Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:31, 18 October 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|MickMacNee}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Who forced you?

I am just curious!--Mike Cline (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

U. MickMacNee (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Giolias

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)

I guess we will have to wait for the biographical material then, and let readers just guess why there is none there presently. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you usually provide a fine counterpoint to my opinions. Just to get an idea of how the Giolias article is going, would you take a quick look at it as it is currently? What would be needed in your estimation to make it postable/worthwhile? I'll do my best to satisfy your requests should you make them. Cheers Cwill151 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It can't credibly be called a biography right now imho. I suggest moving it back to Assassination of Sokratis Giolias, reverting to the old headers and structure, and then adding a bit more info in all of them. And if that info really isn't out there in the current news coverage, then per my ITN comments, I don't think it qualifies as a Main Page candidate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see very much on the web about him with a Google to exclude stuff on his death so I agree with MickMacNee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thank y'all. Cwill151 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.png

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kasai River disaster

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)

Cookie

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)

Your appreciation is appreciated. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services

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)

External link

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)

See WP:ELNO. Misplaced Pages does not allow External Links to simple fansites that are not written by a recognised authority, and I have not been able to verify who writes that site, and it very clearly states it is unauthorised and unnofficial. In addition, it appears to be a custom frontage for an independent Amazon seller, which is also not a site which is allowable as an External Link. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the fansite part, it is indeed an unofficial site. Fact remains though that it's the best source on McNab information you will find on Internet and especialy since McNabs official site if off line it is really the ONLY source if you want to know more about upcoming projects, personal appearances, interviews etc - all things people are very likely interested in if they take the trouble to find Andy McNab on Misplaced Pages. I still think its a valuable addition for people who are looking for more information that cannot be added to the Wiki page. The Amazon thing.. well that's just something we started recently to try to get at least a little bit of the expenses back that the site cost us to built and is costing to maintain. I'll tell you the result after a few months..3 Euros! :-)) Seriously, we're NOT commercial. Our main goal was, is and will be to provide information about Andy McNab! Thanks for your reply Mick! ACatharina (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, while I appreciate the spirit behind WP:ELNO, this link looks to be a useful and valid addition to the page, especially in light of there being no 'official' alternative - Alison 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how it passes ELNO, but I see no point having further discussion here, so I've kicked it over to the External links Noticeboard here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

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)

No thank you. I will pass judgement on anyone who has no clue about the policies and principles that underpin our title methodologies, and simply want to make it up as they go along, and then claim that is a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Although I wouldn't have posted you a template as RF has above, I wanted to let you know that another editor has complained to me about your conduct. I haven't looked into the matter yet, but as a preliminary measure, can you possibly tone down any interpersonal disputes you may be having? These things are in the eye of the beholder, and as hard as it is to accept that one's own behavior has been less than perfect, it can be an opportunity to grow and all that. Anyway, just a friendly note that someone hasn't appreciated the way you've comported yourself. What exactly is the problem you are having? Maybe we can sort it out. I hope so. --John (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue was, some people wanted to rename the article 2010 Alaska plane crash, but instead of justifying their move wrt policy, or answering anybody else's policy based objections, they wanted to argue from a position of pure POV, or worse, from positions that directly contradict policy. Well, almost everyone. Your 'complainant' (I'm liking the phrasing of his complaint btw) BilCat instead wanted to just make sarcastic remarks and bitch on about civility. I wasn't too interested seeing as simple civility never made anybody's actual arguments any more cluefull, and is usualy just brought out as an excuse for their failure to defeat the counter-points, and presumably not satisfied with this logic, he just got the hump, and now seems to want to badmouth me across the pedia to anybody that will listen. Anyway, the article got renamed, even though nobody can really justify it except for vague waves to a consensus of a ship of fools, but I no longer wish to labour the point, so it looks to be over as an issue, unless I catch Bilcat doing any more trashtalk on other people's talk pages behind my back, thinly disguised as commentary on the social issues that face Misplaced Pages today. Still, he's the one who knows about civility and all that....., so I'm sure that's not incivil behaviour at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont normally only use templates for clear cut things like vandalism (which this is not) but this template says it pretty well. One of the building blocks of Misplaced Pages is assuming good faith amongst editors. Most people are trying to help and keeping that in mind will help prevent needless conflict. As others have noted, your tone in these discussions is the primary problem here. We can disagree, but let's please be civil about it.--RadioFan (talk) 11:18, 12 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)

