This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It occurs to me that you might be able to contribute to this ref desk discussion: [1] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It clearly is a completely different article, with 100% original content. It has a huge response section, and it addresses every single assertion that the article has no standing to exist. To address each one:
I will still file DRV, but will also point out that requiring a DRV for THIS situation is the definition of bureaucrazy [typo intended]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Why remove this sourced information?
Abdulmutallab travelled to Yemen in August of 2009 to study Arabic, and in October had cut off contact with his family. His worried father reported his disappearance and "extreme religious views" to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria on November 17. As a result, Abdulmutallab's name was added to the U.S.'s central international terrorist database, but not to shorter search-before-boarding and no-fly lists, and a two-year U.S multi-entry visa granted to him in 2008, was not revoked. Several reports of pre-attack intelligence linked Abdulmutallab to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based, senior al-Qaeda member who was also linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers and may have helped to radicalize and motivate the Fort Hood shooter. Reports also indicated the U.S. had received intelligence regarding a planned attack by a Yemeni-based Nigerian man. Abdulmutallab trained at Al-Qaeda camps in Yemen where Awlaki was one of his trainers, the imam who personally blessed the attack, [1] and is believed to have helped plan the attack. [2]
Bachcell ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I might not always agree with your methods, but I have to compliment you for this. Thanks for taking the petition in good humor. :-) — David Levy 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
Hi, kinda confused cause I just delivered the above newsletter to you. Who you were referring too when you wrote: "You are no leader, you're incompetent."
If it was Berian he is a ARS member too.
Regardless of who this comment was addressed to, could you please strike or remove it? Thank you. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MickMacNee. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey MickMacNee. I think it would help out a lot if you would "tweak" your comment a little. I know emotions are running high on that issue and obviously I won't be blocking anyone :) and I understand where you're coming from, but I think your comment is a little over the top. Bearian is a pretty nice fellow. He just doesn't agree with you on this issue. I don't either. You can call me names though, I'm used to it. ;) Cheers. Have a good weekend.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee, activate your email, I need to explain what is going on, and how to help you.
?. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to edit war with you, but please do not move my comments. "precedence" is not something we run Wikipedia on and you don't have the option of removing anything that disagrees with your point from a page you started. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your productive response. Please do not move my comments in the future. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to revert again without talking to you, but I doubt anyone wants to expand that section since that tag has been there for more than two years. And besides, nothing's stopping someone who is interested in making a section like that from doing so, i'm just looking to make the article a little cleaner in the meantime. Doc Quintana ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MickMacNee. Doc Quintana ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Spartaz
Humbug!
17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Indefinite is of non-fixed duration, it can be extended to a ban as often happens when a users evades blocks with socks. Dealing with socks is not that hard. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes I was incredibly rude to Doc Quintana, it was an unfortunate confluence of external factors and my perception that he was baiting me with his comments above. That was seemingly already dealt with by Spartaz with a weeks block, yet before I could even respond to that situation, I find myself kicked off the project permanently, seemingly on the whim of Prodego and a few people with axes to grind coming out of the woodwork. This is highly irregular, and frankly, totally unfair. If I am to be kicked off the project with not even an Rfc against my name, and I will have no issues if it goes down like that, I want it done legitimately, with a proper consensus of uninvolved editors with no vested interest in seeing me screwed over like this. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests that blame others are dismissed, see WP:NOTTHEM. I note the remarkable absence of anything resembling an apology. Sandstein 23:33, 31 January 2010 (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.
Mick, you mention that you wanted uninvolved editors to look this over. There is Wikipedia:ANI#User:MickMacNee where the community at large has been made aware of this block and is reviewing it. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I unconditionally apologise for the response to Doc Quintana above which was of course inexcusable. It was a heat of the moment post which came during an extremely difficult afternoon for me for reasons I really don't want to make public, which put me in a frame of mind to see intentional provocation where there was none, and I had no opportunity to rectify the situation before I noticed this indef. I of course fully acknowledge I have behavioural issues for which I have accrued a rather large block log, but in that time which has spanned several years I have imo made a good overall contribution to the project, not least by writing countless articles and improving thousands more. My first ineffective unblock request was genuinely the result of a perception that this, my first ever indefinite block, had unfairly come out of the blue with no warning, but this is of course irrelevant. Although it also hardly matters, as others pointed out, I have not been blocked or even warned for months as far as I am aware. On one issue though, while others might disagree, I do think it is highly relevant that, blocks and warnings apart, nobody has ever seen me to be so incompatible to the project as to instigate dispute resolution proceedings against me, or put me under any kind of special arrangement. Going forward though, I will accede to any arrangement or pre-condition that would see me be allowed to edit in future, with the trust of my colleagues. I don't think banishing users when their block log reaches a magic number teaches anybody anything except that it pays to keep cycling identities if you ever do get a block. I have made it a point never to hide my user history, I have never cycled my account and have never refactored my talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Because of the apparent honesty and forthrightness of the above, the indef block has already been amended to the original one week block. I hate to call this a "declined" unblock, more of an "declined immediate unblock, but happy to reduce from indef as per the will of community discussion." Note:this does not specifically preclude you from submitting another request for a more immediate unblock ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (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.
Just so you know, User:Gladys j cortez went ahead and reblocked for a week despite the unblock request being placed on hold. Since she didn't come by to leave you a note, I thought I'd do it. AniMate 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yo Mick, congratulations on your comments and as your pretty much a net asset to the wikipedia I hope you keep a lid on it in future. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Listen MickMacNee, this seems to be your last chance.
If you want to bitch about the project or an editor, DO IT OFF WIKI in e-mails. Talk about how much so and so is such an ass. Lord knows editors talk off wiki all the time (according to many arbitrators) If no editors that you can talk to immediately come to mind, you can e-mail me, when my email is back up this same time tomorrow. around 12 AM EST.
The best and most influential editors control their emotions (which I myself am still learning after 4 years), the editors who can't get banned, and quickly forgotten.
Ikip 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick,
If you ever feel like you are under pressure or that circumstances in your life are affecting you on-wiki, send me an email via the wiki. I'm happy to listen - think of it as a way of blowing off steam to a sympathetic ear. The emails will go no further than you and me.
Anyway, you may not feel you want to do this, but if you do the offer is there.
Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm an editor from the past, I dont get on much these days. But every so often I check on him to see a debate or two.
This guy MickMac should be admin IMO. Sickening that someone abusing admin, who I would bet has not contributed half as much, can clamp at the slightest opportunity like this. He is what makes wiki. He stretches the debates, highlights holes, he plays a part, he has never spammed, nor vandalised. He just contributed. Wiki needs him.
TBH I'm outraged at the power flexing of an indefinate ban.
He is hardly a bad user, just look at what he has contributed, the articles he has created.
-- 82.39.72.210 ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit I've just realised its a week ban-- 82.39.72.210 ( talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The articles he has created are mostly trivial. I cant wait for the admins to stop sitting on their hands and give out a full ban. It would be no great loss. 95.149.78.143 ( talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To be frank mate, I think you are a bit of a confrontational bastard, but excellent contributions like this and your work saving the France-Ireland game from deletion show that you are a great contributor to this website.
I get a bit would up by people like nationalist POV pushers, serial copyright infringers and lazy editors who can't even be bothered to source or categorise their articles despite numerous requests on their talkpage and I have become involved in a few wiki-conflicts in my time, not many in recent years though.
My advice is to "play the game", if some other editor winds you up, take a five minute break, chill out and ask for a 2nd opinion from one of the many people who recognise your value to the project. Also, try to remember that you can be forthright without being insulting. It is disappointing to have seen you provide the opportunity for admins to block you on so many occasions. It would be a real shame if you got banned over something stupid like telling someone to fuck off. (BTW feel free to tell me to fuck off if you disagree with my opening sentence, the word fuck is like a verbal punctuation mark in my workplace!) Regards King of the North East 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wikipedia mobile access ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Skomorokh 00:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help out. I am doing as many as I can, but there are lots of links to work through. See [4] and change [[Professional football]] to [[Professional American and Canadian football]]. Thanks. -- Jayron 32 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers 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! Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just started a GA Review of Top Gear Race to the North. The first thing I tend to do when starting a review is run an automated script to check for overlinking, which is an MoS issue - Wikipedia:Linking. Linking London is a small thing, and it's not going to have any impact on the review; but it's not needed, and somebody will come along at some point and either manually or with some semi-automated script, unlink it, so we might as well do it now and get it over with! Regards SilkTork * YES! 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting and attractive article with some decent research. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork * YES! 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — 95.149.78.107 ( talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi
User: Alzarian16 is actually trying to improve the article. They are trying to do this by shortening the article as the tags suggest that it's too long. One of the ideas is that part of the article is moved to another article, so in effect the article is split. This is being discussed at Talk: Lothian Buses, your comments would be appreciated :) -- 5 albert square ( talk) 00:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the issue I've raised about your DYK nom. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick, I'm not saying that the merge proposal is wrong, and it certainly hasn't been made in anything but good faith. It may be a bit premature, depending on how events unfold. We should get a good idea over the weekend whether or not the incident remains isolated or escalates. If the latter happens, there may be justification for separate articles on the ship and the incident. Mjroots ( talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Channel 4's Comedy Gala , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi MickMacNee,
Thank you for your support. As you may have noticed, the discussion has now been archived here.
I care a lot about this case and its more general implications. Could you please let me know how I can escalate it? I have seen many admin abuses before and some of them were even more disturbing, but this stands out as one of the most indefensible ones.
I have left a similar note to Resolute.
