User talk:MickMacNee

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Howdy Micky. Why'd ya wanna keep that article, when we've already got Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't have an Afd on one of two content splits, the Afd is clearly about the topic. It's moot now anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. Just not in the first line. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would make the article top-loaded. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ripe for it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice, as required

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish football referee strike

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The first AfD nomination of Emirates Flight 407

Hi Mick. I don't know if you noticed this or not, but I actually withdrew my own nomination of that article, as I saw mixed opinions as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. The ones that opposed referred to the essay WP:AIRCRASH. However, I don't think you should judge closures as "inappropriate". HeyMid (contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot withdraw your own nomination if valid keeps and deletes were registered. Even if someone refers to an essay, it is still a valid vote in that regard. This is not a case of me judging it, this is standard Afd procedure, as explained in WP:NAC. Even though you 'withdrew' it, you have effectively called the consensus on the Afd debate you yourself started. That's wrong whichever way you look at it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it would've probably been different if I had withdrawn my nomination if there hadn't been any votes at all, but I understand your explanation. HeyMid (contribs) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Hospital

Thanks, this was something that we seemed to have missed. Much appreciated! Ng.j (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).

Cheers. I was quite amazed when I found it was a red link. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MILITARY PEOPLE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MILITARY PEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the MILITARY PEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off for deletion

The article France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 82.23.146.131 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, Mick! I'm sure we might remember each other from some encounters in the "BISE" affair: but I need to let you know that I brought your name up in an issue you have previously been involved with[1]. I'd appreciate any comments you could give there if you're interested, as well. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

The deletion review for FedEx Express Flight 647 was closed before I got to finish asking you my question: Why didn't you bring this up with Cirt (talk · contribs) before taking it to deletion review and questioning his judgment? Would you have rather it be closed as No Consensus, because either way, it was not getting deleted. I still don't fully get why you brought it to DRV either. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:RECENTISM. Nominees can have information covered in their own articles if particularly relevent. Currently this is just a list of nominees. The actual relevant information (first, second and third places will be announced) will go in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award for deletion

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _wjemather^bigissue 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Transportation requests for deletion review

