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit. 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. ''Personal Attaacks and repeated incivility is considered vandalism. Please note you are also close to violating 3rr'' Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I've opened this thread [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly recommend to all, that an Administrator be called to straighten things out. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ani link in the above warnings if you missed it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies to read.
WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.


 * You absolute fucking idiots. If you think I am the one who needs blocking, even after you are pointed to the cracker-jack shite Tfz comes out with about Ireland, then fuck you. The eventual second arbitration case about POV Ireland editors that is sure to be coming this year will be entirely on your ignorant heads. He is beyond retarded with his opinions on Wiki, and of course he wants it to be hidden, anybody with half a brain would spot that, but no, you choose to enable him like the fucktard that he is with this shite. HIAB's involvement here should also be transparent to anyone with half a brain, but I doubt you total twats have it in you to connect the dots. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a chill pill dude. You don't need to attack anyone here. I understand you feel strongly but this is a great way to geting your talk page comments disabled. I did that as a new user not fun. If you think you're block is unjust you can appeal it. You might want to moderate your attacks and language though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cute. Don't take me for an idiot, and don't pretend your involvement here is an accident. Tit for tat and all that. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked Cirt to go easy on the block if he can . Tfz     16:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not 'off form' today, I am just fed up with you talking shite. If I have to take a break for that, that's cool baby. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My invovlement here is you were on my watchlist since I counseled you on your personal attack. Clearly you don't understand the concept of not attacking people or assuming good faith. Take your break, but I encourage you to remove your attacks on me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It will take more assurance than 'trust me' for me to do that, considering the third party involved. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who do you think I'm here for? The only reason I saw the comments here is you were on my watchpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick, stop using your talk page for personal attacks or you will lose the privilege of editing it. <font color='#746313'>Chillum 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You act like talking sense here is a priveledge. WP:NO BOLLOCKS should be policy, then you could busy yourself all day to your hearts content. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What am I supposed to be using my talk page for anyway? Convincing other admins that what is not vandalism is not vandalism? Or that certain users are so full of it they will do anything to have their opinions in one venue redacted from another? MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No personal attacks is a policy here. If you honestly think talking "sense" requires attacking other people then I don't think things are going to work out. If you can talk sense without attacking other people then you are of course welcome here. <font color='#766113'>Chillum 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Time to salt the user talkpage I think. He's attacking literally everyone who is coming here. Even the people trying to help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Must silence him! (or her). You are ticking all the boxes, Mr 'I just happened to be watching your talk page'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't block his usepage, please. If & when Mick wants to be unblocked, he'll put in the request. It's his choice & we should respect that. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I dont want to be unblocked without thought (having some offline time is the best way to prepare articles uninterupted). I merely want the vandalism definition to be taken seriously and be unblocked accordingly, or for the nonsense eminating from certain users to be challenged as the bull that it is, and be unblocked for rightly highlighting it. If these simple things are beyond some people, and the issue is suitably clouded by other parties, then we must endure, for Queen and Country, like the good subject I know you are :) MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Queen and country? I think I'm gonna barf. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, if the personal attacks continue we have only 3 options, 1) allow our users to be attacked, 2) extend the block, 3) remove the talk page privilege. I find the 1st choice unacceptable. <font color='#786113'>Chillum 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If so offended, one need only to 'not' respond to him. If Mick were threatening anyone (legal threats), then that would be different. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest in the highest possible terms to moderate the langauge and attacks coming out here then. Only Mick is in control of that one....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mick, you have made a lot of thoughtful contributions to the Ireland naming question over the years, and I know you're not the first person to get very frustrated by some of what's happened along the way -- there's been a lot of frustration on all sides. But please, do take a step back from this. Even if you really sincerely believe yourself to be right in your negative assessment of another editor, and even if everyone else believed you to be right in your assessment, name-calling just isn't an acceptable way of doing things on situation on wikipedia.

I don't think I have often agreed with you on matters of substance, but your voice is one I'd be very sorry to lose. Please take it easy and don't let this escalate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Look bro I have no material interests in your edits or what side you take on those issues. The only thing I've taken issue with is the personal attacks. If you stop those I'm gone, like i keep trying to impress upon you that's the only reason I'm here. If you have been abused in the past had I been there then I would step in and argue for you just as much as I have the other guy you posted the comments on the project talkpage. I don't like seeing contributers going away either, if you notice I care where I live too as I write about my state quite a bit. The main thing is keep cool, if you can keep your head when others can't you are well ahead of the game. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mick, I sure as heck won't try and tell ya what ta do (particularly concerning your user-page), but it might help things if ya eased off on the colorful language. It doesn't offend me personally, but it does offend those who you're in disagreement with. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 weeks? thats disgusting considering some of the things other people get away with. Tfz actions are standard though, his vandalism to the Motorway articles last night pissed me off too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is supposed to be vandalism? If I were Mick, I'd be pissed of too. If you want to block him for the incivility or the edit warring by repeatedly reverting the removal of the comment, that is one thing, but he is rightly upset about being called a vandal. Anyone actually reading what Mick has said here would see that that, and not the block itself, is what incited the strong reaction. For a long-standing editor to be accused of vandalism is particularly offensive. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing in WP:Vandalism that justifies that allegation, so I think Mick's anger, if not the manifestation of it, is justifiable. Even a certain measure of off-colour language is at least understandable. -Rrius (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
 * Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
 * Being a long term contributer never excludes one from Civility or making personal attacks. At what point do personal attacks not become vandalism. Vandalism is very counterproductive to our site. Constantly putting in the same attacks after warned on it is a form of vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a persistent problem with not reading what is actually written. I said, "If you want to block him for the incivility or the edit warring by repeatedly reverting the removal of the comment, that is one thing." It should be pretty obvious that I have no problem with the block for the incivility the edit warring. Actually reading what Mick wrote would reveal he seems to feel the same way. Your interpretation of Mick's contribution as vandalism is absurd. In response to his extended experience with a tfz and tfz's edits which another editor has referred to in this discussion as "vandalism", Mick said he shouldn't be taken seriously. Whether that is true is not my point, but it is clear that Mick at least believes this and wanted that opinion heard. The sort of vandalism you are talking about is repeatedly adding something like "[Editor] is a piece of shite" with the purpose of causing trouble by disfiguring the page. Your accusation of vandalism is just wrong, and if you are as big a person as you want Mick to be, you should withdraw it. -Rrius (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out WP:NOTVAND to User:Hell in a Bucket, I think it is quite clear. However, Mick's block for incivility (given his record on this) and edit-warring is reasonable.  For what it's worth, after I protected the page I was going to block Mick for a week, but edit-conflicted with Cirt. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm not the only one other than Mick who sees it was not vandalism, but I would point again that I am not disputing the block. Nor, it seems, does MickMacNee. -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I came in after the third time he added the attack on TFZ. There were 2 preceding edit summaries one citing WP:CIVIL and one saying if you don't have something nice to say don't. At that point I judged it to be vandalism. [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that judgement is just wrong. Good faith incivility does not become vandalism through repetition. Intention is the key to vandalism. WP:Vandalism says it is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I can't see how you could interpret Mick's enraged desire to be heard as deliberately attempting to compromise the project. You should really be less free with accusing people of vandalism. -Rrius (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain what was good faith in this comment?