Actually, Mick was right to remove that nonsense from the talkpage. It was nothing but plain-and-simple disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, personal attacks, especially from random IPs, can be pretty much bitbucketed at will. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can only echo what m'lernud colleagues said. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MickMacNee. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

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 attacking someone for not be civil is really the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps you could explain this attack not on one BUT two editors. Bjmullan (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BI

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)

Both of you should try and be nice there and follow the rules lol, WT:BISE can help undo some of the damage that has been done in recent years during the crusades if the issues are focused on. Getting yourself blocked will solve nothing, even if you feel better in the short term for speaking your mind, think more of the long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

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)

It's just some sadfuck who has a hard-on for me, and tries it on about once a month. I probably bitch-slapped him in a past dispute and he's never gotten over it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. TFOWR 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to look that hard, he's not so bright tbh. I think 5 edits before being blocked might be his record actually. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AIRES accident

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)

Forgive my talkpage intrusion, but in my opinion, a note, akin to that we used for Airblue Flight 202, is ideal, because it keeps the aviation community happy, preserves the encyclopedic nature of the METAR info, and is accessible to those who wish to access it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi there - I don't believe we've interacted before, but I just saw your comments at WT:ITN here 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)

I think you maybe need to read the policy you are trying to educate me about. So, thanks, but no thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP

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)

No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not, due to the potential for distress of relatives or such like. And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning. If you disagree, do not edit war over it, follow BRD and file for a third opinion on the talk page, but this is how it's always been as far as I know. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mick here. WP:BLP states, "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased". Previously, BLP policy also explicitly stated it applied to the recently deceased, but that seems to have been removed. Hmmm - Alison 02:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Using what you quoted, Alison, BLP doesn't cover dead people. BLP policy clearly says "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" period, despite the second sentence. The second sentence is something to consider, but it itself is not a part of BLP.

But what implications would apply in this case? If it was something scandalous or something that could affect a court case, that would be one thing. But I don't see what is contentious about saying that she died of a heart attack.

I noted this edit. I conclude that while the rationale was disputed, ultimately, based on WP:BLP, my rationale that BLP does not apply is the factually correct position, based on the statement that Alison quoted. Even though Alison's "third opinion" was to exclude the name, the two sentences she copied clearly underscore the fact that my rationale (BLP does not apply) is correct.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the talk page part about "recently deceased" people Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_17#Applications_for_the_Dead_or_Recently_Deceased WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For matters that are still under dispute:

"And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning." - AIRES's #2 press release took special care to mentioned her name exclusively, before listing the people who lived. Newspaper accounts also make it clear she was the only person to die:

Voice of America: "Authorities said the fatality in the incident was a Colombian woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, who had a heart attack."

Associated Press at Dubuque Telegraph Herald: "the only one killed was a 68-year-old woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, San Andres Gov. Pedro Gallardo said."

"If you disagree, do not edit war over it," My standard practice is to revert once and explain why I reverted, assuming that the dispute will stop after that one revert. Then if someone still disputes it, then I begin the dispute resolution process. One of the reasons why I reverted was because the "this is covered by BLP" portion of your rationale was clearly incorrect. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy. It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased, and BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives, so pretty clearly, BLP applies here. And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist. But even more generally, even if you don't think it does apply, you still have to convince us that there is an encyclopoedic point to mentioning the name in the article, as I simply cannot see what it is. Of course newspapers and the airline mentioned her name, and the reasons for that are obvious, but that is irrelevant, as Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. What is of information value to a newspaper is not necessarily what is of information value to an encyclopoedia. It has absolutely no value to the article or the reader that I can see, or that you have explained for me. Please carry on this discussion at the article talk page if you want to disagree further, as that is the correct place for it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I will continue talking about the BLP portions at: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

I will start a talk page discussion about your other points once the BLP matter is clarified.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-BLP discussion: Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to continuations of discussions will be added above. Normally one shouldn't edit archives, but the archive here needs to include links to where the discussion continues. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN for France national football team

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)