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 16

MickMacNee, I have noticed a pattern with the above DRVs. There are several transportation-incidents-related deletion discussions, which you brought to DRV, all of which resulted in an "endorse" of the original deletion discussion's closure. The subsequent DRVs have all turned out the same, and consensus was in most cases pretty strongly in favor of "endorse". With these results in mind, bringing these matters to DRV seems like a waste of the community's time. Perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, and allow for the possibility that other editors might step in, instead, to take a look at these issues? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no pattern there at all, except in the last three. You are right that DRV is a waste of time in that respect, where I should have gone is ANI, or raise an Rfc on whether you are doing a good enough job in properly explaining to the entire community (which includes dissenters) how you come to your decisions in closing Afd's with respect to the actual points made, or worse, whether you are even reading those debates in detail at all, for what is clearly a disputed field. Frankly, what is a waste of the community's time is if the only people in it who can agree with your vague and non-specific closures, are shock horror, the group who really love the articles, and really hate the policies and guidelines that plenty of people think suggest they should not exist, and who you declared the 'winners'. That is not consensus - see WP:WFTE. If you want to carry on claiming there is a "strong consensus" to be found in these Afd's/DRV's, rather than following up your own suggestion and allowing other admins to close them, then you had better start realising that that is a pretty strong assertion that one side of a debate is talking absolute shite. Strong claims or judgements like that require strong evidence, or at least the presence of multiple admins coming to the same conclusion - you closing them on your own, and then pointing to dumb vote counts and the expression of ignorant mob rule in flagrant ignorance of policies and factual, evidence backed arguments, is not that evidence in the slightest - see WP:CON. I will ask you one last time to satisfy my doubts if you are getting this or not: in that last AFD, which specific arguments did you weigh positively and negatively, and which did you discount, per the Afd closing instructions and with respect to the facts/policies presented, on the point that the article even existing violates the nominator's argument that 'Wikipedia is not a list of hull losses' (WP:NOT#INFO). If you continue to absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that is a valid question for someone to ask you, as the closing admin, then I don't think I am going to take up your suggestion in future, and I'll remind you that if you want to take it further and make it a more formal instruction, that you are INVOLVED in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I find it disturbing and unfortunate that you would try to twist this into an attack on a single administrator, when I have not closed the majority of the DRVs or AFDs cited above. In fact, other admins have also closed multiple deletion discussions you have been involved in on this topic, with similar resultant outcomes. Unfortunately, this appears to be an issue of WP:HEAR, for you, on this topic, and on multiple different deletion discussions. I hope that you reconsider. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You closed 3 out of 3 of the relevant Afd's listed above, that's a 100% majority to me. That is even a 60% majority if including the irrelevant ones you also mentioned. The only lack of hearing here is coming from you, with your by now familiar ability to ignore 90% of what people say to you, the above post and reply combo being one of a long line of examples of that in my experience with you. You're an admin, you know that this is not an acceptable way to communicate, especially if you are making allegations, so if you are not going to read and respond to the entirety of my posts going forward, then don't waste my time by posting here at all. You can do whatever you want to do to further this issue you think exists here, just make sure that you really have the independent, community view, of what's what and who's who. The flaws of DRV as that mechanism appear to be lost on you, and I've just discovered, although I really shouldn't have been surprised, that there is someone not-so-neutral or cluefull feeding you some pretty poor information about what I supposedly do and don't do, and how much support I do and don't have in this content dispute, whether that is measured in dumb vote counting, or cluefull and considered opinion. I suggest you not make the same mistakes he has done for months, in knowing what is and is not proper admin conduct in a dispute, content or otherwise. So, with that, that's end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, if you intend on again making a reply that ignores 90% of what I say, or in any way gives me the impression that you think that I, as a three year plus Wikipedia veteran, really am some sort of fucking idiot, as your citing of HEAR suggested to me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:HEAR issue was brought up, to me, by other users, including Sandstein (talk · contribs), diff and Heymid (talk · contribs) diff. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Sandstein is the guy who recently tried to act as judge, jury and executioner with an attempted community ban on me without the discussion phase, who then took the huff when it was overturned as a kind of super-admin posturing, and his subsequent request for arbitration was rightly thrown out for having nothing behind it in terms of the required evidence of prior dispute resolution except a few diffs of unsubstantiated rabble rousing at ANI, and then belatedly, a wish to cite my legitimate but utlimately pointless attempt to to stop the supposed admin who is trying to use you as a proxy in this dispute, as somehow being evidence against me. So no, I hope you can see why his opinion on what I do or don't do is worth less than nothing to me, even if it is to you. As for Heymid, I've no idea what he based that on, but I think he has been involved in these Afd's at some point. Without specific diffs to back it up, I unlike others you are hearing from, am not willing to say anything further as to whether he is neutral and uninvolved, or not. And he's not an admin either, although thanks to the guy feeding you info, I'm not sure if that is relevant anymore in terms of how much weight you or others should give their opinion on another user. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you will not reconsider, but I thank you for your, um, candor. I hope you are well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have to agree with Cirt (talk · contribs) here. None of the AFD's showed a strong community consensus to delete, so bringing them to DRV does nothing besides kill time. I still doing understand why you are doing this, I left you a question above and you did not respond to me. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I already responded in the DRV on that question. And if you still think those Afd's show a "strong" consensus after reading what I've said there, fine, but your position is exactly the same as Cirt's - you are saying it, but not showing it, or even hinting at showing you could actually show it even. To explain that concept, I will point you to WP:WFTE. Cirt didn't seem to want to see that link above, maybe you might. Why don't you have a crack at properly closing that Afd in a way that explains to everybody how the hell one side in that debate made such a shit job of arguing their case with respect to policy or evidence, that there is a "strong" consensus to be found for the other side, whose arguments were 90% pure blind assertion, or much worse, like making up your own notability standards! Anyway, beyond that, I seriously am bored now trying to 'explain' w.t.f. is wrong with the way these articles are being debated w.r.t. policy and procedure, and Cirt's role in that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, lets say we took the other sides votes into account. Would you have had it/them rather closed as no consensus? Either way they would have been kept, but none of them were applicable for deletion per what the !voters said. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this hypothetical exercise? If you believe he did not take into account the delete side, and the debate could have been closed as no consensus (which is a million miles from "strong keep"), then surprise surprise, that's a wrong decision that is open for review. If you don't believe this is what happened, then why are you suggesting it as a discussion topic? I asked you to have a go at closing it yourself, to see if you can put into words a closure that matches the arguments made, properly weighted. I'm not interesting in discussing outcomes you don't believe could have happened. The issue is Cirt closed this as "strong keep", and he doesn't want to explain how, at all. Here is an example of a closer doing it correctly, which ironically Cirt was actually going to relist - maybe the issue here is that Cirt does not believe in the whole concept of 'no consensus'? And frankly, with regard to the difference between that and keep, your suggestion that 'either way, it doesn't matter', for EVENT based Afd's, it actually does matter - see WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTAGAIN. It matters a great deal infact. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self :Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi. I've filed a Request for Comment regarding you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Please write a response there as soon as possible. Thank you. HeyMid (contribs) 08:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Micky, I've been following the trends on that Rfc. Ya should walk away from those AfDs, while you can. I don't wanna see ya getting indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc stuff

I outdented your recent comment, thus making it easier to read. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of SARTRE at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Safe Road Trains for the Environment

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I edit conflicted with you at DRV. Since the article was deleted, the DGCA in India have issued their Final report into the accident. Amongst the four recommendations are changes to information passed to aircraft by ATC. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lee Crooks

Hello! Your submission of Lee Crooks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calistemon (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lee Crooks

Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Refs

Hi Mick, I saw you added this para to the England national football team manager article. As the article is currently featured, could you add a reference to cite those numbers you've included? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not right this minute no. Wht's so special about the numbers? I consider the numbers as ucontroversial as the rest of it, which was not cited as I don't consider it particularly open to challenge, per WP:CITE, which is the only standard, FA or no FA as far as I'm aware. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi MickMacNee. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 7 Day Sunday

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chris August and Starry Night (song)

Several days ago I suggested an alternative to these articles that you reviewed for DYK. Would you please see if your concerns have been addressed? Royalbroil 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vickers Wellington LN514

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Channel 4's Comedy Gala (2010)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Channel 4's Comedy Gala (2010), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ticketstub.com/events/channel-4s-comedy-gala.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Healey

Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I had been told....