Thanks. 124.87.97.84 ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of West Loch Disaster 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! DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick, I'd really welcome it if you'd cut out the personal stuff. If you looked at my contributions to Wiki (even to your own pages such as British Hero of the Holocaust, Commando Memorial, West Loch etc) you'll see that my intention is simply to improve this encyclopedia. This extends to the discussion on international reactions. I do not appreciate your use of words such as "disgusting" and "offensive" with reference to my remarks. Of course I am sorry that you feel offended. I will not take any further part in those discussions on Poland etc, nor I will respond if you choose to make a response here. Kind regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mick, Having seen the Free Library piece, I understand the reason for your question. Their article does appear on the face of it to be a straight crib from Wikipedia AND THEY HAVE the brass neck to claim copyright protection for it. But to answer your question directly I can confirm that the wording is mine and was not copied from anywhere. Regards Ordyg ( talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick. In the Reception section do you think a bit of the reaction by the party leaders and the reaction of the SNP etc. should be included? I was thinking abou some of the reactions in this article. [5]. Thanks for weighing in on the article name btw. Leaky Caldron 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I agree with you on the naming thing, but you shouldn't see every opposing point as something to challenge- just try to calmly express why you disagree rather challenging them with "how is that relevant...". Why don't you look upon the new title as a step in the right direction rather than another obstacle? It's definitely worth having a discussion about it even if the result is to leave it where it is, but that discussion would be a lot better if it wasn't simply dominated by 2 or 3 of the strongest personalities trying to shout each other down, which is the way it seems to be heading atm. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was expecting protestations against the new title, but not this kind. More important to me, is getting all the monarchial titles changed to Name number & Name number (country) where necessary. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
An eye on the future: If you think the naming of the Elizabeth II article was/is a headache? Imagine if her successor chooses the name Charles III? GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that admin Tanthalas39 closed the thread on crash at your request, however it was done on Jack Merridew version which sends an extremely bad message that violating AfD decisions is not a big deal. And I would say that my message to the admin that closed it was not taken seriously but rather in the sense that I am another idiot who doesn't understand that closing is not an endorsment of that version, as if this was some kind of a content dispute. Closing admin apparently thinks it's boring, and another admin cracked a joke on me how I am asking for a wrong version to be returned to another wrong version, again not comprehending that this is not a content dispute. I am not sure what do do?-- Avala ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have left a message of the discussion page and not reverted anything. Please read this and add your feedback. -- Cexycy ( talk) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And congrats on over 29.5K in page views!!-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi I saw that you undid my link to Rascalize as being 'original research' which seems a little odd. I am not too well versed in the ways of wiki so how should I have written the disambig - perhaps you could help improve it rather than simply wiping it off (the reason I'd come to wiki was to try and find out what the term meant having heard that song so I think that the link might be useful to others in reverse)
Thanks for clarifying
M Malikbek ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that my edits was reverted without explanation. That's a violation of WP:BRD policy. I expect an explanation on the talk page shortly. If this isn't forthcoming you are in practice refusing to discuss the issue, and what you are doing is then pretty much edit warring. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing your very clear & realistic comments at the DRV of Bigotgate, I would have thought you'd want to say the like at the main related DRV. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, Mick, calm down. Make your point rationally without getting so hostile about it. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. 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. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What ever happened to assuming good faith? The article is about the Premier League Golden Boot. They do not give an award to the top-scoring Englishman in the Premier League each season, so although it may be interesting to know, it's not appropriate to put that info in an article about a strictly defined award. – Pee Jay 19:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On 13 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 UEFA Europa League Final, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
Thankyou for your updates to the background and teams sections - Dumelow ( talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Cup Sculpture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bobby Moore Sculpture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your interest in continuing to change this entry?
So what would be a compromise? Is it just the term architectural designer that you object to? Cecil Balmond is an architect and a designer and a structural engineer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying nothing is unacceptable - So can we compromise and use architect and structural engineer...(see NY Times:An Engineering Magician, Then (Presto) He’s an Architect November26, 2006)...? I'm sorry architectural designer is meaningless to you - but it is a viable career pursuit and those who engage it this field might find your position offensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you speak for either of these gentlemen...and if you are correct about giving a monkey - back off.... Balmond's genius is far more reaching ..... again - what is your interest in defining Balmond so narrowly? Do you work for Anish Kapoor and wish to "big up" his role? That might be consider disingenuous...guess when there's nothing else there's always an insult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are Kapoor's personal agent your defining of Balmond is inappropriate. I am working with Balmond. Perhaps we can communicate more directly to avoid further discourse and collaborate? Could you provide your contact information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisse2 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Premier League Golden Boot, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On 28 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Gyaneshwari Express derailment, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- tariqabjotu 09:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ITV first election debate 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ArcelorMittal Orbit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just letting ya know. I'm neither a fan or an opponent of Giacomo. GoodDay ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at AN/I MickMac, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and you've managed to put your points across in a way which makes sense :). Cheers, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, you're one tough cookie. I'll be watching, to see how the Arbitration goes. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You really want WP:RFC/U, not WP:AN. The goal here is a minimization of drama and some sort of orderly discussion. Presumably. Happy editing. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to use this new username. Could you please enable email. -- Mydisakl ( talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Tremendous article!!-- Bcp67 ( talk) 07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant article i admire your love of sausage! -- 82.4.12.226 ( talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this: [6].
I understood your qualm to be with the apparent immunity to blocking afforded to Giano, rather than with Giano himself. On multiple occasions, he has been unblocked on flimsy or invalid grounds. Recently you said that the reversal of my block on the grounds that (basically) "Giano is unblockable" was wrong; this I would agree with. I would suggest that you address this issue instead of proposing Giano be banned, though in this I'm probably biased because as much as I disagree with his 'special status', I think he plays an invaluable role in our community. Moreover, my opinion is that he should be allowed to continue to fill this unique role, so long as he does so without resorting to personal attacks and other unpleasantness. Thoughts? AGK 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Workforce (horse), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Why have you re-opened the AfD? If you disgree with the closure the correct action is to take it to WP:DRV. Mjroots ( talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Your repeated replies to the above Afd and subsequent review are becoming rather tedious. You have made your opinions very clear, and there should be no need for you to keep repeating them. Please have the good grace to allow other users to express their interpretations of the various guidelines without being constantly hassled. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) (logged on as Pek) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mickmacnee,
Is this you, or someone pretending to be you to stir up trouble: Special:Contributions/I AM eeNcaMkciM? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel your pain. We wrote WP:EVENT to try to help this kind of situation, and still editors just battle WP:GNG against WP:NOTNEWS. I would comment at DRV, but it's heading to a snow endorse so I won't waste my time. I'd leave the article a while, nine days is too close to the event for anyone to get real perspective. After a few weeks or months it'll be much more obvious if this was just a flash-in-the-pan or actually something worth writing about, and when the "zomg a train crash happened near me!" emotions are calmed down other options such as a merge will be more readily considered. Fences& Windows 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"For 99.999% of other editors, there would have been a swift and predictable response to ..." - strike me out from your statistics, please. East of Borschov ( talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain your dismissal of Jonty Haywood's hypothesis of the origins of The Game as 'unreliable source'. Regardless of his involvement in the 'Porthemmet Beach hoax', if Jonty is positing this as a theory and not fact, how can you cite this as 'unreliable'? Robert The Rebuilder ( talk) 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your words at [7] regarding the respect due to this WP:BLP and the fact that AFDs should not be used as a form of proxy to attack living persons in the nomination statement. I plan to bring this up for more discussion, after that whole thing is over. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, [9]. Thoughts regarding this? -- Cirt ( talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Can you please direct me to wherever it is that "people are arguing massively that this is historically notable"? Presumably the fact that they are doing so indicates that alternative views are being expressed. What steps are being taken to see that every other minor mishap to have occurred on this line over the years receives an equivalent level of coverage in the article? – Signalhead < T > 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13#Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"The page is accepted as is by hundreds of editors, respect that or take it off your watchlist"
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alex Rowe (soldier), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why you changed the section title "Beginning of knockout stage" (starting on Saturday 26 June) to "Knockout matches". The "knockout stage" (as per 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage) runs from 26 June through to the final on July 11. After your edit, it appears that "Knockout matches" are only from 26 June to 29 June, and it may even appear to some to be only on 26 June itself. Facts707 ( talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. 95.149.77.132 ( talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't HAVE to be a nice person, but it might help if you are. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed ( talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue ( talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You may have missed my post on the talk page, so here it is. "This has nothing to do with Scotland. This has to do with you insisting that British should be included if Irish is. If you think both are wrong you should never be insisting on either of them. Give your argument, and sources, against the use of Irish and leave out the retaliatory nonsense". If you don't agree with that then I don't know what else to say. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a funny way of leaving edit summaries in excitement. Besides, I like how "goal" sounds with an extended "o", I would have otherwise just said something like "Goal scored". But how does a null edit "clear" a "distracting edit summary"? It's still there, after all. CycloneGU ( talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Mick. I've had a closer look at your text in the collapsable box on the N.Ireland talk page. If I may suggest that you could uncollapse it and place it at the bottom in it's own section, perhaps witholding your own remarks until people have a chance to respond. If I may be so bold as to suggest that if you leave your anger/annoyance/frustration behind it may be easier for others to reply to your questions. I will say one thing though, I would have believed that N.Irish should have been the only demonym to be used. We now have that source for Irish, which you and others disagree with. This is for me the crux of the argument and why you are questioning it so often. I'm hoping a collegiate conversation pertaining to your questions may go some way to resolving this dispute. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear MickMacNee, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mo ainm ~Talk 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the information about Noriega and some of wikireader41's posts - sum total: you're right, the news about Noriega isn't anything special in his case and has actually been accrued over a long and relatively predictable time-line; yes, wikireader41 does make several unsubstantiated claims; and yes, it is important to distinguish the useful users from those whose I.Q. is less than their edit count. However, I still remain in support of this posting for the reasons I've stated above, and I still point out that our collective job here is not to post what's most popular but what's most Important. That is what separates us from other media, while the rest of the media in this world is busy bringing you what's popular because it pays more, we have the ability to actually report what matters, what is actually important to history. Also, I still say that the continuing purpose of Wikipedia will only be served if we all carry ourselves professionally. That's what WP:Civil is for. We have to at least accept the opinions given and if they're inept and stupid, then explain that to community so we all get it. If we go around demanding perfection and then flame on users for posting something, then all we will have accomplished is to make Wikipedia a small group of elitist a**holes who consider themselves to be the final word in information; like Britannica ;). All we will have done is to turn Wikipedia into another gay encyclopedia. We can't let douche-bags turn us into douche-bags, we're better than that, Wikipedia is better than that. Cwill151 ( talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I missed your notes on your talk page until after I had posted this, my bad.