"Anybody who thinks that Tfz is worth talking to needs to take a look at Talk:M1 motorway. He is an utter time waster, his opinions are nothing but fantasy." The wording on the personal attacks in "Comment on content not the contributer." I understand your point that you do not object to a civility or personal attack block but after being warned continued reposts with the attack it is Vandalism. I am certain Mick is not here as a Vandal but the acts were. So to clear that up, I am calling the actions taken to be vandalism after being warned, if Mick thinks I am labeling him nothing but a vandal let me I assure you I am not. If I have made or alluded to that I do apoligize I did not express myself well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the acts weren't vandalism: read the policy. What is in good faith is the intention. He clearly intended to express his opinion that the editor in question should no longer be taken seriously. Whether he said it a way he shouldn't have, or shouldn't have said it at all, is immaterial. He was not trying to deface the talk page or impair the project. His was an attempt, though misguided, to improve Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So in a good faith way he's trying to discredit another editor? Right, it reeks of good faith.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'm not saying the comment was pure as the driven snow. I am saying that his intention was to improve the project by calling out an editor that he subjectively believed was acting in a detrimental manner. Whether his belief or his methods were objectively correct is beside the point. It was clearly not vandalism, and your continued assertion to the contrary despite Black Kite's pointing out WP:NOTVAND is simple obstinate. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have ended like this. Mick repeatedly reinserted the text, and therefore it was seen as disruption. That is the reason why he was blocked. I have asked Cirt, the blocking admin, to review the block, and I'd hope that it can be reduced substantially, and Mick to get back editing. Tfz     19:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if it's useful and as I mentioned above, I was going to block Mick for a week, but edit-conflicted with Cirt. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with a shortening of the block. I didn't ask for a specific timeframe as I do not know of a prior block history if there is one at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked Cirt to review the comments by Black Kite and review and reduce if he feels appropriate. He said he will review if an unblock request is filed or an unblocking admin comes to him. So the ball on the reduction will be in Micks court or Black Kite. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Mick made repeated personal attacks, and edit warred. That's unacceptable behaviour, but as others have pointed out, it's not vandalism.
 * It seems to me that the best way to cool this situation down would be to shorten Mick's block. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with BHG, no point dragging this out as it arose more from a spontaneous situation, rather than from any on-going vitriol. Wow, eight reverts is brave, and maybe worth some sort of cross in another world situation, perhaps. To BHG, from your edits I think you are an admin. You above most admins understand the heat that's involved at times on the naming issue, and saying that, the relevant page has been most civil all of the past eight months or so since its inception. If you could see your self to taking over this issue, and Mick and myself leaving any animosities behind, and I have none, then I would support you speedily lifting the block. The ball is in your, or another admin's court. Tfz     01:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment wont help the situation, I do not even know what the argument is about, that is my ignorance about this ban. However I have come across Mickmacnee quite a few times in the past and I can honestly say when he is combative, it is consistently constructive and with honest intentions. I also know that a lot of people know he is a skilled debater and want him finished because is has opposed them in the past with what he has perceived as propogated inconsistencies.

So when I seen this drastic two weeks ban, I sense someone/some with admin power, have seen a cry wolf opportunity to suppress him and black mark him, more than I sense wrong doings... --82.39.194.234 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism issue aside, the fact that MickMacNee consistantly responds to conflict with statements like "You absolute fucking idiots... fuck you... He is beyond retarded... like the fucktard that he is with this shite. ...you total twats..." should be at the front and center here. Just read the archives from MMN's talk page and you see that it's full of this kinds of language and the resulting blocks. MMN has been a strong contributor, but at what cost? Block after block, and he still spews this venom at editors and administrators alike. Wikipedia is a family resource and to continue to allow this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Slaps on the wrist have apparently failed. Wikipedia has always been criticized as an unreliable resource and good faith editors continue to work to improve Wiki's status, but new-comers don't need to be chased off or harassed my this person. Look at the big picture: MickMacNee is poisonous. 74.127.244.24 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol @ poisonous, i can think of some editors that would fit that description but from what ive seen MickMacNee it doesnt. Although i must confess MMN caused me much stress and aggravation (not intentionally) last week when alterations to the Scotland article intro were made which i disagreed with. Right away the gang arrived on scene to try and block my efforts to have the wording altered slightly following the change. Now we are stuck with the separatist party being advertised in the introduction, if it wasnt for the fact the SNPs page views have not increased in recent days id be in a very bad mood over this whole matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * Hey Mick. You've got quite a fan club going here! I haven't looked into the block, but I wanted to offer my support. :) Good luck! I hope you'll be back soon. I would certainly hope the block would be shortened if you agree to avoid whatever indiscretions you may have done. Some of the shit that goes on here is pretty unbelievable. And apparently admins haven't figured out that running around blocking instead of helping resolve disputes doesn't help much. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked after discussion
Mick, I am just about to unblock you.

I am doing this to try to defuse the situation, because you are understandably angry at being blocked for alleged vandalism when your actions did not amount to vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND). Several editors have posted here to say that they understand how upsetting it is for any well-established editor to be accused of vandalism, and I share that concern. The blocking editor has agreed not to oppose unblocking, so I'll do it.

However, please note that this unblocking does not in any way amount to an approval of your edit-warring and personal attacks. Those alone would have been enough to justify a block, and if you'd been blocked on those grounds I doubt there would have been much support for lifting the block.

If there is any recurrence of those attacks, I'll happily support a long block ... but I really hope there won't be any question of that being needed.