And I had been told that you had dropped your previously arrogant and aggressive style. Sadly it appears not.

That clause seems totally trivial: if Platini is asked a question by a half-witted journalist, or maybe an intelligent sly journalist, he might be polite enough to answer, but that does not make the exchange encyclopaedically relevant. BRD is not an accepted policy, and your editnote was not a meaningful rebuttal of the grounds that I gave for the deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd describe it as clear reasoning myself, in the face of a false rebuttal. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that you had said that BRD was a policy, and yet you imply that I (and, for some reason best known to yourself, the membership of WT:FOOTY) should consider ourselve constrained by it. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Aircrashes

Hi Mick. Re your comments at ITN/C re recent aircrashes. You say that these get created from the initial rush of news reports and then abandoned. While the first part may be true, the second is an illusion. As you know, aircrash investigations take time, over 8 years in one case that I know of. Yes, aircrash article get created when they are recent. Doing it this way has the advantage that sources are easier to find. After the inital creation and corrections, things do tend to go quiet, but that doesn't mean that the accident has been forgotten. Until the final report is published, there is often nothing more to add to the article. Once published, then the article can be updated and corrected as necessary. Anyways, it's not all recent aircrashes. MilborneOne and me have been busy creating articles of aircrashes from the 1920s to the 1970s, as well as sorting out the UK aircrash list. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If an aircrash is truly notable, then no, it doesn't all go quiet until the report is published. There would always be intermittent coverage. That's the core difference between notability and news infact. The fact that you seem to see no issue with creating the article straight away from the immediate news, and then also see no issue in updating it from the primary material of the report if that's all there is, is the basic issue. At no point do you ever ask the basic question - am I writing this article because I can, or because I should? Is it truly notable, or am I just adding to an ever burgeoning collection of RECENTISM? And if you really have been writing about crashes from the 1920s to the 70s, if you have been using only proper sources which show real lasting WP:EVENT type notability, rather than some poor or completely involved source like the ASN or simply resorting to searching for the contemporary news sources and just replicating the process of what happens today for current crashes, then I cannot understand how you really don't get the difference at all. If you are doing it properly, you simply wouldn't be able to write as many articles from a particular year in history as are being stuffed onto the project for 2010 and beyond. It's so obvious it's unreal, which is why those Afds full of blind assertion are so utterly disgraceful. Go and find that Afd where I presented an example of an almost exact duplicate of the crash that was being asserted as obviously notable, from history. It was a near perfect match, just from 30 years or so previously. If you can write about that using proper sources and produce something that nobody could ever hope to disagree didn't pass EVENT, then I would be convinced. But I seriously doubt you could. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ASN has been no help with the early crashes. Anything before 1943 or so is only covered in ASNs wikibase, thus being in danger of failing WP:RS immediately. However, Flight and The Times have proved invaluable in researching these, along with a few other sources. You are quite capable of finding my articles should you so wish. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Flight is hardly independent - as always, the bar at which they choose to and to not write about an aircrash is different to Wikipedia. To support info, it's fine, to support notability, it's clearly not. And if you refer to The Times newspaper, as I said, if all you are doing is delving into archives so you can use the contemporary news coverage, then you aren't really doing anything different to what's occuring now, and aren't really satisfying EVENT at all, not the lasting aspects certainly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not just using those sources to get contemporary news coverage. They are used to cover inquiries and reports into accidents. The first mid-air collision of airliners is obviously notable (not one I created), but what about the first mid-air fire; or an accident that was the first fatal accident for the airline involved, and which led to the first public enquiry in the UK into an aircraft crash (and the expansion of a major airport serving London); or an accident in which one of the Bentley Boys was the only survivor? Are you saying that we should not be covering these because they have not been covered in books on aircrashes? Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me these events have not been covered by books? You know full well what the kind of crashes are that I've got an issue with, and it's certainly not any of those examples. Not even close tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the firs mid-air collision got some minor coverage in one of MacArthur Job's books. Other than that, very little has been published for aircrashes occurring before the start of the jet age. The Comet accidents are probably the oldest that have received significant coverage. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Isner - Mahut

If you want illustrate, picture from the match of isner mahut (the quality is good but not of the top) :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Isner%E2%80%93Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships

They come from : http://www.flickr.com/photos/voodemar/5535146798/ were you find more picture by Voo de mar

They are present in the french page.