In regards to the "evidence" needed to prove that an issue is important enough to merit placement on ITN, aren't there at least some issues whose importance we have the ability to determine for ourselves, without any concrete evidence? To illustrate my point, two days ago I added an ITN candidate about the U.S. Government seizing the domains of websites accused of copyright infringement, you might remember. You opposed placement by citing the general lack of interest from world media surrounding the issue, and maybe you were right? If the standard of importance is measured by how many people care... then yes, perhaps it wasn't ITN worthy because no one gave it a second thought. But this is the point: this issue will very likely be important shortly. It's not hard to imagine this action being used as a judicial precedent to shut down other websites and file-sharing networks that deal in copyrighted material, and from there it's just that little, easy legislative step to the legal liability of private citizens who have or share copyrighted material. So, when people open their newspapers five or six years from now and read that due to a recent court ruling, ordinary citizens can be fined for possessing pirated media, and they wonder, "how did this happen?" "all I wanted to do was to watch an episode I missed from my favorite TV show, and now I've been convicted of a crime?"; they can read all about it on Wikipedia. They could look back and see (if it was posted) that we got it first, we knew what was actually important to the world even though no one gave a rat's a** about the story when it first came out. We could see the effect this would have on the world and so we posted it. My point being: I believe there are cases when media attention is irrelevant in deciding what is and what is not important to the world. Can't we sometimes take a story on it's own merits? Hindsight is always 20/20. Cwill151 ( talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's very difficult to make a comprehensive edit summary when I make blanket edits to articles. I agree that "cleanup" isn't exactly explanatory, but there just isn't enough room in the edit summary box to summarise what I've done. With regard to the World Cup final article, if anyone has aspirations of getting it to Good Article status and beyond, it really does need a solid cleanup, and consolidating sections like "Finalists" and "World Cup firsts" into a "Background" section makes perfect sense. Have a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final for similar style. – Pee Jay 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked without warning for making just two reverts of the same content, one [10] following an unexplained removal of the perfectly valid and policy compliant content, which is something which it is perfectly legitimate to revert, the other [11] with a fully explained edit summary responding to the finally provided ratinale in their second, complete revert. Then I made a partial third revert [12] which, based on the prior edit summaries, can in no way be considered a revert for the purposes of the edit warring principles, because it was clearly being made in an effort to move forward in a constructive manner, which, given the reverting editor singularly failed to show any willingness to use DR, seems perfectly reasonable. All in all, this sequence of events is in no way a classic edit war, and does not warrant immediate blocking of this nature, where the blockee has totally failed to engage with either me or the other party. What is more troubling about this block though, is that I am blocked, yet the other editor who made the initial no summary removal and revert, Chensiyuan ( talk · contribs), has not been blocked. He simply went silent, and then returned, while in the mean time, another editor continued the dispute, an editor who evidently is held in high regard by Chensiyuan, and with whom he has collaborated with similar tag team reverts before on this same article. With that in mind, it's hard to see this sequence of events as anything other than a way to remove one party of a dispute, while giving tacit approval to the other. I accept the second and third edit summaries maybe lacking in civility, but the points about their nature w.r.t. edit warring violations in principle is valid, and that tone must be seen in the context that the Thierry Henry article has been, for an extremely long time now, under the tag team ownership of those two editors, and their modus operandi based on tonight's evidence seems to be to say nothing initially in edit summaries to rack up the numbers (and some of his other edit summries bear examination to see his nature, calling people's additions crap and junk, he has clearly got serious issues with not being able to follow DR, and seems to think anyone who disagrees with him over the precise content and prose of that article is an 'irresponsible editor'), nor use the talk page as it becomes clear to them that their edits are wholly disputed, and instead just game the opponent into being blocked, although I obviously dispute I've even done anything to be blocked in that regard, not when one examines my edit summaries, and my intent, at least behind the third, partial, revert, if taking the first two as literal and disruptive edit warring, which is also extremely harsh, and especially naive without looking at the treatment of Chensiyuan, who is not even warned even now bear in mind. Apparently, seeing the assymetry in this block, it seems to be a successful strategy of theirs. If one or both comes here to stand up for me and protest this clear unfairness in the face of their gaming and outright hostile behaviour as they go about their ownership tasks at that article, I might reconsider, but I am not holding my breath. And before anyone thinks of declining with a 'NOTTHEM', my primary unblock rationale is at the start, and is all about my actions alone, I don't need or want their actions to even come into it, if you are one of those admins who is so inclined to take such an approach, however unfair and amoral that may be. The rest is just background context for those who may be unaware of the history of that article and these editor's involvement in it, and to explain why I might start swearing very soon if an admin arrive here and effectively flips me off without reading any of this.
Decline reason:
Let's do this point by point:
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.
Beeblebrox, granted, the other editor was not blocked at the time of the request -- it took a couple more reverts for me to be sure he was past the line. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious!-- Mike Cline ( talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
He was a prominent investigative journalist who was assassinated just before releasing a damning report into corruption. It's patently obvious he's notable - if he hadn't been killed he'd survive an AfD without a hitch. It is hardly surprising that, one day after his assassination, most of the media is, y'know, focusing on the assassination. Rebecca ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
On 30 July 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Kasai River disaster, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Courcelles ( talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Just to say that I appreciate your calm, civil discussion and interaction with other editors over the issue of the list of names of passengers in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article. Mjroots ( talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On August 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick. First apologies for the words a friend of mine used earlier concerning the removal of an external link on the Andy McNab page. I understand you are opposed to the presence of this link. Since Grey Man's Land is the best and complete source of information on McNab you can find on Internet I believe it's a valuable addition. Our main goal is to promote McNabs work and give all the latest info (our News Page) on his projects, book signings, new published books etc. Things that are not to be added to the page itself but is still very valuable to those who want to know more about Andy McNab and to know about upcoming projects. As this is nowhere elsewhere on the Net, I'd like you to reconsider, but at least explain why you believe this link should not be there. Thanks and kind regards ACatharina ( talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please tone down your comments. No need to pass judgement on others. RadioFan ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, please do not remove other's comments from talk pages such as was done here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MickMacNee/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RadioFan ( talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You made a comment at WT:BISE which I removed here. I do not need editorialising, nor do I need an annotated version of the page. I can read, I can see what is going on, and your assistance in helping me understand is not required. TFOWR 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I guess I'm going to be blocked for supporting you. Ne'er mind. Good luck! LemonMonday Talk 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have attracted an impersonator. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I suppose you should be please ;-) They're blocked anyway. Let me know if you see any more. TFOWR 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added a bit on the METAR, but put the code in the ref. I hope that you find this acceptable. Mjroots ( talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - I don't believe we've interacted before, but I just saw your comments at WT:ITN here [14] [15] and thought I should remind you about our WP:Civility policy. Clearly this is an issue you feel strongly about, but that doesn't justify talk about 'patronising bollocks' and 'poxy countries'. Try to remember to keep cool in future, and if you're feeling stressed, take a wikibreak or edit elsewhere rather than continue with the dispute that's annoying you. Thanks for reading. Robofish ( talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's look at this edit
Your edit summary says "rm fatality name per BLP, no encyclopoedic reason for inclusion"
She is dead. Once someone is dead, BLP has no effect for that person whatsoever.
Also the fact that she is the only one to die means that her name warrants special attention for inclusion. If 20 people died, one wouldn't make a point of listing all of their names in that paragraph. But she is the only one dead, so her name warrants special attention.
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
On 19 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article France national football team, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. Thanks, wjemather bigissue 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The black ball final. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. wjemather bigissue 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
3RR report Off2riorob ( talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Although you haven't been offered the opportunity you would be able to revert your last edit. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed part of your post(s) here. (I removed part of another editor's post(s) too). I realise the pair of you have issues with each other, but frankly I do not care very much. Both of you are being disruptive. I've now closed the entire thread with no action taken - instead of locating sources the pair of you have bickered and I've had enough. If you two can't disengage of your own accords I'll enforce disengagement. I'd prefer to have some sort of topic-ban option to keep the pair of you off WT:BISE but in the absence of that I'll settle for a block. TFOWR 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
[16]
Doc Quintana (
talk)
22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I know you're not my biggest fan, but I've come here, not as an admin but just as a fellow editor, to just ask you to consider the way you say things and how that may be perceived by others. I don't doubt that grudges and personal vendettas have their own role to play in many of the conflicts you find yourself in and in the events that lead up to the ANI thread. I also know that there is at least one nutter who likes to create accounts to impersonate you, hence our friend MickMacNee3. However, if you could dial down the tone of some of your posts, such as (but not exclusively), those to WP:ITN/C, I, on a personal level, would be very grateful. The irony is that the points you make are often correct, but the way you express them is not conducive to healthy debate of the point and, in fact, detracts from the validity of the point you're making. I've no problem if you want to wipe this from your talk page or make no reply, but please consider it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed an addition to the essay WP:AIRCRASH at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Automatic notability. Your comments are welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Stig (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Stig. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Actors portrayed posthumously, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
On 1 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Iraq War, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
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. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive behaviour at AfD. Thank you. Mjroots ( talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "it makes me question your basic competency as an editor" is going a bit beyond the pale SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make
personal attacks on other people as you did at
WP:ANI, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "his total inability to understand WP:AFD" -- umm, I think you're missing something here.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Note to self: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added my response to the RFC you raised against me. It is now down to the community as to whether or not they certify the RFC. I have raised on the talk page the issue of another editor adding you as certifying the RFC, and also asked at AN for a review of this.
You mentioned a possible RFC on the notability of aircraft crashes. I agree that this is probably a good idea as the essay WP:AIRCRASH isn't as widely accepted now as it was in the past, and has a few holes.
What I'd like to do, is to see if we can agree on a minimum threshold of notaility. This would mainly be size based, with a lower size requirement going back in time. Deaths can also be considered for notability purposes. I think that once we know exactly where each other stands, then there will be less chance of misunderstandings as to what each other considers notable or non-notable, thus avoiding disputes.
Are you willing to engage with me in trying to establish some possible parameters which can then be presented at RFC of elsewhere? Mjroots ( talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I will be reporting your recent actions in refactoring comments made on this discussion page. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
Hi. In relation to your comments here, can I reiterate Woody's call for you to participate in the Premier League featured article review? We do seem to have got bogged down with stylistic issues when the article is clearly lacking in more substantive respects. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might want to know that WP:FUCK is up for MfD, since you commented before on its talk page. Historically, since many opposed to the essay do not watch the page, they don't know when it hits MfD. The last MfD was speedy kept after being open just a few hours IIRC. I'm trying to get a constructive dialog going between the various opinions, and this is starting to happen. You can find it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) if you care to comment. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey man, you seem to be getting a little upset at that AfD. While the purpose of AfD is to discuss the articles, you're not going to win any points by a) arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, or b) telling the closing admin what he should or should not pay attention to. Of course, both are within your rights... but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. At this point you can rest assured that every visitor to that page will be well aware of your point of view, and for the sake of your own happiness, you would probably do well just to walk away from it and let it unfold however it will. If the article should be deleted, other editors will take up the cause. If it shouldn't be deleted, there's no use wasting any more time there. Not saying you can't, just saying you shouldn't. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are using my talk page as a Mick forum? You have a propensity to dispel vast amounts of verbiage at any detractor but surely there is a better place to spew, perhaps at your arbcom?! FWiW, I will be archiving the recent exchanges and have no interest in maintaining a relationship with you. Bzuk ( talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
MickMacNee, exactly what administrative contributions at AfDs do you mean? As I stated in my RFC, my contributions at AfD are in my capacity as an editor. This is supported by no less than 14 other editors.
I note that you are threatening to take me to ARBCOM over my administerial conduct. You are free to try, but I fear you will be wasting your time as you will not be able to show any abuse of admin tools / powers by myself. The position, as far as I see it, is that we are two editors who have a difference of opinion as to the notability of certain events. It is immaterial that I am an admin, as the vast majority of the time I am not acting in an administrative capacity.