Welcome back! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now unblocked. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted, cheers. I never even knew you were an admin BHG. :) MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. as usual I'm still IP autoblocked ... MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember, stop the personal attacks or she will be forced to ask you to stop again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.244.24 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 September 2009


 * Hey the above is definitly not me. Please see that I had no problems with the reduction of the block. If you are skeptical you are free to Checkuser the IP. I live in Pueblo Colo in the US. While I based my opinion on my understanding of the policy the edits weren't considered egregious enough to be considered vandalism. In that point you were correct, for which I apologize. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are unblocked, it is unfortunate that you have been at the recieving end of one of the disruptive Irish editors. Don't worry, one day they will step out of line and they will be out of here! They must already be sailing close to the wind in may cases. The original block was totally inappropriate, and if I were you I'd be calling for the admins head on a stick, for not knowing how to do his job properly! Jeni ( talk ) 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeni, please don't stir this up again. Personal attacks and edit-warring are absolute no-nos on wikipedia, even if someone feels justifiably aggrieved.  The original blocking admin acted quite properly in good faith to try to restrain an editor who was causing serious problems.  The problem was that the block got conflated with misplaced accusations of vandalism (which were not made by the blocking admin), and overheated the situation.
 * Mick is unblocked now, so please just move on and let this cool. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sol Campbell intro work
Hi,

I know that WP:FOOTY folk probably get annoyed by all my tooshort tagging; I was actually going to flag the Sol article yeasterday, because although it hit all the major spots it did so in about three sentences. Major kudos for this work. I think it might be a teensy bit far in the other direction now, but I'll try and cut that down myself. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great work although I agree with the fact it needs cutting down to meet John Wark/Bobby Robson standards. Spiderone  07:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jury Team
You're quite right. My bad. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * np. I actually considered, and swiftly rejected, the idea of giving it its own section. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want them included in the template, discuss it: WP:BRD. I raised an RfC because there was no standard for inclusion in the template, so it was a mess and constantly warred over, including all sorts of minor and fringe parties. Jury Team are very new and have no elected representatives, and do not count as a significant part of British politics. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. As an aside, it'd be interesting if the Jury Team did make some inroads as a group of independents, but after the European election results of 0.5% I'd be surprised. John Smeaton's getting some fair press coverage for the by-election though, and Esther Rantzen is on board. We shall see. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. You should make a post to the politics wikiproject about it, as there won't be many watching the template talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Bedford JJL.jpg
File:Bedford JJL.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bedford JJL.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:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Saddle tank.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Saddle tank.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Nu Venture Olympian in Maidstone Centenary ochre.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Nu Venture Olympian in Maidstone Centenary ochre.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jury Team
The description of the Election Box metadata tag changes across hundreds of pages whenever it is changed. As the GNE byelection candidate is very much (FOR NOW!) a one-off "Independent with Jury Team support", I have changed his description to avoid every single JT candidate detail (in the EUropean Elections pages), being descriped as something they did not stand on. I hope this stops the potential for any more editing 80.193.130.5 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got any evidence that EU candidates were not Independents? Because I have seen nothing that supports that in any source. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence is quite clear. They were nominated and stood on the ballot paper as "Jury Team". You only have to have followed the nomination and candidate selection process. They were candidates selected under the one Jury Team umberella. Throughout the European Election period there was no call, from you or anyone else, to change the Metabox title. Yes the candidates were "independent" but they were standing under the one party name.
 * By changing the metabox title for ONE candidate you are changing the party name for ALL. If the Glasgow North East candidate is "independent with Jury Team support", then let us call him that on the article (which I did, only for it to be undone!), allowing those Party List candidates who were "independent under the Jury Team umberlla" to keep their party name. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(Extra Bit)
 * I have ameneded the Glasgow North East page to indicate that the single candidate in this instance is "Independent with Jury Team support", to ensure those European canddiates who were "independent under Jury Team title" do not have their designation chagned. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have got absolutely no idea what you think the differences is between "Idependent with Jury Team support", and "independent under Jury Team title", but your rationale seems to be original research, because you have not done what I asked and provided a source to say these are any different. Considering the Glasgow ballot paper is not even in existence yet, you can hardly claim he won't be described on it as Jury Team in the same way as you claim the EU candidates were. And seriously, stop telling me how the template works, I know thank you very much, otherwise wouldn't be editting it to reflect what the sources say. Given the unique nature of the party, it is wholly irrelevent to say that 'he was Jury Team' on the ballot, so the meta data must be Jury Team, he and they were all Independents. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will continue this at Talk:Jury_Team, as your edit warring is now involving multiple people. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unbelievable"
Re:, how so? What warning could I give that he hasn't heard a bazillion times before? What did he write that warrants a block? When he blatantly crosses the line, I will block him (but likely someone will beat me to it), and when the motion for community ban appears on AN or ANI, I will comment as I see fit. But that latest bit of "British unionist" rhetoric is no worse than the kind of political crap you regularly find here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A good start would be to say it isn't acceptable. With your reply, you've effectively green lighted his shit, you certainly don't put me in any mood to 'collaborate' with him. Why should anybody participate on that page when they can see that this is the accepted standard of debate there? And if it is the accepted standard, it is precisely because you don't say anything. It doesn't matter if he's heard it all before, you as an admin still need to draw the line. He should not have to tear someones head off and shit down their neck before anybody says boo to him. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And I've just realized that I've now fallen into the same trap that I abhor elsewhere, that we are too permissive with incivil behaviour from long-time contributors.  I shall take this as a learning experience, so thanks for the wake-up call.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to self . MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would point out that his reply does not warrant ignoring either. MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you one thing, I just need to get it off my chest because you need telling........I love you ya hunk! x--Vintagekits (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle United.
Hi, I think an ip has added a few comedy additions to the Newcastle article, would you see and revert to this edit ta. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Why can't you do it yourself? There's no 3RR for vandalism reversion... MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really vandalism is it, it could just as easily be well meant, if it was removed and the ip replaced it, then it could be vandalism but the description of vandalism is actually quite well defined. Off2riorob (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of it is correct, i'll tidy it later, no problem. Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Mick take care on the bnp article you have three reverts already, I understand you are probably a bit attached to it but perhaps it is better to let it go and see what happens to it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ? I would hardly consider the {current} tag to be covered by 3RR, the instrucionts on its use are quite clear. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Any alteration of a good faith addition is a revert, what is the hurry to remove it? It is not a big issue is it. It is not vandalism. Actually it is all over the news, the sky have been streaming live from there for hours. The BNP website is swamped and not working, or wasn't when I had a look, so a current tag is not a big issue in need of reverting. Anyway, it's just a friendly note to you. No worries. 17:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the talk page. That is not what it is for, so using it is just an ugly pointless distraction. Maybe it should be renamed, the misconception is sadly common. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going back to that page, It's gonna be a s**tstorm. Take it easy, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. np MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

the lede
I would like to discuss your last edit to the lede on the talkpage, when you have time, ta Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quick enough to do your reverts? Discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep getting interrupted by an orange bar as I draft the reply! MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not another orange bar.. (only joking) Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What orange bars? I don't see any. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically I only just noticed your comment jack. lol. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper picture
The picture got the thumbs down at the non free medis page, and I support this comment from there..

the non-free images (technically 5 of them) are not required to understand the image of the controversy.