I tell it to you because you are the principal contributor of Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Mamiejeanjean (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the scoreboard image. If you ever want to add images, it's not that hard - this is the code for that addition. See WP:IMAGE for general help. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour on ITNC

You seem to be annoying a lot of other editors on ITNC, it is not acceptable to use ITNC as your personal battleground over and over again. You made a very good point when you said that ITN should be removed from the front page, however it isn't acceptable to "force" that to happen now we are making progress by battlegrounding. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War#Not over

Who exactly were you addressing that comment to? Swarm ^X 02:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Castles in ...

Hi, I saw the page move from castles in the United Kingdom and Ireland to castles in Great Britain and Ireland but doesn't Great Britain commonly refer to the biggest island in the British Isles? There are castles on Anglesey and the Isle of Man for instance which are included in the topic but not under that title. !Castles in the British Isles! works only if you consider Ireland to be part of the British Isles and given the whole British Isles naming controversy involving Arbcomm that's a can of worms I was hoping to avoid. Hence why "UK and Ireland" was chosen, although as you pointed out it is somewhat anachronistic. Do you have any suggestions regarding the best name for the article? Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than tacking on 'and related islands' onto the end, no, not really. I think the title is more accurate when it refers to 98% of the land mass, rather than when it refers to 25% of the time period. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. "...related islands" feels a bit clunky, but I suppose it's more accurate. As it's Hchc2009's article I'll bump it along to him. Looks like I gave some dud advice. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I could live with either version; I suspect that my own slight confusion as to the precise definitions of GB, UK etc. will be shared by the typical reader of Wikipedia, so provided the title gets across the general theme of the article, I think it will work! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Gabby Logan

See Talk:Gabby_Logan#86.161.97.4

But - next time, can you a) use {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} here, on your own talk page, and b) if it is 'sensitive' please email the oversight team instead (fast response), Special:EmailUser/Oversight (to avoid undue attention).

Many thanks for alerting people,  Chzz  ►  12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have email enabled. I was using the talk page to record the history for future admins. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; no problem. It's just we prefer to deal with helpme/adminhelp on user talk pages, because it is a direct dialogue between the helper and helpee, as opposed to being about the article - e.g. this discussion - hence doesn't really belong on the article talk. Not a problem though. Thanks again, 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

British Isles

Howdy Mick. I'm still convinced that LM & LB are socks. However, those SPAs have stated repeatedly, that they'll leave the British Isles issue alone, if the other side stops with their attempts at deletions. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Socks are irrelevant, the issue is infested with somethig far worse - game playing and wiki-experienced meat puppets. The labels are quite apt - in real life, the worse thing you get from socks is a smell, and they are easy to deal with - a bit of sniffing out the culprit and you're done. When there is rotten meat in the equation however, evne the smell of it gives you a sour taste in the mouth and a sick feeling in the stomach, and rather than wanting to seek it out for cleaning, you get a complete aversion to going anywhere near the place where the meat might be, lest you get galloping gut rot. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's need of 'atleast' a 1-year ban for the adding, deleting or replacing of 'British Isles'. Also, HighKing has got to move away from his obsession. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I probably should've been more discrete with my inquiries than ask you for clarification at AN/I. My intent was not to draw you in to some protracted debate, I was sincerely looking for information. Apologies if my questions have made your Easter stressful. Thanks for your patient replies as well. Tiderolls 16:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, more than happy to. If more unvolved admins like yourself actually took an interest when these reports surface on ANI, and dealt with more than just the easy catches, then this disupte wouldn't have festered for half as long. I'm having a pretty good easter as it happens tho :) MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Further; do I understand correctly that the naming conventions are being drowned in a battle of sources? Tiderolls 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its pushing it to even say there was a convention. BISE came up with the startling conclusion that having a source is better than not having one, which is where LM is now coming from. For the situations where there are sources on both sides though, BISE more often than not simply regressed into 20 pages of rehashing frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadfully sorry!

Oh, Mick, will you ever forgive my error in thinking the piped link [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]] was actually [[Queen Elizabeth II|Elizabeth II]], as it was when I first fixed it here? It seems to have angered you so much. I do hope you are okay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Not least as such basic mistakes are hardly the worst thing wrong with your editing now is it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That all depends on who you ask, I suppose. I am fallible and can't please everyone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if you pleased anyone here tbh. Have you ever put yourself up for editor review? MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had 6+ years of editor review on Wikipedia.

BTW, for whatever it's worth to you, I apologise for the sarcastic tone of my OP here. It felt right at the time, but now it just seems cheap and childish. I'm sorry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton

Under which right do you remove the tag? Highly seen or not, if it doesn't respect the rules, then there has to be a ribbon. I don't have enough time to do it myself, but you do seem to have. → Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My right as an editor, that's what. I'm sorry, but there aren't any rules here that say such a non-urgent and frankly unimportant tag has to stay on an article if someone thinks it's not needed. And why should the thousands of people reading it have to suffer its eyesore just because one person thinks there's a problem? By all means, if you want it restored, find a consensus at the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

your a dick

stop trying to ruin a highly viewed page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.160.121 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales on Daily Mail