Black ball final

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. Thanks, _wjemather 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 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know all about 3RR, just like I know about BRD. If you are not too busy dishing out templates to regulars, then bring a better reason for your proposed change to the discussion. Being supported by guidelines = Good. Not being the only one who doesn't understand it, but using that as justification anyway = Bad. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see from your block log that you are well aware of the concept of edit warring but still choose to go ahead and do it anyway. _wjemather 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

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)

Apologies, my notification to you must have got caught in an edit conflict with your reply above. _wjemather 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

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)

Per WP:ITN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Doc Quintana (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Civility", ANI, ITN etc

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)

Like HJ, feel free to remove this comment, no hard feelings, if you like. But I agree with HJ above. I'd also say that, yeah, you make excellent points and you are right most of the time. I know that I'm more likely to respond to logic expressed ... unconfrontationally ... than our current headbanging. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are both right, I am awesome. LOL. Serously, good points well made, but I'm not such a fool not to know that already. It's all good in the hood today. MickMacNee (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What spooks me, is that bloke out there, who keeps making those dumb imitation accounts of you & me. The imitator certainly seems to have hard feelings for both of us, eeek. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly spooky, Mick is just a celebrity angry editor by this stage and attracts a certain fan base it seems. It's just puzzling that other editors can say as much, in far fewer words, with less apparent rage than Mick does. It kind of makes his comments on talk pages harder to spend time reading. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of aircraft accidents

I've proposed an addition to the essay WP:AIRCRASH at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Automatic notability. Your comments are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stig (given name)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages 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)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Actors portrayed posthumously

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.

ITN for Iraq War

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)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. "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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I might suggest you focus on the issue at hand and not other editors (or at the very least refrain from the personal attacks, because you're no use to the project if you're blocked) you'd probably find the discussion more productive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because I cannot raise the issue at hand if I have the threat of a block hanging over my head for objecting to Mjroots continued and unjustified belief that my conduct is in violation of WP:AFD. I refuse to be intimidated and hamstrung in this way, for doing nothing wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you refrain from comments like "it makes me question your basic competency as an editor", you won't be blocked. If you're blocked unjustly, I'll unblock you myself, but I can't help you if you make comments like that. You're smart enough to know where the line is, so stay the right side of it and there won't be a problem. FWiW, I agree that your actions are in not in violation of AfD policy, though you could make your point a little more civilly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RFCs

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)

Trying to get an agreement on the core issue which is notability of air crashes does seem like the best way forward to resolve all of this. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to keep it simple, using aviation industry based weight bands. I'm open to discussion of anything I wrote at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents on the talk page of that page. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your response to the Rfc, I am not minded to cooperate with you in the slightest, because, in the words of Sarek, you continually missapply wp:civil and wp:afd. I have not remotely bullied editors, let alone harrassed them. These are very serious accusations. If I have breached civil, it is in the most mild of terms - such as calling an argument 'rubbish', but in context, the specific argument made was proveably false, which is in of itself a breach of wp:civil. My level of incivility does not justify your attacks on me, and the fact you still make these claims, while doing nothing about it, and not accepting nobody else wants to do anything about it, is again, a breach of wp:civil. Claiming other people support you in these claims, when they clearly said nothing of the sort, is again, a breach of wp:civil - "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors."..."if there is an ongoing problem you can't resolve....take it to dispute resolution". Infact, what makes your stance look particularly odd, is that there are a hundred and one breaches of wp:civil in those Afds that go completely unnoticed, such as:

• "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information" - how many times has the AIRCRASH essay been cited as a Guideline. How many times have people claimed fatal hull losses are notable according to 'the guidelines'?

• "ignoring the positions and conclusions of others" - How many times have people voted by simply ignoring the fact that the nomination is NOT#NEWS, and that the GNG is a presumption which cannot over-ride WP:NOT?

• "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative....and to be responsive to good-faith questions". To quote one person's reply to having his rationale challenged, - "don't be ridiculous", which went totally uncommented on.

• "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help, not hurt the project." - how many times have trolls and other dickheads been allowed to attach nefarious and provably false motives to my nominations?

And that's all before we even get into why basic invalid/hand wave/assertion votes are apparently not even being properly weighted by the closers, or at Drv, which is an extremely obvious violation of wp:afd.