I wanted to suggest you remove it from the article and speedy it, are you in agreement with this? Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to nominate it for speedy deletion on the basis of a single comment. It is well established that 'significance' per the interpretation of the NFC is a matter for Files for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a polite offer to save dragging it out, if you don't feel to speedy it, I will nominate it for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one comment, do you think that all articles that are a bit newsworthy like the polanski sex article [] in the "reactions to the arrest" section could benefit from photos of the front pages of papers reporting the events? Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no, because media reaction is only incidental to that. In this article, the actual media and public reaction (and by extension, issues over the media's influence over the public) are central themes to the article. (i.e. if this wasn't likely to produce the sort of pictured response, the article would never exist) MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

your recent revert of my edit
Could you tell me what you didn't like about my edit and why you reverted it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This one with an edit summary of.. "(various small edits based on recent changes)" Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Purely accidental, note the time of my edit and yours. I have no issue with it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw how close it was to my edit, would you please reinsert my edit please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I think it covers the point in the talkpage a litle about current membership. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP Question Time controversy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

I have found what appears to be an acceptable resolution to what was problematic about the description of the BBC's justification for inviting Nick Griffin.

I mean this kindly, but could I respectfully remind you of this policy? Fortunately I found a way to work around your continued reversions, but they in themselves didn't help the page one iota. Thank you.Astral Highway (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Question Time British National Party controversy top 5 newspaper headlines.PNG)
 Thanks for uploading File:Question Time British National Party controversy top 5 newspaper headlines.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Question Time British National Party controversy top 5 newspaper headlines.PNG)
 Thanks for uploading File:Question Time British National Party controversy top 5 newspaper headlines.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR note.
Mick you are again on or over the bright line that is 3RR on the article Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy, please take a step back and take care not to continue reverting there and perhaps reconsider your editing style. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a serious accusation Off2riorob. If you think I have definitely breached 3RR, then by all means, provide the links to show on what content, because there is a lot of changes going on, not all of it is simple reverting of the same content. Vague warnings are not appreciated, thank you. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a serious accusation Mick, this is a friendly note, even if I thought you had breached 3RR I would not report you without a warning, you are clearly reverting a lot of edits. I don't think you would dispute that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a serious accusation with serious consequences, because the bright line you refer to is the transition from might block to definited block, and you don;t have to report me for that to be done. so I don't want anybody watching to be under any illusion as to whether this warning is backed by evidence, or is just a hunch. I of course would not dispute reversions are happening, because the simple fact is, reversion is a part of article development. The difference between reversion and edit warring is whether after one revert you discuss the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting any blocking, it is a friendly note from me to you, if you disagree with me we can look at your edits in the last twenty four hours here, personally, I don't think that is required, I thought a friendly note would allow your experience to take a step back, that is all. Have you thought about a 1RR editing style? I find it quite useful for staying out of trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering this comment on the talk page, where you are saying something has been reinserted that has never even been removed, then no, I don't think any more of your advice is needed here. Stick to sepcifics, and be sure of your facts. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's up to you, adding a comment in the wrong place on a talk page is not a violation of guidelines and excessive reverting is. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution as well. I know we had a horrible outing the last time and most of that was my fault for labeling your actions as vandalism when they weren't. I do however agree with Rio Rob maybe back off a few hours. I see several reverts and they are regarding different things but there are so many that it could easily cloud the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, not entirely your fault this time Rob thanks to a mistatement by Astral, but nonetheless in another case of not checking your facts, the change you thought you had referred to, was also not a removal of anything, per my comment here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Steady on, Mick. I'm starting to see attempts to win arguments by discrediting me and my motives, rather than addressing the points I am making.  As I, too have had to ask you about 3RR a couple of times, I could take it that you have an axe to grind if you continue making ad hominem attacks.  Let's keep it civil, please, Mick.Astral Highway (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I address your points all the time without personal attacks, including when I have to point out the numerous times where you have got basic policy wrong, such as wp:talk, wp:att, wp:lede, wp:ref, and on and on. AGF has a limit though, and if you carry on in this veign with me where you seem to think you know policy better than me despite numerous examples to the contrary, then I will have to start commenting on you personally. You will leave me no choice. Lack of knoweldge is forgivable, refusing to acknowledge it, is not. On your last visit when you 'asked' me about 3RR (actually, when you came along and templated a regular), and in the process of which four times wrongly accused me of removing the warning when I had done no such thing, nobody agreed with your complaint, so just drop it, or I will start to take this as harassment. As for why you are even here on my page, me pointing out to Rob that his mistaken accusation toward me about reinserted material was down to a mistake by you, is not an attack on you. So again, drop it, or I will take it further. MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick, it was a friendly note to ask you not to take my name in vain. You've just done it again. Please stop generalising, stop talking about imaginary policy violations and try to start getting on with the team of editors working on this piece, including me. Thank you.Astral Highway (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How many reverts do you think you have got in the twenty four hours then? From 14.23 on the 27th to 14.23 on the 28th? Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps I am wrong in leaving you this note, you have resisted it and pointed at my not checking my facts, let us together here have a look at your edits to the article and sort this out. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were wrong. Feel free to look at any of my edits, just make sure when you do, you have got your facts clear. MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets have a look then, we need to sort this out, I don't want to note you wrongly. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________

This was your first revert with an edit summary of..(Undid revision 322339110 by Pointer1 (talk) consensus is to use original format, per template instructions)


 * Actually, no, if you intend to start using my talk page as a sandbox, don't, I don;t want a new message bar every 5 minutes. Feel free to draft whatever this you are creating is in your own user space, and let me know if and when you want me to say something on it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict..:User Pointer1 made a good faith edit and you reverted his edit and claimed a consensus per template instructions, this is a revert, you disagreed with his good faith edit, the good faith edit was not a BLP issue or any other issue, was it? You disagreed and reverted his good faith edit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to see the edit bar, I have given you a 3RR note and you have accused me of being wrong, ok, at least have the decency to discuss it with me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets have a look at these edits. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The second revert was here with an edit summary of (restore opening paragraph, removing this is definitely not tidying) you didn't like his edit so you reverted him. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec!) I get an orange bar every time you post, so stop. I have told you I am not interested. Draft it in your userspace and I'll comment. I am not going to have a discussion here. If you aren't happy with that, you can go to this board or this board (but remember, if you do, tell me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

third revert with an edit summary of..(Undid revision 322435762 by J Milburn (talk) Take it to IFD for debate, there is a legitimate claim of significance)

fourth revert with an edit summary of..(Undid revision 322445032 by Off2riorob (talk) its a novel argument, but lets not experiment here with new ideas) this was my edit and you were subseqently reverted.

fifth revert with an edit summary of..(→Panel view: that could be tken either way, restore 'rapport' to Griffin - Greer) again, you didn't like the good faith edit so you reverted to your favoured edit.

sixth revert with an edit summary of...(Undid revision 322485913 by Ohconfucius (talk) the record referred to is for late night QT only - not prime time) again, you didn't agree with the good faith edit and you reverted it to your favoured edit.

seventh revert with an edit summary of.. restore the fuller opinion, if you are going to start replacing everything with direct quotes, don't lose existing information as you do it) again you didn't like the good faith edit by another editor and reverted him to your favoured edit.