If you feel the my post on Bzuk's talk page was inappropriate, please feel free to raise it at ANI. Mjroots ( talk) 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
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. Sven Manguard Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243? The frustrating thing, mate, is that you're right! Yes, it's bloody obvious we've got a game of "follow the leader" going on and you're quite correct that drive by "keep per the person before me" are worthless, but people would pay a lot more attention to you if you were just a bit less confrontational about it. I know AfD gets heated, I've been in my fair share of similar situations, but the way you make your point is as important, if not more so, as the point itself. Please, just take a deep breath before replying to people who disagree with you, no matter how idiotic your think their point is. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Northumberland Development Project.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But there seems to be a discussion about you proceeding to unfold on my talkpage. -- ۩ M ask 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You do seem to have a penchant for "the lady doth protest too much" explanations as evidenced by some lengthy answers on my talk page. The reason so many editors, admins alike, have an aversion to your "style" is that you seem to have no social graces whatsoever. Despite the fact that I tend to agree with your arguments, you debase them immediately with your characterizations, which somehow you do not see as incivil. I cannot see how in good conscience that you do not understand that these statements are inflammatory especially when they are not attributed to like responses. What is the point of bashing someone? You take things immediately to the extreme by being constantly on the attack. In the short space of a day, you have called other editors, albeit dressed up with the verbiage that it was their actions: "ignorant", "out of whack", "completely irrelevant", "sub-standard arguments", "parrot like", "lazy", "giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards (sic)," "Fucking 'TLDR'," "pure and utter laziness", "stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for" and "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh."
The last retort made was simply ludicrous: "Now, have your last word," since you never let anything rest and always punctuate any discourse by the tactic of making the last statement. The wikistalking of anyone with an adverse opinion has also got to stop. I asked you once before to confine your comments to your own talk page or to the others', not ancillary editor's talk pages.
As to the inflated opinion you have of your contributions, a cursory examination reveals that you spend nearly all of your time in needless debates rather than doing the real work as you so quaintly put it: "I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia (sic) that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually..." I find your submissions are chock full of errors, exactly the kind that you rail against, evidence of "lazy", "rushed" and "unverified" work. If you wish to continue the discourse about these personal peccadilloes, I would be glad to continue our discourse. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Can we talk about this instead of reverting each other? I'm inclined to bring up a discussion on the template's talk page tomorrow since I want to hear the voices of others. Personally, I don't agree with untagging things that are clearly happening as a non-current event. I also believe that anything "In the News" should also be tagged by default. I'm interested in hearing what you say before I proceed. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, start a RFC. I don't mind being scrutinized, labotamized, amplified, terrorized etc etc. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest that any further comments in that thread not insult Snowded's (or anyone else's, naturally) intelligence, ditto ditto etc etc? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick,
I don't really understand the rationale given in your nomination of the Melniboné article. It'd be helpful if you could elaborate further [[ on the discussion page. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your edit [21]. I try to follow MOSDAB, so I'm interested in meaning behind your edit comment, especially as you seem to redo some of the edits?!. Confused. Widefox ( talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
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. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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. RGTraynor 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Sandstein
07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
{ The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock. Please review WP:GAB before filing any further unblock requests. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 30 October 2010 (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.
Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that "The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock." is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original charges, which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the Power Snooker article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually can do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with all pertinent lessons learned, trust me. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First, you do not get to choose who responds to your unblock requests - the original block was made based on clear direction from the ANI discussion. Frankness is not bad, but WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DICK are not sets of recommended behaviours. Neither is WP:SPIDERMAN. Here is my honest recommendation: right below this unblock, start drafting a list of possible restrictions that could be imposed on you in order to allow an unblock. Your list will clearly show whether or not you actually get why you're blocked. Below that, admins can suggets others. After that, we'll put it together and see how that works. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is getting more and more ridiculous. There was no support for a community ban in that thread before Sandstein got involved. The only issue being raised by people before he got involved was a POINT violation, which came from my frustration at how concerted civil POV pushing at the BISE topic is being adminned, or not as the case maybe, and how nobody at that ANI thread was in the slightest bit interested in even acknowledging anything except basic and obvious civility catches like Triton. But Sandstein rejects a topic ban from BISE as a solution, so that's out. As for the suggestion that I don't know why I'm blocked, or I just need to realise what I can do about it, I have to burst this bubble I'm afraid. When Sandstein decided to get involved, he made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me at least, that he does not believe I can do anything about the reason for my block, which was clearly and simply put as my block log length, and my inherent personality flaws. He believes I will always disrupt, always, always, (eventualy, he has to stretch that characterisation over several years mind, and several different kinds of disruption, and somehow his lack of being able to put a concrete finger on what 'it' is, such as by pointing to an Rfc, is somehow an issue for me, not him?), and he has thus swooped in well after the event, and blocked me indefinitely as a protection of the pedia. I can't change my block log (infact, I am clearly being punished for not being smart enough to not practice account hopping/whitewashing), and while I can promise to moderate my personality, I don't how I can put that into a proposed editting restriction to anybody's satisfaction. You either believe me or you don't on that score. Sandstein doesn't. I can promise to follow policy, but again, I don't see how that translates to a restriction. Sandstein clearly wanted a ban discussion, without having to have a ban discussion. He sort of got it, but even after he blocked me, there are clear dissenting voices both to the logic of his indef block given his statements, and exactly how disruptive I really am (and it is also clouded by having unidentified clear biased opinions in there who can barely conceal their joy, while not revealing that they are not exactly independent reviewers and have a vested interest in such a block-which-is-a-ban development). He is not interested in the slightest though. He is now trying to pass this off onto other admins now, and rather insultingly, is comparing an indef ban on me, a long term proven good contributor, to that which you slap on a basic, flat out first 100 edits disruptor/vandal [23], as if the cases, and the exit options, are remotely the same. This is all in the environment that I am incivil? Sorry, but no, this is just baiting. But I'm not biting, yet. Sandstein is for some reason, leaving it to other admins to have the 'community discussion' he originally referred to, about what I or the community should do before I can be un-blocked, but why is it down to them to figure out what to propose that will satisfy him? Unless or until this issue is sorted, unless or until he either phrases this as a non-fait accompli indef block, which he isn't exactly busting a gut to follow though, or as a properly proposed community ban, to see if the community shares his low low opinion of me, then you are going to have to believe when I say I don't have a fucking clue what you want from me with regard to suggested restriction proposals, and this whole exercise still looks for all the world like a ban discussion, which lasted eight hours and got one person's comment before it was actually enacted. Call this SPIDER or whatever, I call it being ignored after the event, when I can do nothing about it, and whereby, seemingly now if no admin comes along to make any suggestion whatsoever, and Sandstein certainly won't, then I'm defacto banned. All this in an editing environment where even BetaCommand is getting away with still violating actual proper written down and clear community sanctions that he was under, after not only Rfcs but even two arbitration cases, and still only getting a three week block!. And this indef-block is about simply preventing certain disruption based on nothing but me having been blocked a few times over years? No Rfc, no other discussion, no nothing. Come on, there is much more going on here, there is a definite malice, maliciousness and injustice to this whole sequence of events, and in particular to Sandstein's whole approach to me, personally. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In case you did not notice, I'm attempting to help you become unblocked below. My own doing - you're generally a proficient editor, and I - with no prompting from others - am trying to work with you to be unblocked in a way that helps you and the project. If you choose not to participate, feel free to mope and whine that you don't get a fair shake instead. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
After this edit summary [24], it is not unreasonable to presume that the discussion is pointless. The user is uninterested in working things through with the community, and should be considered community banned. Appeals go to arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. -- Scott Mac 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Mick, I'm hoping your indef-block will be lifted. In the meantime, I'd recommend avoid using colourful language, as it tends to heighten tension among others. GoodDay ( talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Power Snooker logo.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't like me. So, I realise posting here might be considered baiting or trolling. If that's the case, remove this and call me what you will, and I'll not trouble you again. However, sometimes only Nixon can come to China (which of us is Nixon and which is China, I'll leave aside), so I'd like to make you an offer. I've not looked at the circumstances of your block, and I'm quite open to the possibility it may be harsh or unfair. It's quite easy to take you the wrong way (Indeed, it took me while to realise that, despite the expletives, this is constructive "fair comment", and actually quite funny) and perhaps that's what happened here.
Given doubts over the block, I am somewhat tempted to unblock you. (I lack consensus to do that but, as you know, that seldom constrains my use of abusive admin power!). My problem is that, if I'm honest, my initial reaction to your indef block (and I expect the reaction of many others) was "well, he had that coming". People are of the opinion that you and wikipedia were bound to part company eventually. Now, that may well be not entirely your fault. It may be because Wikipedia is shit and can't handle people like you. But the problem that it gives me is that if I unblock you, it may well be in the expectation that it won't matter because you'll just get banned over something else. So, my unblock becomes a trolling designed to give you enough rope to hang yourself. And then we can all say "ah, well, that was inevitable wasn't it", and feel smug and superior again.
So, let me ask right now. Would it be trolling you if I were to unblock you? Is there any way you could work with the shit that Wikipedia is in a manner that the bastards won't just reblock you for a better reason next week?-- Scott Mac 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Mick, would you consider that the unusual circumstances of this accident would justify a stand-alone article or not. It's mentioned under the list of rail accidents covering 2010, and at Oxshott railway station. Asking first to avoid drama later. Mjroots ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The current WP:AIRCRASH guideline never really had a consensus and it does not appear to reflect some of the discussions at articles for deletion. We need to change the emphasis that it must meet the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and that it should only be a guide and not a scorecard to take to AfD. I have proposed a simpler guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability and tried to capture the trend from the AfDs. With your experience at AfDs your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
MMN, I am not sure if you are aware; but a discussion has already started at WP:ANI featuring you... L.tak ( talk) 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to understand your need to respond to many of the evaluations people make who are generally opposed to you in AfD. I observe that you feel the need to give meta-instructions regarding various wikipedia policies to the closing admin. I understand that many visitors to the AfD pages do not know how to express their thoughts about the article, however sometimes a well written justification is all that needs to be said unless you would have subsequent editors re-hashing the same handful of justifications over and over. I also observe that you do not inquire to the same degree of thoroughness the editors that do tend to agree with your viewpoint.
It has been my impression that administrators are fairly well versed in wikipedia policy and can make assessments by themselves regarding the community consensus and the various wikipedia policies that are applicable in deletion discussions. In short, I would like to understand your philosophy so that I may attempt to reduce some of the challanges regarding your deletions. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay ( talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scottish football referee strike, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that due to the Scottish football referee strike, foreign officials from Israel, Luxembourg and Malta were used as replacements? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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". Hey Mid ( contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 [27]. I'd appreciate any comments you could give there if you're interested, as well. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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. Hey Mid ( 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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It occurs to me that you might be able to contribute to this ref desk discussion: [1] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It clearly is a completely different article, with 100% original content. It has a huge response section, and it addresses every single assertion that the article has no standing to exist. To address each one:
I will still file DRV, but will also point out that requiring a DRV for THIS situation is the definition of bureaucrazy [typo intended]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Why remove this sourced information?