Good call. Thanks for telling me. Wikipedia's changed too fast since I became an admin in 2007. --Deryck C. 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's changed massively. It's just a shame the Afd process hasn't kept pace, and poor or invalid arguments still pretty much rule the roost, even for biographies. If the debate hadn't been landslided by those, we might have had more time for further debate, and you might have learned even more about where I was coming from - as an editor who having only been an editor since 2007, has only ever seen policies and Afd instructions that state that in those debates, BLP considerations and serious and encyclopeodic coverage comes first, subjective disagreement over depth/significance comes second, and tabloid interest/page hits last. Anyway, that's the theory. The practice will probably have to wait a good few years longer yet. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MickMacNee. You have new messages at Talk:2011 World Snooker Championship.
Message added 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MickMacNee. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

World Championships at ITN/C

I wish I could be surprised at a long rant that merely displays that my comment (which merely said that the fact of an event being a world championship does not make it ITNworthy, as some contributors seemed to be suggesting) was scarcely read. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What did I get wrong exactly? You queried the assumption, and so I felt duty bound to have a rant about the validity or otherwise of the assumtion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't address the assumption that a World Championship, per se, is ITNworthy, you went off on one about your perception and assumptions about the relative popularities of the sports mentions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Delta

I'm not sure it would be productive, given that the thread was about my own conduct as an admin, and not about the legitimacy of the edits I challenged. If you think it's relevant, feel free to post diffs, but the NFCC issue isn't my axe to grind, since I said before that I could really care less about the images on the article. It's obvious I'm not going to get him to stop, and anything more effort is going to make me look like I was insincere. I was serious when I said I don't hold ill will, and even though I agree with you to a point, it's not a contention I want to make anymore. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're free to do what you want, but as I said at the ANI, there's a well trodden playbook at work here, and win by attrition/fait accompli is very much a part of it. In terms of ideology, the deck is certainly stacked, so it's the people who want to build a good encyclopoedia using non-free content where justifiable, as the EDP mandates, have to work twice as hard, as the zeal runs deep in those who hold the ideal that Wikipedia must be free at all costs. I would just say that if you thought it important enough to say on people's talk pages, it's worth preserving in the 'official' archive - as talk page discussions in this area have a habit of being forgotten about, and this incident is probably already being written up as another instance of Beta being unfairly treated or victimised as he fights the good fight against evil-encyclopoedia destroyers like yourself. And whatever you did or however you feel, you know that's fundementally not true. Believe me when I say, everything that's happened here, was straight out of 2009, and even earlier. If not on the ANI page, then I suggest a private mail to arbcom, as you are still an admin, and they are theoretically supposed to be keeping a track of his conduct, given as he is supposedly on his last last last chance to demonstrate that he Gets It. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but the last thing I need is to jump on that bandwagon right now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ah dear...

User:Seb az86556/Joe Sixlegs. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Hammersoft. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• As if your incivil templating of another regular wasn't enough justification for completly ignoring the warning, I'll simply remind you that I am fully entitled to comment on the contributor where their actions and conduct is going against policy and have been highlighted and indeed even sanctioned in the past. As ever, there are various things you can do if you believe you are being unfairly criticised, but also as ever, that's not a one way street. You've been fortunate with the closure of that latest ANI report with no real examination of the latest repeated patterns in your behavour, so I suggest you rest on your laurels and make hay while the Sun shines. Don't irritate me further with such templating as it might force me to start investigating things like just which sanctions or measures you still are or aren't obligated by, as you know full well your new account name or the misdeeds of the other party is of no relevance in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

Please read Pippa Middleton: Global sensation before you make any further AfD nominations. Further disruption will not be toleratd. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If this wasn't an attempt at sarcasm, then all I can say is wow. I advise you to read WP:RS and WP:GNG before making any more postings like this, that's for sure. As you're an admin I won't embarass you further or put this out for further scrutiny by your peers than you have already just done by posting it here, by going into the detailed implications of what you've just asserted with this message, suffice to say, RS & GNG aside, if you believed your link contains sources or information I either wasn't aware of or hadn't taken account of before filing that Afd, or indeed weren't already in the article, you're flat wrong. As such, your allegation of disruption is most certainly rejected. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the family business info from the article on Pippa Middleton. This partial merge, whilst a discussion is still ongoing on the subject, is WP:DISRUPTive. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A move of solely business related material from Pippa's article, which did not mention Pippa at all, over to the empty business section of the Middleton family article, is what you class as disruption is it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know. I hope others agree with you, as I reject your accusation completely. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still flabergasted over the fact that article passed 2 AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN and consensus

If you want admins to do a better job of posting stuff commenting on this discussion I started on HJ Mitchell's talk page might well get results along those lines in the long run. I agree with you that its an issue, but there's only so much stuff that can be challenged in a short time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Blocked from a template talk! You really need to try harder. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

?