This is not the repeated reinsertion of disputed material edit warring style but these edits are reverts and display article ownership issues and a I am right mentality that reverts in preference to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And.... such actions in any twenty four hour period are worthy of a friendly 3RR note. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you done? There is not a single example of an edit war in this whole list. Read Bold, Revert, Discuss, for what is actually happening. I cannot be bothered to address the various other errors and mistakes in your analysis, suffice to say there are plenty. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'three reverts' applies to the same change. Now kindly, pretty please, leave me in peace. MickMacNee (talk)

Municipal bus companies
You're right -- it is unimportant, and I was just wondering if I should revert the change having found that most of the municipal operators have one share owned by an individual. Thanks for getting there first! bjh21 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Concern
Hey, MickMacNee. A user contacted me with a concern over this edit you made at AFD - they felt as though your edit was rather threatening. When I read it, I think they may have misinterpreted what you were saying, but I can certainly see how your comment could have come across the way it did for them. Would you mind rewording that or removing it, please? The editor in question was a bit shaken when I talked to them. Thanks for your understanding. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how that can be taken as threatening. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm going to need more information if I have missed something, because I currently don't see it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just downright rude, Mick? Just calm down already - A l is o n  ❤ 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the comment MickMacNee was responding to rather rude. Alison, have you suggested Gazimoff revise his approach? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see Gaz's previous edit as anything concerning. I'm just not happy with Mick's incivility in this case. Master of Puppets  19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess statements are open to interpretation, but Gazimoffs seems a clear dig at MickMacNee as far as I can tell. I'm not surprised the reponse it drew wasn't all warm and fuzzy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference, as I see it, is that Gaz was directing his response at the subject in hand, whereas Mick justs decided to have a go at Gaz - A l is o n  ❤ 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not my reading of Gazimoff's comment at all. It seems squarely directed at MickMacNee. But perhaps it would be best to let them speak for themselves. I just wanted to note that my reading of the discussion was that MickMacNee was provoked. I don't have any ill will towards either, and I don't think people getting testy now and again is a big deal. Sometimes Wikipedia can be very frustrating and stressful. Courteous and collegial reminders to keep it all in perspective (and to stay focused on the content and article issues) are certainly welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think we're both in agreement, so :) - A l is o n  ❤ 01:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your post just beat me to reaffirming my point of view with an excerpt of the pointy boolean logic related statement in the discussion, but alas you smiley has foiled my plans. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was his comment that was downright rude, and I am still waiting to hear how he could have taken my reply to it as anything other than an appriopriate response to someone pretty much saying I am a bit thick. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

SJP
Hello. Sorry if I used the wrong term to describe the renaming. Having already moved the page back to SJP from the commercial name, my interest was in preventing any more removal of the SJP name from the first line, not in any way in promoting the branded name. Hopefully your less prominent but more accurate wording will achieve the same effect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle United.
A lot of edits about this today, something should be added, I saw it reported today. I have lt a comment on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit tedious, I have asked for page protection (semi/temp) perhaps you want to go there and add a comment? here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I already asked, look down the list. MickMacNee (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that after, iis done now for a week, so it will be a lot quieter, something needs to be there somehow as they will keep wanting to add it? Lots of ip's from sunderland I imagine. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Northern Ireland article
The article above is under a 1RR sanction, so I reported your edits on the 3RR notice board. Alastairward (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. I genuinely hadn't noticed that infobox, Que Sera, Sera. It's no surprise to see its you here reporting me though. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to the report for your convenience. Also, the sanctions are on the NI talk page itself. Alastairward (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have filed my defence. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a case for blocking. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope we can proceed with Mick joining us on the Northern Ireland article in a more civilised manner now. Alastairward (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you haven't changed one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way? All I did was report you for edit warring. 1R on that page or not, you were still out of line with those reverts. Alastairward (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You had precious little self-awareness the last time we argued, so I doubt me explaining it you again will be of benefit. MickMacNee (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. I have to ask though, why continue to atagonise other editors? Your reverts were undone and discussion continued, why not join in? Alastairward (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were partly undone, leaving the disputed part out. I had continued the discussion including discussing the fallout from the unwise and unwarranted early calling of a consensus on footnotes by RA, before being sidetracked by this rubbish. God knows who you think is currently antagonised, and you can see from the report you filed nobody is calling for my head for this grave error except you, and RA is now happily getting on with what everyone was telling him to do instead of still insisting on a footnote based on IAR of all things. Now if you wouldn't mind leaving me in peace for the night, that would be grand, tara for now. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to play the martyr so, nobody called for your head (not even I!). I just thought you were getting a little heated and needed to cool down. The admins on the 3RR board agreed. The article discussion was evolving nicely before your edits, I don't think you need to claim that you're the only one providing any persuasive discussion. Alastairward (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mick
I'm not seeing the # section ref in the lead? What am I missing? Leaky Caldron  13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Click the blue linked 'name and description' in the last paragraph. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * np. I hadn't scrolled far enough in the dif. I was expecting something in the opening to replace the footnote. Leaky  Caldron  13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I was wrong yesterday and should not have got involved, I am sorry. I won't do it again, I have to admit to having my beer goggles on, sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At 7pm? Impressive. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, 7pm, I'm more ashamed than proud, not so much for being drunk at that time, but having to use it as a feeble excuse for my joining in with the comments, feel free to call me an ass. It will not happen again, thanks for your understanding. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

that was disgraceful u shud b ashmand omg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.101 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vk's troubles
I've decided to go neutral, on that case. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, again. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vk's userpage
A neutral administrator, is what ya'll need. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just some goddam common sense, and a lot less bollocks about hurting the feelings of one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors that ever graced this site. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there should be no tags at all, until the administrators can settle it. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sabi the MIA war dog
Thanks for putting this together today. I had asked about the story at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, so it's nice to see that someone was already working on it. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented over there a few minutes ago, I think we have just passed each other in cyberspace. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hammersoft/Personal Attacks. I think you get the point I'm trying to make better than others. Perhaps you could help me more eloquently state it, should the need arise. Once again, thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * np. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

ITN proposals
I'd rather continue here thn use the more public forum of ITN/C.