Abdulmutallab travelled to Yemen in August of 2009 to study Arabic, and in October had cut off contact with his family. His worried father reported his disappearance and "extreme religious views" to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria on November 17. As a result, Abdulmutallab's name was added to the U.S.'s central international terrorist database, but not to shorter search-before-boarding and no-fly lists, and a two-year U.S multi-entry visa granted to him in 2008, was not revoked. Several reports of pre-attack intelligence linked Abdulmutallab to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based, senior al-Qaeda member who was also linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers and may have helped to radicalize and motivate the Fort Hood shooter. Reports also indicated the U.S. had received intelligence regarding a planned attack by a Yemeni-based Nigerian man. Abdulmutallab trained at Al-Qaeda camps in Yemen where Awlaki was one of his trainers, the imam who personally blessed the attack, [1] and is believed to have helped plan the attack. [2]
Bachcell ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I might not always agree with your methods, but I have to compliment you for this. Thanks for taking the petition in good humor. :-) — David Levy 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
Hi, kinda confused cause I just delivered the above newsletter to you. Who you were referring too when you wrote: "You are no leader, you're incompetent."
If it was Berian he is a ARS member too.
Regardless of who this comment was addressed to, could you please strike or remove it? Thank you. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MickMacNee. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey MickMacNee. I think it would help out a lot if you would "tweak" your comment a little. I know emotions are running high on that issue and obviously I won't be blocking anyone :) and I understand where you're coming from, but I think your comment is a little over the top. Bearian is a pretty nice fellow. He just doesn't agree with you on this issue. I don't either. You can call me names though, I'm used to it. ;) Cheers. Have a good weekend.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee, activate your email, I need to explain what is going on, and how to help you.
?. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to edit war with you, but please do not move my comments. "precedence" is not something we run Wikipedia on and you don't have the option of removing anything that disagrees with your point from a page you started. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your productive response. Please do not move my comments in the future. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to revert again without talking to you, but I doubt anyone wants to expand that section since that tag has been there for more than two years. And besides, nothing's stopping someone who is interested in making a section like that from doing so, i'm just looking to make the article a little cleaner in the meantime. Doc Quintana ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MickMacNee. Doc Quintana ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Spartaz
Humbug!
17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Indefinite is of non-fixed duration, it can be extended to a ban as often happens when a users evades blocks with socks. Dealing with socks is not that hard. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes I was incredibly rude to Doc Quintana, it was an unfortunate confluence of external factors and my perception that he was baiting me with his comments above. That was seemingly already dealt with by Spartaz with a weeks block, yet before I could even respond to that situation, I find myself kicked off the project permanently, seemingly on the whim of Prodego and a few people with axes to grind coming out of the woodwork. This is highly irregular, and frankly, totally unfair. If I am to be kicked off the project with not even an Rfc against my name, and I will have no issues if it goes down like that, I want it done legitimately, with a proper consensus of uninvolved editors with no vested interest in seeing me screwed over like this. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests that blame others are dismissed, see WP:NOTTHEM. I note the remarkable absence of anything resembling an apology. Sandstein 23:33, 31 January 2010 (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.
Mick, you mention that you wanted uninvolved editors to look this over. There is Wikipedia:ANI#User:MickMacNee where the community at large has been made aware of this block and is reviewing it. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I unconditionally apologise for the response to Doc Quintana above which was of course inexcusable. It was a heat of the moment post which came during an extremely difficult afternoon for me for reasons I really don't want to make public, which put me in a frame of mind to see intentional provocation where there was none, and I had no opportunity to rectify the situation before I noticed this indef. I of course fully acknowledge I have behavioural issues for which I have accrued a rather large block log, but in that time which has spanned several years I have imo made a good overall contribution to the project, not least by writing countless articles and improving thousands more. My first ineffective unblock request was genuinely the result of a perception that this, my first ever indefinite block, had unfairly come out of the blue with no warning, but this is of course irrelevant. Although it also hardly matters, as others pointed out, I have not been blocked or even warned for months as far as I am aware. On one issue though, while others might disagree, I do think it is highly relevant that, blocks and warnings apart, nobody has ever seen me to be so incompatible to the project as to instigate dispute resolution proceedings against me, or put me under any kind of special arrangement. Going forward though, I will accede to any arrangement or pre-condition that would see me be allowed to edit in future, with the trust of my colleagues. I don't think banishing users when their block log reaches a magic number teaches anybody anything except that it pays to keep cycling identities if you ever do get a block. I have made it a point never to hide my user history, I have never cycled my account and have never refactored my talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Because of the apparent honesty and forthrightness of the above, the indef block has already been amended to the original one week block. I hate to call this a "declined" unblock, more of an "declined immediate unblock, but happy to reduce from indef as per the will of community discussion." Note:this does not specifically preclude you from submitting another request for a more immediate unblock ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (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.
Just so you know, User:Gladys j cortez went ahead and reblocked for a week despite the unblock request being placed on hold. Since she didn't come by to leave you a note, I thought I'd do it. AniMate 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yo Mick, congratulations on your comments and as your pretty much a net asset to the wikipedia I hope you keep a lid on it in future. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Listen MickMacNee, this seems to be your last chance.
If you want to bitch about the project or an editor, DO IT OFF WIKI in e-mails. Talk about how much so and so is such an ass. Lord knows editors talk off wiki all the time (according to many arbitrators) If no editors that you can talk to immediately come to mind, you can e-mail me, when my email is back up this same time tomorrow. around 12 AM EST.
The best and most influential editors control their emotions (which I myself am still learning after 4 years), the editors who can't get banned, and quickly forgotten.
Ikip 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick,
If you ever feel like you are under pressure or that circumstances in your life are affecting you on-wiki, send me an email via the wiki. I'm happy to listen - think of it as a way of blowing off steam to a sympathetic ear. The emails will go no further than you and me.
Anyway, you may not feel you want to do this, but if you do the offer is there.
Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm an editor from the past, I dont get on much these days. But every so often I check on him to see a debate or two.
This guy MickMac should be admin IMO. Sickening that someone abusing admin, who I would bet has not contributed half as much, can clamp at the slightest opportunity like this. He is what makes wiki. He stretches the debates, highlights holes, he plays a part, he has never spammed, nor vandalised. He just contributed. Wiki needs him.
TBH I'm outraged at the power flexing of an indefinate ban.
He is hardly a bad user, just look at what he has contributed, the articles he has created.
-- 82.39.72.210 ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit I've just realised its a week ban-- 82.39.72.210 ( talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The articles he has created are mostly trivial. I cant wait for the admins to stop sitting on their hands and give out a full ban. It would be no great loss. 95.149.78.143 ( talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To be frank mate, I think you are a bit of a confrontational bastard, but excellent contributions like this and your work saving the France-Ireland game from deletion show that you are a great contributor to this website.
I get a bit would up by people like nationalist POV pushers, serial copyright infringers and lazy editors who can't even be bothered to source or categorise their articles despite numerous requests on their talkpage and I have become involved in a few wiki-conflicts in my time, not many in recent years though.
My advice is to "play the game", if some other editor winds you up, take a five minute break, chill out and ask for a 2nd opinion from one of the many people who recognise your value to the project. Also, try to remember that you can be forthright without being insulting. It is disappointing to have seen you provide the opportunity for admins to block you on so many occasions. It would be a real shame if you got banned over something stupid like telling someone to fuck off. (BTW feel free to tell me to fuck off if you disagree with my opening sentence, the word fuck is like a verbal punctuation mark in my workplace!) Regards King of the North East 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wikipedia mobile access ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Skomorokh 00:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help out. I am doing as many as I can, but there are lots of links to work through. See [4] and change [[Professional football]] to [[Professional American and Canadian football]]. Thanks. -- Jayron 32 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers 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! Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just started a GA Review of Top Gear Race to the North. The first thing I tend to do when starting a review is run an automated script to check for overlinking, which is an MoS issue - Wikipedia:Linking. Linking London is a small thing, and it's not going to have any impact on the review; but it's not needed, and somebody will come along at some point and either manually or with some semi-automated script, unlink it, so we might as well do it now and get it over with! Regards SilkTork * YES! 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting and attractive article with some decent research. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork * YES! 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — 95.149.78.107 ( talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi
User: Alzarian16 is actually trying to improve the article. They are trying to do this by shortening the article as the tags suggest that it's too long. One of the ideas is that part of the article is moved to another article, so in effect the article is split. This is being discussed at Talk: Lothian Buses, your comments would be appreciated :) -- 5 albert square ( talk) 00:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the issue I've raised about your DYK nom. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick, I'm not saying that the merge proposal is wrong, and it certainly hasn't been made in anything but good faith. It may be a bit premature, depending on how events unfold. We should get a good idea over the weekend whether or not the incident remains isolated or escalates. If the latter happens, there may be justification for separate articles on the ship and the incident. Mjroots ( talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Channel 4's Comedy Gala , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi MickMacNee,
Thank you for your support. As you may have noticed, the discussion has now been archived here.
I care a lot about this case and its more general implications. Could you please let me know how I can escalate it? I have seen many admin abuses before and some of them were even more disturbing, but this stands out as one of the most indefensible ones.
I have left a similar note to Resolute.