So in conclusion, if you want your stance on wp:civil and wp:afd, and your continued allegations against me, to look like anything more than just a transparent attempt at eliminating an opponent, how about next time you ensure the policy is actually enforced, and all of it, with the first step being, as recommended in wp:civil, being to actually note it at the time, like other admins do , albeit with little apparent effect , and not wait a while and then try and propose wholly innappropriate 'sanctions' at ANI. Unless or until that happens, I think I will probably just progress my own content rfc, if and when. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Strike it now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant of course to say, using your definition of how to make a non PA comment on a user's understanding of policy, but if you took it literally as a quote, then it is so struck. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I can't force you to co-operate with me in trying to find some middle ground. I won't make the mistake of letting incivil interaction go unchallenged in future. Warnings will be issued and further action taken if necessary. As you are well aware, any editor may remove a warning from their talk page. Doing so indicates that the warning has been seen, and is understood.

I'm not trying to eliminate you as an opponent. You do make some good contributions to Misplaced Pages. The offer to comment on my thoughts re the notability of aircraft accidents remains open. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To let you know, I have certified but provided my own view at the RfC. -- ۩ Mask 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk)

Refactoring other's comments

I will be reporting your recent actions in refactoring comments made on this discussion page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

You should have waited. I could have told you how that was going to go tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Premier League FAR

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)

If I find time, but FARs are not really my thing tbh. I think I pretty much covered it, my main objection was the lumping together of dissimilar info and the loss of info. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just stating that on the FAR page would be helpful in itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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)

WP:FUCK

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 Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) if you care to comment. ɳorɑfʈ 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wind Jet

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 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you just clarified your rationale than give me advice. The only thing I get upset about is people ignorantly piggy backing on Afd voting rationales that for all the world appear to contradict both policy, and their own logic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that my rationale is quite clear, and that everyone else who is "piggy backing" simply understands and agrees with it? I haven't responded there because I've found that in AfDs it's best to address the issue, not individuals. If something I said was really out of whack, that would be one thing. But since nobody else seems to be confused by what I wrote, and since you have argued with everybody for one reason or another, it's hard to see how a reply would help anything. I've voiced my opinion and I don't feel the need to defend it against all challengers; there are plenty of better things to spend my time on around here. All I did was give you the same advice I follow myself. It works. Kafziel 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, 'keep, it's notable, and we should wait to see if it becomes notable' really is out of whack. As is your idea that I nominated this because nobody died. A reply would make it clear to everyone, not just the piggybackers, that you really do know what you are on about, and have really attempted to address the deletion rationale. If you don't, then that's a pretty easy angle of attack for me in a DRV, if the closer doesn't bother to engage his brain when reviewing that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "we should wait to see if it becomes notable". My meaning—which was apparently clear to everyone else but you—was that it is notable (by virtue of broad, international news coverage) and that we should wait to see what more comes of it. Notability can always increase as time goes by and further analysis comes in, but that doesn't mean it isn't also notable now. The two are not contradictory, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the very argumentative nominator happens to be the only person who claims not to understand that.

I'm not worried about your "angle of attack" at DRV, except to say that the fact that you look at this as a battle says a lot about your frame of mind. You're taking this too personally. I am by no means required to address the deletion rationale if I dismiss it out of hand; if I can make a case for why it should be kept (which I did), that's all I need to do. I said what I wanted to say and I'm comfortable with it. Kafziel 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this was your intention. I think it's pretty obvious from your nomination that you wanted to wait to see if it became notable, hence the 'keep, for now'. If you simply thought it was notable right now, you would have just said so, and not bothered with the rest of your post, as it was completely irrelevant. You can dismiss the deletion rationale all you want and make up whatever case you like, but EVENT is the guideline which was written to combine the GNG for current events, so I think that is a pretty bizarre thing to do in an Afd on an article about a current event. The only remotely relevant part of your keep rationale was where you said "verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources". It's pretty weak, simply a stock statement trotted out parrot like by everybody and anybody, and as such, it does not convince that you've even read the article, let alone are confident that you can actually justify it's exsitence here wrt actual policy wording and theory, by expanding on your rationale in the proper way. You can be comfortable with this approach all you want, you can even believe it's a good way to make a case in an Afd, but it really isn't, according to all our policies and guidelines on the practices and purposes of the venue. And this sort of thing is precisely why DRV exists, to stop lazy admins making the mistake of taking this sort of non-argument as read. It is probably about as far from being all you need to do, as if you had just rocked up and given a basic WP:JN vote. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr

I tell you what: You go ahead and rage, and argue with everybody, and file a DRV, and argue some more, and I'll leave what I wrote there, move on to other things, and when this is all over we'll see which of us is happier. Kafziel 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck about happiness? I'm only concerned with having articles and processes adhere to policy. If that's impossible because people like yourself would rather fool around giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards, so be it. It definitely won't be me who suffers the consequences in the long run. I really hope you haven't invested a lot of time here writing and defending articles that fail EVENT, because one day they will all be gone, either that, or Misplaced Pages will be gone. Either way, my happiness is completely irrelevant. Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if you don't enjoy editing here, there's no point. The world is not going to say, "Thank god some heroic soul took a stand to get rid of that accursed Wind Jet article. It had really been rubbing me the wrong way." Nobody cares about you or the work you do here; case in point, I've been here a damn sight longer than you, I've written a good number of articles, taken more than my share of images, and made thousands of edits to the Misplaced Pages namespace, not to mention all the work I've done as an administrator... and you don't care at all. See? But it doesn't matter that you don't care, because I'm enjoying myself. That's the key. I don't know what "consequences" you think I'm going to suffer... People like me not giving a shit about people like you is what makes the Wiki go 'round. Kafziel 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh. Maybe you've been here so long that you really don't know what you are doing any more, and are just happy to mess around and have fun irregardless, but maybe you haven't kept abreast with what the Misplaced Pages of 2010 actually is, and how it's basic operations like Afd work now. EVENT was written in 2009 - read it, and get with the programme, and don't pretend that simply giving sub-standard arguments and having fun is what flies here for decent practice anymore. Playtime's over. I don't care about what you've done, and you don't care, or more likely, have no idea, what I've done here. So what, as you say. I'm fine with that. So you're here for happiness, good for you. I think that's pretty sad myself though. I get my happiness in the real world, I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually if this site still wants to be called a serious reference work and not a fancruft database. I could give a monkeys if anybody notices me for doing so, as long as they have their own shit in order and are doing good work. It's hilarious that you thought I was talking about consequences for you. Again, that just about sums it up. Now, have your last word, but then kindly just do one, I've had it with you. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Looks angry, though. Kafziel 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You read it. Go and have fun with an article somewhere, and stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Misplaced Pages is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bzuk

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).

Ask Mjroots. He's the one who turned up at your page, proclaiming I'm 'still at it'. . Maybe he thinks you are someone else, I've no idea. Such is his conduct, I'm just forced to follow him around and try and set the record straight wherever I find him bad mouthing me on any given day. I want no relationship with you at all. If you just make sure when you contrubute to Afd's you have read and understood the relevant distructions beforehand, then I'm sure we'll never have to personaly interact ever. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

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)

You already know I think it's appropriate. Don't bother worrying if I'm wasting my time, you just make sure you can justify what you've been doing against WP:ADMIN, and whether or not the line you think exists between editor and admin conduct is so bright or not when it comes to being examined in an arbcom case. Your explanations and excuses might fool people at a partizan and wholly mis-directed and de-railed Rfc, and it might be tempting to think you have support when it comes from a largely non-neutral crowd who have no interest in participating in either Rfcs or Afds properly, but it won't fool arbitrators, who know a poisoned well and an improper agenda when they see one. And if you carry on making canvassing and attacking posts as you wander around in the back streets talking about me, it will be raised at ANI. We'll see if the warning to stop doing it registers with you first, or not, as the case maybe. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I highly suggest you just not show up. The thread established consensus that you were fine extraordinarily quickly, and you have no need to prolong the drama. -- ۩ Mask 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but Mjroots seemed eager for my input befor it could be resolved, so I have already obliged as you were writing this. . MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Mick!

Misplaced Pages: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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northumberland Development Project.jpg

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is awkward

But there seems to be a discussion about you proceeding to unfold on my talkpage. -- ۩ Mask 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More than awkward

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 Misplaced Pages 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).