It is good that you make a proposal, and present reasons why you think it should be included. It is also important that you present level headed, defensible arguments, and your disappointment at not getting support for this, no doubt exaccerbated by fury at the events of Wednesday evening, is leading you into postings that I don't think you would make in a calmer state of mind.

But as you made comments, they deserve consideration:
 * You invited someone to "reflect as to exactly what else Ireland related is ever going to make ITN in the next decade": proof was given that at least three Ireland related ITN articles have been posted in recent months, so your suggestion that there will be little in 10 years is exposed as groundless.
 * That same suggestion that more Irish-related news should be included betrays that your position is not dis-interested: an argument motivated by personal bias is one that others can easily be dismissed by others as promotion of one's own agenda, and that will never be popular at ITN.
 * There is undoubtedly a high proportion of US-centered proposals, but many contributors at ITN/C, notably Candlewicke, are vigilant about the balance published. There is no demographic quota system about inclusion: if there were, you would see 70 US-centric articles (not to mention 43 on Brazil and 266 on India) for each one on Ireland.
 * If you are going to argue on the basis of recent ITN history, you need to be aware of that history. The only occurence of an ITN item about UK parliamentary expenses was the resignation of the speaker.
 * There is no all-encompassing rule about inclusion of a referendum: there have been constitutional referenda in Ecuador and Bolivia in the last couple of years that have not appeared.
 * Nor is the Hurling an "automatic" inclusion. It is not on the recurring sports list, and was argued for by a few of us at the time.
 * You ask "how did that [the inclusion of John O'Donohue] survive the inevitable opposition of 'not internationally significant' to get a listing?": if you had taken part in, or reviewed, the debate, you would know that the answer is that it was argued by cmparison with precedent established other the resignations of his equivalents in USA and UK.
 * You posit as "the real question" whether "ITN is anything more than a glorified space and politics blog".  It has an inclination towards more "heavy" news, undoubtedly, and the consensus of discussion there supports that; it is more broadsheet than tabloid, so the writings of Nabokov are prioritised over those of Belle de Jour, to draw on two recent issues.  Thus politics, major financial news, transport and climatic catastrophes are the main headlines.  I would agree that there is an undue bias on Space stories: the place to argue that is when they are proposed.
 * Can you cite your apparent claim that within 26 hours the EU initiated discussion, came to a conclusion, and have mandated a directive to put pressure on FIFA over video refereeing? It would be an extraordinarily rapid response, particularly for that bureaucracy, and a truly noteworthy one if they were seeking to tell a body whose remit is not restricted to Europe, and whose headquarters is not in the EU, how to conduct its business. If you cannot cite it, it is a false claim worthy of censure.
 * In the cold light of a new day, re-read your postings of yesterday, re-consider them, and chill. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering your speed to respond elsewhere, your silence in response to this is remarkable. As was your lack of answer to a direct question I asked on the current lively AfD:  Would you say that someone whose opinion is "Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game" is arguing for or against retention of the article?  Kevin McE (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to read it about five times, and got bored/distracted each time. Is there anything in it that urgently requires a response, especially considering nothing else has happened at that ITN listing, and ITN life seemingly rolls on as normal, full of bizarre contradictions and inconsistencies (the floods are considered international importance, the Algeria game goes up without a squeak of opposition, etc etc). As for the last one, it is an argument for neither, merely it was a rebuttal to everybody who wanted to SNOW delete the article after half a day. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So an article on a match is worth keeping, even if its historical notability cannot be established? It is inclusion, not removal, that requires justification. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your failure to provide the requested citation, and to admit your errors in relation to your other claims, is duly noted. Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Afd 'opinons'
Howdy Mick. If the closing administrators 'ignores' my brief vote (due to lack of elaboration), wouldn't that go in your favour (since you voted 'keep')? GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It has advantages and disadvantages tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the French win the WC, then I'll reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you like. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mick, I have to request that you stop with personal injections at the AfD. If you have an issue with a particular editor or statement (and it's evident there are many), it is very unproductive to continue that tangent on the actual deletion page. The page is for discussion of the deletion, not your personal view of a particular editor.  Grsz 11  23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no clue which post you are even talking about tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, and there are more. What makes you incapable of simply allowing others to voice their opinion without being persecuted by your pro-Irish POV? Other editors who are commenting in good faith have to endure your baseless and bad faith accusations when they shouldn't have to.  Grsz 11  23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people would be laughing their heads off at your claim that I am pro-Irish. I am sorry that I won't put up with your games at the Afd, or allow Jeppiz to carry on coming out with his ludicrous claims that he doesn't have a habit of ignoring questions and reposting the same thing over and over, but frankly, for you to come out with what you did about OSE and CRYSTAL, despite what I have written all over that debate, I would have to be stupid to take it in good faith. AGF is not a suicide pact. Either your comment was simply ignorant of the facts (like you characterisation of my POV), or you are simply trolling, either way, you are all out of credit here tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've played no games, but anybody can see that you've been running taking shots at anybody who disagrees with you.  Grsz 11  23:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, knock it off. I've brought the issue up at WP:ANI. Unfortunately I have matters to attend to IRL.  Grsz 11  00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation Minstead
I think it's important to have the information about the two photofits on Wikipedia, especially as the original photofit is likely to be a better likeness of the suspect according to police descriptions. I might get some references for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.155.239 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly it needs a reference. MickMacNee (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