Thanks. 124.87.97.84 ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of West Loch Disaster 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! DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick, I'd really welcome it if you'd cut out the personal stuff. If you looked at my contributions to Wiki (even to your own pages such as British Hero of the Holocaust, Commando Memorial, West Loch etc) you'll see that my intention is simply to improve this encyclopedia. This extends to the discussion on international reactions. I do not appreciate your use of words such as "disgusting" and "offensive" with reference to my remarks. Of course I am sorry that you feel offended. I will not take any further part in those discussions on Poland etc, nor I will respond if you choose to make a response here. Kind regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mick, Having seen the Free Library piece, I understand the reason for your question. Their article does appear on the face of it to be a straight crib from Wikipedia AND THEY HAVE the brass neck to claim copyright protection for it. But to answer your question directly I can confirm that the wording is mine and was not copied from anywhere. Regards Ordyg ( talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick. In the Reception section do you think a bit of the reaction by the party leaders and the reaction of the SNP etc. should be included? I was thinking abou some of the reactions in this article. [5]. Thanks for weighing in on the article name btw. Leaky Caldron 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I agree with you on the naming thing, but you shouldn't see every opposing point as something to challenge- just try to calmly express why you disagree rather challenging them with "how is that relevant...". Why don't you look upon the new title as a step in the right direction rather than another obstacle? It's definitely worth having a discussion about it even if the result is to leave it where it is, but that discussion would be a lot better if it wasn't simply dominated by 2 or 3 of the strongest personalities trying to shout each other down, which is the way it seems to be heading atm. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was expecting protestations against the new title, but not this kind. More important to me, is getting all the monarchial titles changed to Name number & Name number (country) where necessary. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
An eye on the future: If you think the naming of the Elizabeth II article was/is a headache? Imagine if her successor chooses the name Charles III? GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that admin Tanthalas39 closed the thread on crash at your request, however it was done on Jack Merridew version which sends an extremely bad message that violating AfD decisions is not a big deal. And I would say that my message to the admin that closed it was not taken seriously but rather in the sense that I am another idiot who doesn't understand that closing is not an endorsment of that version, as if this was some kind of a content dispute. Closing admin apparently thinks it's boring, and another admin cracked a joke on me how I am asking for a wrong version to be returned to another wrong version, again not comprehending that this is not a content dispute. I am not sure what do do?-- Avala ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have left a message of the discussion page and not reverted anything. Please read this and add your feedback. -- Cexycy ( talk) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And congrats on over 29.5K in page views!!-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi I saw that you undid my link to Rascalize as being 'original research' which seems a little odd. I am not too well versed in the ways of wiki so how should I have written the disambig - perhaps you could help improve it rather than simply wiping it off (the reason I'd come to wiki was to try and find out what the term meant having heard that song so I think that the link might be useful to others in reverse)
Thanks for clarifying
M Malikbek ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that my edits was reverted without explanation. That's a violation of WP:BRD policy. I expect an explanation on the talk page shortly. If this isn't forthcoming you are in practice refusing to discuss the issue, and what you are doing is then pretty much edit warring. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing your very clear & realistic comments at the DRV of Bigotgate, I would have thought you'd want to say the like at the main related DRV. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, Mick, calm down. Make your point rationally without getting so hostile about it. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. 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. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What ever happened to assuming good faith? The article is about the Premier League Golden Boot. They do not give an award to the top-scoring Englishman in the Premier League each season, so although it may be interesting to know, it's not appropriate to put that info in an article about a strictly defined award. – Pee Jay 19:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On 13 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 UEFA Europa League Final, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
Thankyou for your updates to the background and teams sections - Dumelow ( talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Cup Sculpture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bobby Moore Sculpture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your interest in continuing to change this entry?
So what would be a compromise? Is it just the term architectural designer that you object to? Cecil Balmond is an architect and a designer and a structural engineer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying nothing is unacceptable - So can we compromise and use architect and structural engineer...(see NY Times:An Engineering Magician, Then (Presto) He’s an Architect November26, 2006)...? I'm sorry architectural designer is meaningless to you - but it is a viable career pursuit and those who engage it this field might find your position offensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you speak for either of these gentlemen...and if you are correct about giving a monkey - back off.... Balmond's genius is far more reaching ..... again - what is your interest in defining Balmond so narrowly? Do you work for Anish Kapoor and wish to "big up" his role? That might be consider disingenuous...guess when there's nothing else there's always an insult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 ( talk) 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are Kapoor's personal agent your defining of Balmond is inappropriate. I am working with Balmond. Perhaps we can communicate more directly to avoid further discourse and collaborate? Could you provide your contact information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisse2 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Premier League Golden Boot, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On 28 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Gyaneshwari Express derailment, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- tariqabjotu 09:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ITV first election debate 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ArcelorMittal Orbit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just letting ya know. I'm neither a fan or an opponent of Giacomo. GoodDay ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at AN/I MickMac, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and you've managed to put your points across in a way which makes sense :). Cheers, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, you're one tough cookie. I'll be watching, to see how the Arbitration goes. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You really want WP:RFC/U, not WP:AN. The goal here is a minimization of drama and some sort of orderly discussion. Presumably. Happy editing. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to use this new username. Could you please enable email. -- Mydisakl ( talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Tremendous article!!-- Bcp67 ( talk) 07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant article i admire your love of sausage! -- 82.4.12.226 ( talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this: [6].
I understood your qualm to be with the apparent immunity to blocking afforded to Giano, rather than with Giano himself. On multiple occasions, he has been unblocked on flimsy or invalid grounds. Recently you said that the reversal of my block on the grounds that (basically) "Giano is unblockable" was wrong; this I would agree with. I would suggest that you address this issue instead of proposing Giano be banned, though in this I'm probably biased because as much as I disagree with his 'special status', I think he plays an invaluable role in our community. Moreover, my opinion is that he should be allowed to continue to fill this unique role, so long as he does so without resorting to personal attacks and other unpleasantness. Thoughts? AGK 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Workforce (horse), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Why have you re-opened the AfD? If you disgree with the closure the correct action is to take it to WP:DRV. Mjroots ( talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Your repeated replies to the above Afd and subsequent review are becoming rather tedious. You have made your opinions very clear, and there should be no need for you to keep repeating them. Please have the good grace to allow other users to express their interpretations of the various guidelines without being constantly hassled. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) (logged on as Pek) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mickmacnee,
Is this you, or someone pretending to be you to stir up trouble: Special:Contributions/I AM eeNcaMkciM? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel your pain. We wrote WP:EVENT to try to help this kind of situation, and still editors just battle WP:GNG against WP:NOTNEWS. I would comment at DRV, but it's heading to a snow endorse so I won't waste my time. I'd leave the article a while, nine days is too close to the event for anyone to get real perspective. After a few weeks or months it'll be much more obvious if this was just a flash-in-the-pan or actually something worth writing about, and when the "zomg a train crash happened near me!" emotions are calmed down other options such as a merge will be more readily considered. Fences& Windows 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"For 99.999% of other editors, there would have been a swift and predictable response to ..." - strike me out from your statistics, please. East of Borschov ( talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain your dismissal of Jonty Haywood's hypothesis of the origins of The Game as 'unreliable source'. Regardless of his involvement in the 'Porthemmet Beach hoax', if Jonty is positing this as a theory and not fact, how can you cite this as 'unreliable'? Robert The Rebuilder ( talk) 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your words at [7] regarding the respect due to this WP:BLP and the fact that AFDs should not be used as a form of proxy to attack living persons in the nomination statement. I plan to bring this up for more discussion, after that whole thing is over. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, [9]. Thoughts regarding this? -- Cirt ( talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Can you please direct me to wherever it is that "people are arguing massively that this is historically notable"? Presumably the fact that they are doing so indicates that alternative views are being expressed. What steps are being taken to see that every other minor mishap to have occurred on this line over the years receives an equivalent level of coverage in the article? – Signalhead < T > 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13#Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"The page is accepted as is by hundreds of editors, respect that or take it off your watchlist"
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alex Rowe (soldier), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why you changed the section title "Beginning of knockout stage" (starting on Saturday 26 June) to "Knockout matches". The "knockout stage" (as per 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage) runs from 26 June through to the final on July 11. After your edit, it appears that "Knockout matches" are only from 26 June to 29 June, and it may even appear to some to be only on 26 June itself. Facts707 ( talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. 95.149.77.132 ( talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't HAVE to be a nice person, but it might help if you are. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed ( talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue ( talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You may have missed my post on the talk page, so here it is. "This has nothing to do with Scotland. This has to do with you insisting that British should be included if Irish is. If you think both are wrong you should never be insisting on either of them. Give your argument, and sources, against the use of Irish and leave out the retaliatory nonsense". If you don't agree with that then I don't know what else to say. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a funny way of leaving edit summaries in excitement. Besides, I like how "goal" sounds with an extended "o", I would have otherwise just said something like "Goal scored". But how does a null edit "clear" a "distracting edit summary"? It's still there, after all. CycloneGU ( talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Mick. I've had a closer look at your text in the collapsable box on the N.Ireland talk page. If I may suggest that you could uncollapse it and place it at the bottom in it's own section, perhaps witholding your own remarks until people have a chance to respond. If I may be so bold as to suggest that if you leave your anger/annoyance/frustration behind it may be easier for others to reply to your questions. I will say one thing though, I would have believed that N.Irish should have been the only demonym to be used. We now have that source for Irish, which you and others disagree with. This is for me the crux of the argument and why you are questioning it so often. I'm hoping a collegiate conversation pertaining to your questions may go some way to resolving this dispute. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear MickMacNee, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mo ainm ~Talk 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the information about Noriega and some of wikireader41's posts - sum total: you're right, the news about Noriega isn't anything special in his case and has actually been accrued over a long and relatively predictable time-line; yes, wikireader41 does make several unsubstantiated claims; and yes, it is important to distinguish the useful users from those whose I.Q. is less than their edit count. However, I still remain in support of this posting for the reasons I've stated above, and I still point out that our collective job here is not to post what's most popular but what's most Important. That is what separates us from other media, while the rest of the media in this world is busy bringing you what's popular because it pays more, we have the ability to actually report what matters, what is actually important to history. Also, I still say that the continuing purpose of Wikipedia will only be served if we all carry ourselves professionally. That's what WP:Civil is for. We have to at least accept the opinions given and if they're inept and stupid, then explain that to community so we all get it. If we go around demanding perfection and then flame on users for posting something, then all we will have accomplished is to make Wikipedia a small group of elitist a**holes who consider themselves to be the final word in information; like Britannica ;). All we will have done is to turn Wikipedia into another gay encyclopedia. We can't let douche-bags turn us into douche-bags, we're better than that, Wikipedia is better than that. Cwill151 ( talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I missed your notes on your talk page until after I had posted this, my bad.