I'm not sure if this was intended as a piece of reconciliatory humour, but I'm afraid if it was it's a bit unlikely to have the desired effect, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think Sarah has quite a finely attuned gallows humour about her in these situations, and would have appreciated the spirit of the link. I'm sure out of all the things she imagines I've done to her, this wouldn't rank very highly on the scale of outrage. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Please kindly provide me with the link to ANI where you commented about me. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it was AN. It's still up. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

... and you'll be blocked for disruption if you open it again. WP:RFC/U is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read my talkpage before posting, you'll know to keep discussions in one place. Of course, I say "discussion", but since I see very few pieces of actually factual information that you posted on my talkpage, or even anything that remotely resembles reality (or anything I said), the word "discussion" might be a stretch. The article was kept; get over it ffs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I could give less of a toss about your talk page procedures right now. You see what you want to see tbh. BLP violation on the Main Page. Fact. Refusals to offer any editor or argument as a single example. Fact. Belief a Yahoo blog was evidence of coverage. Fact. Stating he believed my objections were probably a "joke". Fact. I'll get over it. A pity you don't seem to have a clue that it's not me it harms if the article is kept. You'll probably get over it too, as I'm damn sure I won't see you or him anywhere near the articles ever again. You won't be burdened with having to explain to the masses of fuckwits and retards who arrive at those pages wanting to add all sorts of shit, armed in no small part with that Afd outcome and the various degrees of keep arguments, all of which combines to be a pretty fucking vague picture as to what is and is not considered in depth significant reliable coverage of this subject. Fucking hell, it's even got a great big DYK tag on the talk page now, displaying for all the world what we thought was a briliant source to link to from the Main Page, the tabloid hit piece with one line about the 'fact' it supported from the article. Triggered straight after that closure. Fact. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I am in complete agreement with you. However, I am also almost at the point of blocking you for a bit foryour own good. Please calm down. Wikipedia is sometimes screwed up, and sometimes we can't fix it. Flogging dead horses doesn't tend to help. Live to fight another day.--Scott Mac 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm calm. It can be fixed, simply by adhering to the rules and norms that already supposedly exist here. That's the most depressing aspect of all this. Seriously, you'd think I was talking bloody Martiain the way some people have been acting in this whole thing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

comments

We are dangerously close to being in agreement on a number of BLP/tabloidish issues at the moment. (Probably a bad sign for both of us). However, a word of advice from an old BLP warrior (who does not always follow his own advice) - learn to pick your battles. That there should not be an article on James Middleton is self-evidently true. That there isn't a consensus to delete is also true. The closure of the AFD was disappointing, and showed a deep lack of imagination and subtle understanding. It is, however, a reasonable close, and a great many admins would have closed it the same way. You will not win that one.--Scott Mac 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's self evident at all. Imagine what it would look like if all tabloid crap and random trivia was removed, you can't seriously tell me that's what you think is a biography? There's no way in hell that that Afd closure is anything but complete nonsense if we're talking in terms of cluefully weighing of the actual arguments and evidence against policies and guidelines like RS & BIO, let alone on finer issues like NTEMP. It was a bad closure made by what increasingly looks like an inclusionist and/or out of date admin, with no real concern for BLP at all it seems. And yes, a good many admins would probably also make the same mistake. Doesn't make it right. But I'm not as concerned about the closure as about Bearian's complete refusal to acknowledge as simple fact what any good admin should know is unarguably true about their roles here - they should be able to explain your reasoning w.r.t policy. If he can't, and if nobody else is concerned, I think that's far more serious issue needing resolution from the very top. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening of a WP:AN

Until and if you get elected an admin, never, ever re-open a debate at any AN thread, or XfD for that matter. It's considered the worse incivility, and beyond your powers. You can insult me all you want, but don't mess around with the process. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding? Are you really trying to take the fucking piss here? Don't you dare, don't you even think about lecturing me about civility. You, you who refuses to explain an Afd closure that led to a Main Page BLP disaster, trying to tell me what is and is not civil. You've got some goddam nerve you really have. Get the fuck off my talk page and go and fix the fucking mess you've left on the pedia. That is if you even give a shit. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And hold the fucking phone, "beyond my powers". Beyond my fucking powers? Are you seriously going to claim you know policy better than I do? You, who thought a Yahoo blog summarising Daily Mail coverage was evidence of notability? I spit on your 'powers' frankly. I hold your "powers" in contempt. You, who is so confident in his "powers" you won't put yourself up for reconfirmation. You, who has no problem 'trusting' users whose Afd rationales are dismissed elsewhere as nonsense by other admins, users who don't give a flying fuck about placing a DYK on the Main Page with a massive great BLP violation. I don't fucking blame you in refusing to be examined. I can fully understand how acting like a clam has become normal for you. You can count yourself fucking lucky I don't have the 'power' to prevent your violations. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, admins have no more or less right to reopen debates than anyone else. There are lots of good reasons for not opening a debate - it can at times be disruptive or horse flogging, but it certainly isn't incivil in and of itself. Admins earn and don't demand respect, and RESPECT MAH AUTHORAH has really no place on Wikipedia. Other than the fact admins have some special buttons, they have no more rights here than any other user - actions are either good or bad, helpful or unhelpful. The status of the person performing the action is neither here nor there. God complexes are unhelpful. NB I'm not saying reopening a debate is always a good thing, and I've not commenting on whether it was justified in this instance.--Scott Mac 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-said Scott. I personally don't give a shit who re-opens a thread, unless the long-dead horse has started to rot. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry that I upset you. Please be well. I'll get some feedback at AN/I about refactoring. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's more than enough