France - Ireland AfD
One thing I've learned from this AfD is the fact that more people are watching your talkpage than the Ireland national team article. Regards <font color="#66CCFF">King of the <font color="#FF0000"> North <font color="#66CCFF">East  03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making unsubstantiated assumptions about me
You know nothing of what papers I read, what articles I read, or anything else about me. Attempting to draw assumptions about me, coming to largely erroneous conclusions, and publishing these is at best uncivil, and comes very close to breaching WP:NPA. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If you want to make unsubstantiated claims about what you read all the time in newspapaers, to back up arguments you make in an Adf, it is not incivil, let alone a personal attack, to ask you to back this up with some evidence. Or is this another example where you forget other 'attacks' you make, such as assuming all football people join FOOTY, and FFOTY editors know notability better than everybody else, or that I'm an Irish POV pusher, or any of the other similar 'personal' comments you have made? MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a break
Your increasingly boorish and rude behaviour is becoming quite a problem. If you cannot interact in a civil way and stop harassing editors who don't share your views, perhaps you should take a break for a few days to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go away. I have had it with your crap. If you really want me to start making a case highlighting your behaviour, I will. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you continue being uncivil, I've filed a report on your behaviour on WP:ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Perhaps it might be a good idea for both of you to remove the discussion from your watch lists now. You have both made your points extensively, and for the most part well. I don't think there is anything constructive left to say that hasn't all ready been said. Continuing with rebuttal and counter-rebuttal therefore serves very little purpose beyond driving attention away from the subject and onto the conduct of editors. I don't think that is in anyone's interest. That is my advice (as someone who sees the merits of both POVs), feel free to so with it what you choose. Best. Rockpock e  t  23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MickMac, on the topic of Vintagekits: ".....a lot less bollocks about hurting the feelings of one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors that ever graced this site." It would appear MM can't see the amazing similarity between his conduct and language and that of the rather better (IMHO) editor who has been blocked. And I see MM is getting another free pass at ANI. Frankly, were I to describe an editor as "one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors that ever graced this site" the lynch mob would be assembling. But then, like Vintagekits, I'm only Irish. Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you hear Sarah, apparently I'm Irish too now? That's how accurate the people trying to sling mud over at ANI are in their claims. Still, nice of you to drop by and show your interest, remind me to return the favour one day. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have my condolences, I know what it's like. And you've been over at my place a number of times. Sure, don't you know you're always unwelcome? Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting wee chat! I'm tempted to go fling some mud myself but I prefer to keep these disputes personal. You've got a much more impressive block log than mine - fair dues. Sarah777 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry
An administrator has welcomed drafts of a section regarding media contravercy,if your interested. --Kevinharte (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work
Credit were it is due you have done good work on the France vs Republic of Ireland (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) article fair play to you, best. BigDunc 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, bend over...Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ITN
Thanks for closing the poll. Have a look at FAQ4 and feel free to tinker with it if I have misreprented the collective thought.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't reflect what went on at all. Infact, in a bizarre way by using the phrase 'ineligible for DYK', it merely reinforces the actual infuriating misunderstanding that caused me to close the poll out of total bewilderment in the first place, wondering how so many people can read something which appears obvious, and come up with the wrong conclusion completely about what the proposal even was. The FAQ should simply state very clearly that if you have a legitimate DYK, and you take it to ITN instead, that even though that is a totally logical and even more beneficial all round thing to do, and represents exactly the same level of life-cycle committment and article development as if you had merely listed it for a DYK, you can never get a FOUR, no matter how illogical that sounds. The prospect of allowing this situation certainly hasn't been properly debated (and I am still bemused at the idea that DYK-ITN is even possible without a ton of luck, or how trying for it could be considered in any way the same level of achievement as just going for ITN with an eligible DYK), as can be seen by the disaster of misunderstanding that is that poll, but at least others would know what the car crash default position is. If you did that, I would consider the debate properly summarised, and would be assured nobody noticing the same inherent flaw would make the same mistake as I did in posing the question. I personally don't want anything more to do with this award. Frankly, I wish I'd never found out about it. The fact J Milburn is clearly vested in it, only makes me want to disassociate with it even more. I'm unwatching the page even, which is something I hardly ever do. I am even pissed at having spent so much time on drafting this reply even. MickMacNee (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you get an article that you created through ITN, GA and FA, I will find a suitable award and userbox for you, even if I have to design it myself. Maybe even a personalised barnstar. Is that a sufficient carrot to dangle before your "greedy eyes"?! Good luck. Out of interest, what's the article you have in mind for further glory? BencherliteTalk 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. cheers. I'm keeping that close to my chest, too many eyes here... MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks
MickMacNee, please try to remember that on an AfD page we are discussing the deletion of an article. Personal attacks are not relevant and unwelcome. It is clear from earlier disscussion that you have a history of harrassing anyone in favour of the deletion of the article. This is not a majority vote, rather the result will be based on the merits of the arguments. What would be the point in me wasting my time as you are implying? Vid (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was your seventh edit to Wikipedia. Unless or until you login with your real account, I am not interested, my comment was accurate. MickMacNee (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do declare - A viddy viddy sock! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I wonder will Chillum spot that? Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

France/Ireland football (or was it handball)
Ack, the AfD has failed. Oh well, 'dems the brakes. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats on winning the AfD, you made your case well and I have no problems with the outcome. It seems as if a user is currently attacking both of us, abusing me and trying to blame you for it, check out this edit carried out by "you" . Needless to say, I don't suspect you for a minute, it's just someone trying to have a laugh. Good luck with your future editing.Jeppiz (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EeNcaMciM&action=history
 * Ok, the page I linked to was speedily deleted, and rightly so. The vandal had simply copied/pasted your talk page and used it as his .Jeppiz (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello, MickMacNee. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that I have blocked EeNcaMciM as an obvious attack account. I am pretty sure nobody fell for his attempt to impersonate you. <font color='#AD4A16'>Chillum  19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He/she couldn't call his/her dog & make it believable. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Grotesque. Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sabi (Sarbi)
(post moved to article talk page)


 * Cheers. I'll move this info to the aticle's talk page, and I'll respond there where its more relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarbi
(moved to article talk page)


 * You can edit the page Talk:Sabi (dog) in the same way as my talk page. I'll move this over there aswell and respond. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * p.s. if you meant how to post to the page, all you need to do is click the edit link at the top of the page, (or section), that you want to add a comment to. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sa"r"bi is the name
(Moved to the article talk) MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are Congratulations allowed in this case?
Congratulations seem to violate a number of talk page guidelines (neutral point of view, and only discussing  the content of an article), yet I don't see anywhere else where I can post Congratulations. So I shall fall back on the good old WP:IAR, which instructs us to Ignore All Rules if they prevent us improving Wikipedia, as well as the instructions to use common sense, and allow occasional exceptions, which are found at the start of the guidelines (and which link to WP:IAR ). Still, I have stuck to the guidelines at least to the extent of using a neutral heading, in place of my originally intended heading, which read:

You deserve enormous congratulations, yet I fear that seems to violate the rules, which rather appals me

Since the France vs Republic Of Ireland article deletion controversy has been settled in favour of Keep, I was expecting to be putting in my congratulations at the end of a long queue of people congratulating you on the heroic and seemingly exhausting battle you have successfully fought to achieve this welcome outcome (to which I made my own tiny contribution on day 8 of the row). I am discouraged first to see there's nobody ahead of me in the queue, and then to realise that my congrats are probably an arguable violation of all sorts of rules, which may well explain why I'm at the head of the queue. In order simply to be able to say Congratulations, as a junior, inexperienced, and already somewhat intimidated editor, I seemingly have to precede my Congrats by an extensive study of the regulations, followed by lots of legalistic argument to justify my ignoring of some of the rules, for fear that I'll find myself deleted, banned, or in other ways harassed by offended opponents of the Keep decision and/or by other guardians of the law at its seemingly most asinine. It seems typical of much of what's wrong with Wikipedia that there are guidelines telling you not to praise, but nothing offered to facilitate praise, no matter how needed. As I mentioned in my contribution on Day 8, Wikipedia is experiencing a massive loss of amateur editors. These are people who freely give of their time and effort, and are subject to all kinds of exhausting aggravation by those who disagree with something they write, yet the rules seem to conspire to prevent them giving and receiving that free yet vital reward, namely praise where praise is due. Is it any wonder so many are leaving?