In regards to the "evidence" needed to prove that an issue is important enough to merit placement on ITN, aren't there at least some issues whose importance we have the ability to determine for ourselves, without any concrete evidence? To illustrate my point, two days ago I added an ITN candidate about the U.S. Government seizing the domains of websites accused of copyright infringement, you might remember. You opposed placement by citing the general lack of interest from world media surrounding the issue, and maybe you were right? If the standard of importance is measured by how many people care... then yes, perhaps it wasn't ITN worthy because no one gave it a second thought. But this is the point: this issue will very likely be important shortly. It's not hard to imagine this action being used as a judicial precedent to shut down other websites and file-sharing networks that deal in copyrighted material, and from there it's just that little, easy legislative step to the legal liability of private citizens who have or share copyrighted material. So, when people open their newspapers five or six years from now and read that due to a recent court ruling, ordinary citizens can be fined for possessing pirated media, and they wonder, "how did this happen?" "all I wanted to do was to watch an episode I missed from my favorite TV show, and now I've been convicted of a crime?"; they can read all about it on Wikipedia. They could look back and see (if it was posted) that we got it first, we knew what was actually important to the world even though no one gave a rat's a** about the story when it first came out. We could see the effect this would have on the world and so we posted it. My point being: I believe there are cases when media attention is irrelevant in deciding what is and what is not important to the world. Can't we sometimes take a story on it's own merits? Hindsight is always 20/20. Cwill151 ( talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's very difficult to make a comprehensive edit summary when I make blanket edits to articles. I agree that "cleanup" isn't exactly explanatory, but there just isn't enough room in the edit summary box to summarise what I've done. With regard to the World Cup final article, if anyone has aspirations of getting it to Good Article status and beyond, it really does need a solid cleanup, and consolidating sections like "Finalists" and "World Cup firsts" into a "Background" section makes perfect sense. Have a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final for similar style. – Pee Jay 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked without warning for making just two reverts of the same content, one [10] following an unexplained removal of the perfectly valid and policy compliant content, which is something which it is perfectly legitimate to revert, the other [11] with a fully explained edit summary responding to the finally provided ratinale in their second, complete revert. Then I made a partial third revert [12] which, based on the prior edit summaries, can in no way be considered a revert for the purposes of the edit warring principles, because it was clearly being made in an effort to move forward in a constructive manner, which, given the reverting editor singularly failed to show any willingness to use DR, seems perfectly reasonable. All in all, this sequence of events is in no way a classic edit war, and does not warrant immediate blocking of this nature, where the blockee has totally failed to engage with either me or the other party. What is more troubling about this block though, is that I am blocked, yet the other editor who made the initial no summary removal and revert, Chensiyuan ( talk · contribs), has not been blocked. He simply went silent, and then returned, while in the mean time, another editor continued the dispute, an editor who evidently is held in high regard by Chensiyuan, and with whom he has collaborated with similar tag team reverts before on this same article. With that in mind, it's hard to see this sequence of events as anything other than a way to remove one party of a dispute, while giving tacit approval to the other. I accept the second and third edit summaries maybe lacking in civility, but the points about their nature w.r.t. edit warring violations in principle is valid, and that tone must be seen in the context that the Thierry Henry article has been, for an extremely long time now, under the tag team ownership of those two editors, and their modus operandi based on tonight's evidence seems to be to say nothing initially in edit summaries to rack up the numbers (and some of his other edit summries bear examination to see his nature, calling people's additions crap and junk, he has clearly got serious issues with not being able to follow DR, and seems to think anyone who disagrees with him over the precise content and prose of that article is an 'irresponsible editor'), nor use the talk page as it becomes clear to them that their edits are wholly disputed, and instead just game the opponent into being blocked, although I obviously dispute I've even done anything to be blocked in that regard, not when one examines my edit summaries, and my intent, at least behind the third, partial, revert, if taking the first two as literal and disruptive edit warring, which is also extremely harsh, and especially naive without looking at the treatment of Chensiyuan, who is not even warned even now bear in mind. Apparently, seeing the assymetry in this block, it seems to be a successful strategy of theirs. If one or both comes here to stand up for me and protest this clear unfairness in the face of their gaming and outright hostile behaviour as they go about their ownership tasks at that article, I might reconsider, but I am not holding my breath. And before anyone thinks of declining with a 'NOTTHEM', my primary unblock rationale is at the start, and is all about my actions alone, I don't need or want their actions to even come into it, if you are one of those admins who is so inclined to take such an approach, however unfair and amoral that may be. The rest is just background context for those who may be unaware of the history of that article and these editor's involvement in it, and to explain why I might start swearing very soon if an admin arrive here and effectively flips me off without reading any of this.
Decline reason:
Let's do this point by point:
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.
Beeblebrox, granted, the other editor was not blocked at the time of the request -- it took a couple more reverts for me to be sure he was past the line. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious!-- Mike Cline ( talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
He was a prominent investigative journalist who was assassinated just before releasing a damning report into corruption. It's patently obvious he's notable - if he hadn't been killed he'd survive an AfD without a hitch. It is hardly surprising that, one day after his assassination, most of the media is, y'know, focusing on the assassination. Rebecca ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
On 30 July 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Kasai River disaster, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Courcelles ( talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Just to say that I appreciate your calm, civil discussion and interaction with other editors over the issue of the list of names of passengers in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article. Mjroots ( talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On August 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick. First apologies for the words a friend of mine used earlier concerning the removal of an external link on the Andy McNab page. I understand you are opposed to the presence of this link. Since Grey Man's Land is the best and complete source of information on McNab you can find on Internet I believe it's a valuable addition. Our main goal is to promote McNabs work and give all the latest info (our News Page) on his projects, book signings, new published books etc. Things that are not to be added to the page itself but is still very valuable to those who want to know more about Andy McNab and to know about upcoming projects. As this is nowhere elsewhere on the Net, I'd like you to reconsider, but at least explain why you believe this link should not be there. Thanks and kind regards ACatharina ( talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please tone down your comments. No need to pass judgement on others. RadioFan ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, please do not remove other's comments from talk pages such as was done here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MickMacNee/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RadioFan ( talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You made a comment at WT:BISE which I removed here. I do not need editorialising, nor do I need an annotated version of the page. I can read, I can see what is going on, and your assistance in helping me understand is not required. TFOWR 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I guess I'm going to be blocked for supporting you. Ne'er mind. Good luck! LemonMonday Talk 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have attracted an impersonator. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I suppose you should be please ;-) They're blocked anyway. Let me know if you see any more. TFOWR 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added a bit on the METAR, but put the code in the ref. I hope that you find this acceptable. Mjroots ( talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - I don't believe we've interacted before, but I just saw your comments at WT:ITN here [14] [15] and thought I should remind you about our WP:Civility policy. Clearly this is an issue you feel strongly about, but that doesn't justify talk about 'patronising bollocks' and 'poxy countries'. Try to remember to keep cool in future, and if you're feeling stressed, take a wikibreak or edit elsewhere rather than continue with the dispute that's annoying you. Thanks for reading. Robofish ( talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's look at this edit
Your edit summary says "rm fatality name per BLP, no encyclopoedic reason for inclusion"
She is dead. Once someone is dead, BLP has no effect for that person whatsoever.
Also the fact that she is the only one to die means that her name warrants special attention for inclusion. If 20 people died, one wouldn't make a point of listing all of their names in that paragraph. But she is the only one dead, so her name warrants special attention.
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
On 19 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article France national football team, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. Thanks, wjemather bigissue 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The black ball final. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. wjemather bigissue 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
3RR report Off2riorob ( talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Although you haven't been offered the opportunity you would be able to revert your last edit. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed part of your post(s) here. (I removed part of another editor's post(s) too). I realise the pair of you have issues with each other, but frankly I do not care very much. Both of you are being disruptive. I've now closed the entire thread with no action taken - instead of locating sources the pair of you have bickered and I've had enough. If you two can't disengage of your own accords I'll enforce disengagement. I'd prefer to have some sort of topic-ban option to keep the pair of you off WT:BISE but in the absence of that I'll settle for a block. TFOWR 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
[16]
Doc Quintana (
talk)
22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I know you're not my biggest fan, but I've come here, not as an admin but just as a fellow editor, to just ask you to consider the way you say things and how that may be perceived by others. I don't doubt that grudges and personal vendettas have their own role to play in many of the conflicts you find yourself in and in the events that lead up to the ANI thread. I also know that there is at least one nutter who likes to create accounts to impersonate you, hence our friend MickMacNee3. However, if you could dial down the tone of some of your posts, such as (but not exclusively), those to WP:ITN/C, I, on a personal level, would be very grateful. The irony is that the points you make are often correct, but the way you express them is not conducive to healthy debate of the point and, in fact, detracts from the validity of the point you're making. I've no problem if you want to wipe this from your talk page or make no reply, but please consider it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed an addition to the essay WP:AIRCRASH at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Automatic notability. Your comments are welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Stig (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Stig. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Actors portrayed posthumously, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
On 1 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Iraq War, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
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. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive behaviour at AfD. Thank you. Mjroots ( talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "it makes me question your basic competency as an editor" is going a bit beyond the pale SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make
personal attacks on other people as you did at
WP:ANI, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "his total inability to understand WP:AFD" -- umm, I think you're missing something here.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Note to self: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added my response to the RFC you raised against me. It is now down to the community as to whether or not they certify the RFC. I have raised on the talk page the issue of another editor adding you as certifying the RFC, and also asked at AN for a review of this.
You mentioned a possible RFC on the notability of aircraft crashes. I agree that this is probably a good idea as the essay WP:AIRCRASH isn't as widely accepted now as it was in the past, and has a few holes.
What I'd like to do, is to see if we can agree on a minimum threshold of notaility. This would mainly be size based, with a lower size requirement going back in time. Deaths can also be considered for notability purposes. I think that once we know exactly where each other stands, then there will be less chance of misunderstandings as to what each other considers notable or non-notable, thus avoiding disputes.
Are you willing to engage with me in trying to establish some possible parameters which can then be presented at RFC of elsewhere? Mjroots ( talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I will be reporting your recent actions in refactoring comments made on this discussion page. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
Hi. In relation to your comments here, can I reiterate Woody's call for you to participate in the Premier League featured article review? We do seem to have got bogged down with stylistic issues when the article is clearly lacking in more substantive respects. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might want to know that WP:FUCK is up for MfD, since you commented before on its talk page. Historically, since many opposed to the essay do not watch the page, they don't know when it hits MfD. The last MfD was speedy kept after being open just a few hours IIRC. I'm trying to get a constructive dialog going between the various opinions, and this is starting to happen. You can find it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) if you care to comment. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey man, you seem to be getting a little upset at that AfD. While the purpose of AfD is to discuss the articles, you're not going to win any points by a) arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, or b) telling the closing admin what he should or should not pay attention to. Of course, both are within your rights... but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. At this point you can rest assured that every visitor to that page will be well aware of your point of view, and for the sake of your own happiness, you would probably do well just to walk away from it and let it unfold however it will. If the article should be deleted, other editors will take up the cause. If it shouldn't be deleted, there's no use wasting any more time there. Not saying you can't, just saying you shouldn't. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are using my talk page as a Mick forum? You have a propensity to dispel vast amounts of verbiage at any detractor but surely there is a better place to spew, perhaps at your arbcom?! FWiW, I will be archiving the recent exchanges and have no interest in maintaining a relationship with you. Bzuk ( talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
MickMacNee, exactly what administrative contributions at AfDs do you mean? As I stated in my RFC, my contributions at AfD are in my capacity as an editor. This is supported by no less than 14 other editors.
I note that you are threatening to take me to ARBCOM over my administerial conduct. You are free to try, but I fear you will be wasting your time as you will not be able to show any abuse of admin tools / powers by myself. The position, as far as I see it, is that we are two editors who have a difference of opinion as to the notability of certain events. It is immaterial that I am an admin, as the vast majority of the time I am not acting in an administrative capacity.