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what this block is specifically for. The above section? "General disruption"? NW (Talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked by BWilkins for doing nothing but criticising an admin he apparently admires [4] and could not stand being questioned on AN, and reacting to said admin coming to my own talk page and lecturing me like I'm some kind of cunt. While I'm flattered at the suggestion that by merely replying to that sort of provocation on my own talk page might constitute block worthy site wide disruption, it's bullshit. I had already complied with BWilkin's rather dubious threats to not reopen the AN thread which he edit warred to resolve himself having already commented on, so this block is clearly some kind of extra pay-back. I've got no objection to this block if an uninvolved admin is prepared to take ownership of it and re-impose it, but as imposed by BWilkins, let's not pretend it's something it's not.

Decline reason:

I've reduced the block to 24 hours. I can't see any legitimate reason for such a long block, for what appears to be nothing more than "you disagreed with me" and the non-existent offence of "non-admin opened a thread on an admin board". I've left the 24 hour block in place for civility; while I personally disagree with the civility policy except in extreme circumstances, I recognize that it has broad acceptance, and there seems to be a general concurrence on the AN thread that 24 hours is a legitimate block. I've marked this as a "declined unblock request" for procedural reasons, since some element of the block is still in place and this allows you to appeal that part as well should you so choose. – iridescent 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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

I need a break from this nut house, so I can live with that tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

+Moral support. Mr. MacNee - people do see this sort of thing; it doesn't go unnoticed. I've no idea if it can be 'fixed', but still; at least one may take comfort, perhaps, that there is sanity out there. Sort of. Almost.  Chzz  ►  01:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

{{uw-3rr|United Kingdom}} I'm putting this up now Mick, you know that a consensus was reached, you know you should use the talk page, and you should know that you don't determine policy --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

VPP?

Hello, MickMacNee. How are you? I have not fully read the debate on it as yet but I noticed your edit summary on the UK page when you made a change. What does VPP level consensus mean? Carson101 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump policy discussion page - a place where a wide number of experienced editors discuss ideas of general site wide importance as they relate to policy interpretation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You never know till you ask. Carson101 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Had my proposed sentence, "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" been adopted, there would've been no need for any footnote. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I wish I'd seen the whole farce unfolding at the time, could have been nipped in the bud quite easily with some clue hammers. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the clue is in the name.--Scott Mac 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Great clue!? It's not called "United Kingdom and the country of Northern Ireland". That would be much more clueful :-) The question as far as I with my very limited english language skills understand it is, whether Northern Ireland is unanimously called a country or if there should be any hint in the article text that this is not the case. It seems to me as if the article text is not fully NPOV and as if the solution to balance this POV is a strange footnote which doesn't balance anything at all. --Adornix (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really think about the logic of that you've got a pretty good point there Scott. Why replace "and Ireland" with "and Northern Ireland" if you were not replacing one country with another? Wikipedia isn't the real world - only a fool would say that it is in its present state imo - but deep-down and in a societal sense, we all surely know that the UK simply created two new countries out of one when they split Ireland into two. Whatever NI was called, it was meant to be the equivalent in status of the other three British unified countries - just as Ireland was before it. NI from the start had to be as devolved as possible just to be run properly, and 'province' was probably a diplomatic term as much as anything. Splitting Ireland into two countries wasn't exactly a painless process.

IMO, using the progressively-used "country" over "province" only really genuinely upsets people who also see NI as the 'six lost counties of Ireland', and feel they are due at some stage to get it back - like it's an Irish Hong Kong. They can't accept that the area was made into a consistent country of a sovereign state. The area had been of a predominantly British Irish (rather than pure Irish) identity for centuries, which is why the UK kept the part of Ireland they did: they were never ever planning to give it back. They simply split one country into two countries: although reading Wikipedia you would never get that from reading NI-related articles - NI on WP is rarely presented without reference to the Irish or its troubled history. Polical compromises like dual citizenship are a consequence of years of 'the Troubles' (and a happy one) - not a step towards returning NI to Ireland for unification. As Simon Schama put it in his recent UK history (in reference to reuniting Ireland); "What would they do with all the British"?

Wikipedia needs to stop giving such a platform to nationalists, and draw respect for sovereignty into its guidelines. Sovereingty/nationalism should never be an inherently 50/50 thing in weight. Look at the United Kingdom first-line 'footnote' now - it states that 'country' is politically controversal, rather than just one of a few all-unofficial terms that are used. Nationalist politics in the first line of the United Kingdom article? Completely outrageous surely, but try just removing the political bit and see what happens.