Anyway, Mick, s-d the rules, and Congratulations. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. Rest assured, we have no rules that say you can't congratulate or thank someone on their talk page for their efforts. So, thanks :) . As for the Afd, the closure was pretty much spot on and per 'the rules', so all's well that end's well, unless or until somebody finds a better mechanism for deciding notability than shotgun Afd's for articles less than a day old. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And thanks to you too, Mick. But I wasn't joking regarding the rules - I meant every word I said. If you doubt me, try to put yourself in my shoes, read the talk page guidelines, read what I wrote again (particularly where I spell out some of the rules I'm arguably violating), and then ask yourself why nobody else has seen fit to congratulate you. And ask yourself why so many editors are leaving.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats! :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar -for your comment at Google Watch AfD

 * lol. Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Project Kaisei logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Project Kaisei logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary
Your edit summary of ''fix garbage edit resulting from BI dispute. It will have to wait for a book ref. Do not reinsert either version, one is unsourced, the other is meaningless and contradictory rubbish'' is unnecessarily uncivil. It certainly doesn't belong in an edit summary. While I agree that one was completely unsourced (hence the discussion at the BI Task Force), the material that you removed was up till recently available at the National Railway Museum website which can now only be accessed at the Internet Archives. Hard to win sometimes - had *I* deleted the sentence it would have been the wrong thing to do, but as it turns out, I agree with your edit (just not the edit summary). --HighKing (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The material I removed was not supported by the NRM link at all, and whichever way you cut it, what it was asserting, was garbage. If you don't know why, don't edit these low-traffic articles, as content errors like that may never be spotted. You might care infinitely about this BI issue, others really don't, and you owe them the courtesy in situations where you don't know what you are doing, to wait for feedback on the article talk page, or a relevant wikiproject. Not only did you create an error here, this edit is also replacing garbage with garbage. So for rail topics at least, you are 0 for 2. MickMacNee (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods (Biography of a Living Person's Best Friend)
If you are okay with the improvements to Tiger Woods (dog) and nobody else is suggesting deletion, consider withdrawing your AFD. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, there's another person suggesting delete. Too late to withdraw.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The London Eye in popular culture
I have nominated The London Eye in popular culture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Brilliantine (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify?
I don't get it. What's the point in trying to hide the discussion? The petition is clearly about Flagged Revisions. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the diffs in my petition signature. The only reason this petition was created was because of a post on WR, and for FPPR, simply turning on the extension as demanded, does nothing. As currently worded, it has nothing to do with FPPR at all, and the creator of it isn't even up to speed on it. I only figured out why everybody was treating this as if it was a petition for FPPR when I realised all the templates were present. Unless or untill the petition wording is made accurate (which the creator has edit warred over to prevent), it is pointless having people sign it for different reasons, one of which is wrongly thinking it is about the FPPR coding. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I figured that this had something to do with Wikipedia Review. Their typically disruptive, from what I've seen, but the talk page at least seems to be turning into a discussion about Flagged Revisions/Flagged protection in general. Since Flagged protection is Flagged Revisions, simply with policy driven implementation, I don't understand what "this is not about FPPR" really means. Aside frmo all of that though, I only added the Flagged protection template a couple of hours ago. Blaming any confusion on the presence of the template seems to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I thought about adding the template only after others commented about flagged protection on the talk page. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One quick point (sorry for the likely edit conflict here). The only thing that I remember edit warring over is the addition of an "Oppose" section to the front of the "petition".20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can try and clarfiy the petition wording if you want, to better reflect what people might think it is about, but based on the fact the proposer is actually opposed to FPPR, and knew nothing about its progress to be in any real position to be making demands about what needed hurrying up or not, I don't like your chances. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * you know... we could try MFD'ing the page, I guess as being disruptive... — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. MickMacNee (talk)
 * I suggested that early on, but folks would take it as the nomm'er trying to delete the page either as censorship of "community opinion", or see it as the nomm'er being against flagged revs in principle, despite some very good reasons why the page should go (see my comment/s on the talkpage) its unlikely that it would, and therefore an MfD would be largely disruptive and pointless, in my individual opinion. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry for the gatecrashing SpitfireTally-ho! 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically the way I felt earlier. I really wonder though, because no one seems really happy with this "Petition". Several supporters don't like that "we demand" language, several of us have (what I think are reasonable) reservations about the proposed implementation, and it seems that there's a radical conservative element that hopes to completely lock down (at least) biographical articles. An MFD at this point may create a bunch of heat, but I'm not sure if it would create much light (meaning, it's possible that a delete consensus could be reached, now). — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see if that sticks... — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

IPs targetting you?
Hello! Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents as I suspect someone on at least two IPs is disrupting the project with over the top templates and personal attacks to target you. I am bringing it to your attention in case it is a registered user using IPs as socks or someone previously banned and trying to get some kind of revenge on you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise the range as one of my regular stalkers. I didn't even participate in the last Afd of that Eye list either, so I don't know why they would be trolling there, its not like I was watching. Not worth bothering about imo. Cheers for the note though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Hi ... I think that the lead as you've expanded it is way more cumbersome than a lead should be, with all sorts of detail not meant for a lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Such as? There is quite a way between the very sub-standard old version, and the new one. MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus, among other things, it doesn't conform to the article's style, such as dates.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oversight on my part - I was aware of it thought, I just forgot about it after I got the first one right .... fixing now. MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I barely know where to start, and may not have time to get back to you quickly. I'm fine w/the number of paras -- four seems appropriate.  But they are each IMHO too heavy.  Will look more closely when I can.  Btw, I don't think you caught all the dates ... fyi.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Four paras is standard for a large article like this, and it doesn't even cover the biog info which is in the main article, most of which should be in the other article. I caught the date though. Anyway, it really is a subjective issue, and I really can't do anything without examples to discuss. As long as we can agree that right now, for the newly arriving reader (which is the only time I'm ever motivated to rewrite ledes), the new lede is better than the old, I'm fine with waiting for suggestions. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're parroting each other -- I said that one area I did agree with you on was the number of paragraphs. As I don't have time to address properly right now, I'll leave as is and either revise or discuss when I have a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)