If you feel the my post on Bzuk's talk page was inappropriate, please feel free to raise it at ANI. Mjroots ( talk) 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
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. Sven Manguard Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243? The frustrating thing, mate, is that you're right! Yes, it's bloody obvious we've got a game of "follow the leader" going on and you're quite correct that drive by "keep per the person before me" are worthless, but people would pay a lot more attention to you if you were just a bit less confrontational about it. I know AfD gets heated, I've been in my fair share of similar situations, but the way you make your point is as important, if not more so, as the point itself. Please, just take a deep breath before replying to people who disagree with you, no matter how idiotic your think their point is. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Northumberland Development Project.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But there seems to be a discussion about you proceeding to unfold on my talkpage. -- ۩ M ask 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You do seem to have a penchant for "the lady doth protest too much" explanations as evidenced by some lengthy answers on my talk page. The reason so many editors, admins alike, have an aversion to your "style" is that you seem to have no social graces whatsoever. Despite the fact that I tend to agree with your arguments, you debase them immediately with your characterizations, which somehow you do not see as incivil. I cannot see how in good conscience that you do not understand that these statements are inflammatory especially when they are not attributed to like responses. What is the point of bashing someone? You take things immediately to the extreme by being constantly on the attack. In the short space of a day, you have called other editors, albeit dressed up with the verbiage that it was their actions: "ignorant", "out of whack", "completely irrelevant", "sub-standard arguments", "parrot like", "lazy", "giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards (sic)," "Fucking 'TLDR'," "pure and utter laziness", "stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for" and "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh."
The last retort made was simply ludicrous: "Now, have your last word," since you never let anything rest and always punctuate any discourse by the tactic of making the last statement. The wikistalking of anyone with an adverse opinion has also got to stop. I asked you once before to confine your comments to your own talk page or to the others', not ancillary editor's talk pages.
As to the inflated opinion you have of your contributions, a cursory examination reveals that you spend nearly all of your time in needless debates rather than doing the real work as you so quaintly put it: "I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia (sic) that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually..." I find your submissions are chock full of errors, exactly the kind that you rail against, evidence of "lazy", "rushed" and "unverified" work. If you wish to continue the discourse about these personal peccadilloes, I would be glad to continue our discourse. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Can we talk about this instead of reverting each other? I'm inclined to bring up a discussion on the template's talk page tomorrow since I want to hear the voices of others. Personally, I don't agree with untagging things that are clearly happening as a non-current event. I also believe that anything "In the News" should also be tagged by default. I'm interested in hearing what you say before I proceed. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, start a RFC. I don't mind being scrutinized, labotamized, amplified, terrorized etc etc. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest that any further comments in that thread not insult Snowded's (or anyone else's, naturally) intelligence, ditto ditto etc etc? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick,
I don't really understand the rationale given in your nomination of the Melniboné article. It'd be helpful if you could elaborate further [[ on the discussion page. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your edit [21]. I try to follow MOSDAB, so I'm interested in meaning behind your edit comment, especially as you seem to redo some of the edits?!. Confused. Widefox ( talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
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. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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. RGTraynor 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Sandstein
07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
{ The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock. Please review WP:GAB before filing any further unblock requests. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 30 October 2010 (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.
Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that "The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock." is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original charges, which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the Power Snooker article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually can do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with all pertinent lessons learned, trust me. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First, you do not get to choose who responds to your unblock requests - the original block was made based on clear direction from the ANI discussion. Frankness is not bad, but WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DICK are not sets of recommended behaviours. Neither is WP:SPIDERMAN. Here is my honest recommendation: right below this unblock, start drafting a list of possible restrictions that could be imposed on you in order to allow an unblock. Your list will clearly show whether or not you actually get why you're blocked. Below that, admins can suggets others. After that, we'll put it together and see how that works. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is getting more and more ridiculous. There was no support for a community ban in that thread before Sandstein got involved. The only issue being raised by people before he got involved was a POINT violation, which came from my frustration at how concerted civil POV pushing at the BISE topic is being adminned, or not as the case maybe, and how nobody at that ANI thread was in the slightest bit interested in even acknowledging anything except basic and obvious civility catches like Triton. But Sandstein rejects a topic ban from BISE as a solution, so that's out. As for the suggestion that I don't know why I'm blocked, or I just need to realise what I can do about it, I have to burst this bubble I'm afraid. When Sandstein decided to get involved, he made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me at least, that he does not believe I can do anything about the reason for my block, which was clearly and simply put as my block log length, and my inherent personality flaws. He believes I will always disrupt, always, always, (eventualy, he has to stretch that characterisation over several years mind, and several different kinds of disruption, and somehow his lack of being able to put a concrete finger on what 'it' is, such as by pointing to an Rfc, is somehow an issue for me, not him?), and he has thus swooped in well after the event, and blocked me indefinitely as a protection of the pedia. I can't change my block log (infact, I am clearly being punished for not being smart enough to not practice account hopping/whitewashing), and while I can promise to moderate my personality, I don't how I can put that into a proposed editting restriction to anybody's satisfaction. You either believe me or you don't on that score. Sandstein doesn't. I can promise to follow policy, but again, I don't see how that translates to a restriction. Sandstein clearly wanted a ban discussion, without having to have a ban discussion. He sort of got it, but even after he blocked me, there are clear dissenting voices both to the logic of his indef block given his statements, and exactly how disruptive I really am (and it is also clouded by having unidentified clear biased opinions in there who can barely conceal their joy, while not revealing that they are not exactly independent reviewers and have a vested interest in such a block-which-is-a-ban development). He is not interested in the slightest though. He is now trying to pass this off onto other admins now, and rather insultingly, is comparing an indef ban on me, a long term proven good contributor, to that which you slap on a basic, flat out first 100 edits disruptor/vandal [23], as if the cases, and the exit options, are remotely the same. This is all in the environment that I am incivil? Sorry, but no, this is just baiting. But I'm not biting, yet. Sandstein is for some reason, leaving it to other admins to have the 'community discussion' he originally referred to, about what I or the community should do before I can be un-blocked, but why is it down to them to figure out what to propose that will satisfy him? Unless or until this issue is sorted, unless or until he either phrases this as a non-fait accompli indef block, which he isn't exactly busting a gut to follow though, or as a properly proposed community ban, to see if the community shares his low low opinion of me, then you are going to have to believe when I say I don't have a fucking clue what you want from me with regard to suggested restriction proposals, and this whole exercise still looks for all the world like a ban discussion, which lasted eight hours and got one person's comment before it was actually enacted. Call this SPIDER or whatever, I call it being ignored after the event, when I can do nothing about it, and whereby, seemingly now if no admin comes along to make any suggestion whatsoever, and Sandstein certainly won't, then I'm defacto banned. All this in an editing environment where even BetaCommand is getting away with still violating actual proper written down and clear community sanctions that he was under, after not only Rfcs but even two arbitration cases, and still only getting a three week block!. And this indef-block is about simply preventing certain disruption based on nothing but me having been blocked a few times over years? No Rfc, no other discussion, no nothing. Come on, there is much more going on here, there is a definite malice, maliciousness and injustice to this whole sequence of events, and in particular to Sandstein's whole approach to me, personally. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In case you did not notice, I'm attempting to help you become unblocked below. My own doing - you're generally a proficient editor, and I - with no prompting from others - am trying to work with you to be unblocked in a way that helps you and the project. If you choose not to participate, feel free to mope and whine that you don't get a fair shake instead. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
After this edit summary [24], it is not unreasonable to presume that the discussion is pointless. The user is uninterested in working things through with the community, and should be considered community banned. Appeals go to arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. -- Scott Mac 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Mick, I'm hoping your indef-block will be lifted. In the meantime, I'd recommend avoid using colourful language, as it tends to heighten tension among others. GoodDay ( talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Power Snooker logo.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't like me. So, I realise posting here might be considered baiting or trolling. If that's the case, remove this and call me what you will, and I'll not trouble you again. However, sometimes only Nixon can come to China (which of us is Nixon and which is China, I'll leave aside), so I'd like to make you an offer. I've not looked at the circumstances of your block, and I'm quite open to the possibility it may be harsh or unfair. It's quite easy to take you the wrong way (Indeed, it took me while to realise that, despite the expletives, this is constructive "fair comment", and actually quite funny) and perhaps that's what happened here.
Given doubts over the block, I am somewhat tempted to unblock you. (I lack consensus to do that but, as you know, that seldom constrains my use of abusive admin power!). My problem is that, if I'm honest, my initial reaction to your indef block (and I expect the reaction of many others) was "well, he had that coming". People are of the opinion that you and wikipedia were bound to part company eventually. Now, that may well be not entirely your fault. It may be because Wikipedia is shit and can't handle people like you. But the problem that it gives me is that if I unblock you, it may well be in the expectation that it won't matter because you'll just get banned over something else. So, my unblock becomes a trolling designed to give you enough rope to hang yourself. And then we can all say "ah, well, that was inevitable wasn't it", and feel smug and superior again.
So, let me ask right now. Would it be trolling you if I were to unblock you? Is there any way you could work with the shit that Wikipedia is in a manner that the bastards won't just reblock you for a better reason next week?-- Scott Mac 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Mick, would you consider that the unusual circumstances of this accident would justify a stand-alone article or not. It's mentioned under the list of rail accidents covering 2010, and at Oxshott railway station. Asking first to avoid drama later. Mjroots ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The current WP:AIRCRASH guideline never really had a consensus and it does not appear to reflect some of the discussions at articles for deletion. We need to change the emphasis that it must meet the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and that it should only be a guide and not a scorecard to take to AfD. I have proposed a simpler guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability and tried to capture the trend from the AfDs. With your experience at AfDs your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
MMN, I am not sure if you are aware; but a discussion has already started at WP:ANI featuring you... L.tak ( talk) 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to understand your need to respond to many of the evaluations people make who are generally opposed to you in AfD. I observe that you feel the need to give meta-instructions regarding various wikipedia policies to the closing admin. I understand that many visitors to the AfD pages do not know how to express their thoughts about the article, however sometimes a well written justification is all that needs to be said unless you would have subsequent editors re-hashing the same handful of justifications over and over. I also observe that you do not inquire to the same degree of thoroughness the editors that do tend to agree with your viewpoint.
It has been my impression that administrators are fairly well versed in wikipedia policy and can make assessments by themselves regarding the community consensus and the various wikipedia policies that are applicable in deletion discussions. In short, I would like to understand your philosophy so that I may attempt to reduce some of the challanges regarding your deletions. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay ( talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scottish football referee strike, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that due to the Scottish football referee strike, foreign officials from Israel, Luxembourg and Malta were used as replacements? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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". Hey Mid ( contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 [27]. I'd appreciate any comments you could give there if you're interested, as well. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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. Hey Mid ( 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)
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)