One problem I can see Mick, is that your heavily-written insistence that there should not be a footnote at all (and with almost no-one present supporting you as far as I can make out) could prevent a reasonable discussion on what a decent first-line footnote should actually contain. I would like to start such a discussion up (centering it on removing the unsuitable politics), but would like your feedback on my doing it first. Would you continue to argue that there should not be a footnote at all? And could I convince you that it best to allow a footnote to happen smoothly, and to focus on properly weighting its content instead? I appreciate that footnotes are part of overall article weight, but that could be dealt with accordngly, after the footnote is in place. I don't find the idea of a footnote totally unreasonable in the matter of UK naming: it could actually solve a number of problems, and a good deal of the never-ending UK/IRE debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, but is it not the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so when they changed it from "and Ireland" to "and Northern Ireland", they weren't replacing countries? --HighKing (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's purpose is to do something as regards NPOV, such as present and refute different cases, then it cannot be a footnote. The policies are clear on that, per the texts I gave in the 'policy position' section. It really is absurd for anyone to argue that presenting the NPOV is something that would be considered too distracting to be included in standard text. It's absurd infact. Just try and find any article that is of recognised quality that actually does this. Check out Barack Obama. Check out Gibraltar. There are hundreds of articles out there with controversial or disputed terms or phrases in the lede that don't have footnotes hanging off them left right and centre. If I have to make this a whole Rfc issue before people will realise that, I will. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that UK/IRE is full of anomalies - like it or not (and it's a 'not' in my case) it is simply accepted by admin and arbcom that it we live in a 'special case'. Bending rules is written into Wikipedia to allow for this kind of thing (warranted or not). I was going to say that is is obvious that you are not going to get anywhere simply by repeating your point in blocks of text - and suggest you start the Rfc or this will go on forever - but I see that progress is being made of sorts. If it does get to the stage where you feel you need to make the RfC, I'll also use it to put forward my suggestion - so hopefully either you'll get a result or I will.

When it's a train going round a circular track, it's hard to know what to do. I'm finding it hard to joint in, and I know others are too. When I got my pencil out and had a go at re-writing the first parag, I found the best way to do it was through the waters, but I used the term 'British Isles' and 'constituent' too – it's actually quite hard to avoid either of them. I have no qualms with just using 'sovereign state' for the UK, as it's close to both kingdom and country. I think the simplest suggestion in a major Rfc vote would be to have all 5 articles pipe-linking "constituent country" to the Countries of the UK article. I've got no doubt that in a major poll this would get the majority vote, as the usual dissenters will become a small group. People would still try an get in a footnote though – that just isn't going to change imo: the UK is just too convoluted for decently-concise explanatory prose (ie an decent explanation in the intro window, where people fight for space). The only people who find "constituent" offensive imo are quite serious nationalists - it appears illogical for most people to find the offense in it that they do. The term is simply made to measure, like using 'Republic of Ireland' for Ireland when needed (in both cases the linked-to article can be different imo, eg Countries of the UK, and an Ireland state/island disam page – but that's another issue.). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The UK and related articles are not 'special cases' in terms of being able to follow good practice as regards NPOV or the MoS. I know all the regulars like to think it is, but they need to get out more, and realise we have many other equally complex articles. Lord knows I cite many of them as examples when I'm debunking whatever the latest 'special case'/'IAR'/'already agreed on talk page' view of what a clueful consensus is. And no, I find use of 'constituent country' offensive for the same reason as I find the British Isles eradication efforts offensive, both are examples of people trying to abuse Wikipedia's NPOV and ignore basic common good practices and policies in other areas, to get the tail to wag the dog for their particular special interest. I've no doubt which way large scale polls would go on both issues given enough independent input, the same way it went on the ROI naming issue - for the NPOV view. Anyway, the footnote's gone it seems, so I see no need for the Rfc, as it's subject was only ever going to be, use of footnotes to present the NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have got the the woman and her new friend to sit down and sort together and sort our articles instead of going to racecourses.--Scott Mac 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC on People's Pledge

I opened the RfC. I hope I set out the question in an acceptable way. Please feel free to comment if not. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN exchange

I've moved that exchange to User_talk:Rd232#Delta; it should have been on my talk page in the first place. If there's anything you said in that exchange that you want to feed into the discussion at AN, feel free to do so in a new post. Equally, if you can't refrain from moving it all back to AN, I won't undo it - though that would hardly be constructive. Rd232 ^talk 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd moved it back already before you even posted this. You seem to have serious problem with knowing what is and is not likely to be seen as a contructive/contentious attempt at refactoring tbh. For an admin, that's extremely disturbing to see. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My god you're an obnoxious, unsympathetic and unhelpful character. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give a fuck. I stopped caring about what you think around the same time you stopped giving a flying fuck about anyone else's right to have a proposal on ANI go untouched, starting with TT, and now this farce, and you started claiming I was blind/stupid/thick or any of the other shit that's come out of your keyboard at me lately if I dared point out a few hard truths about your logic. Unsympathetic? Don't make me laugh. You've not got one ounce of symapthy, not one drop, for the hundreds of admins/editors who have been all around the houses with Delta/Beta before, who have placed block after block, made proposal after proposal, sat through arbitration case after arbitration case. It seems to me that if it's not your idea, it's not valid or constructive. It seems to me that if you never personally experienced it, it never happened, or it's not important. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)