Eh? You generally agree with my opinions? That's news to me tbh. All I know is that your general contribution to ANI and other venues about me is usually very much the sort of inflammatory stuff you accuse me of doing. As for your evidence of incivility from me, it really isn't, and as usual, the 'evidence' offered up is extremely reliant on selective and out of context quotation, and just ignores the what's, why's and wherefore's of the specific exchanges. You've even repeated the 'fucking TLDR' gem as an example of incivility, that was already described as completely innacurate at the last ANI, and a total distortion of the reality of that exchange, in terms of who was being incivil, which was not me.

My critics on the other hand, simply are indisputably incivil, no bells, no whistles, no creative interpretations required. In all cases, all I ever have to do is present the discussion or the timeline in full, and the outcome of independet review re. CIVIL is always the same w.r.t. me. No violation, no action, gtfo. I really don't care if admins don't like my style, it's irrelevant, I'm only interested in whether they see the difference and the hypocrisy at play in those situations, and these tedious complaints.

And if you want me to stay off your page, then make sure you are not allowing it to be used as an attack venue on me. Because it doesn't matter what you request, to reiterate for the second time, watching and responding for that sort of crap is not wikistalking. Never has been, never will be. You want the right to do that, request it at ANI. You will not be successful. I can and I will reply anywhere, on any page, where I am being 'discussed' like that. It's not 'your' page in that regard, not at all.

As for my edit record, not that it's relevant to this issue, but yes, I've recently spent most of my edit time at Afd (and because of these civility 'complaints', at ANI) on this issue, but that would not be necesary if the other side got a clue, and started making good arguments at Afd, or started to address the gaping hole that exists between their claimed consensus, and our policies, guidelies and even their own essay. This is not rocket science, this is how the Wiki get's built, both policy and articles.

My article space contributions more than stand up to scrutiny, I'd be amazed if you could find any article I've written, or rewritten, was lazy or unverified. You can see from BilCat what a mistake it is to even start down that line - he seems incredibly proud of having made 60,000 edits, yet he still has no idea about core things like WP:Afd, WP:N, and yes, even WP:CIVIL. The best he can do as a form of dispute resolution in this issue, is to call me names, and go on and on and on at places like your talk page about how he is giving me enough rope to hang myself. Like I haven't had a million enemies like him make that exact same statement a million times before, and I'm magically still here, and if they are still here, I neither know or care. I think his daft idea that I have admin supporters (in the wrong cabal like way, rather than the policy way) shows what he really knows about me. He's clueless, and tedious, and has no decent idea how to deal with this Afd/content issue. Not one.

In terms of actual writing, simply scanning my contribs list is deceptive, and your check very much was cursory in that regard. I don't waste time recording my acheivements on my user page, just the cursory badge to clue in all but the most inexperience editors before they start templating me. I could not even tell you how many new articles or DYK's I have, but every new article or rewrite/expansion I do, is usually drafted offline, and posted in one edit, and is almost always a DYK straight out of the box. And I certainly have a hatfull of those I think, and a bunch of ITN credits too. I even have one of the page view records on DYKSTATS. I don't do GAR/FAR out of simple choice, not ability, but at least five I would say of my sole creations have been made GAs by others, with the bare minimum of changes. But like I said, in terms of having the high ground or not on what is and is not civil conduct, this is completely irrelevant. I caution you or anyone else from thinking this makes a blind bit of difference, or thinking that I am going to care one bit about this sort of grandstanding.

And personally, I've never had a problem with leaving the last word to someone else, but when I do, it's usually a mark of someone having made a good post that made sense, and didn't need replying to, except to maybe say 'good points well made'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Really?! Your contributions stand up to scrutiny?! I did a check on a meager five submissions to articles and found no reference sources, mistakes in context, syntax and spelling, all symptomatic of your past exclamations of disdain at "lazy" editing. The fact that you may have seen DYKs is more akin to the subject rather than your contribution. Grandstanding: "what gaul," as your real claim to Wiki fame is in confrontations and accusatory dialogue evidenced not only by the examples I cited but also by your own admission to a laudatory "million enemies" (perhaps parse that down a few hundred thousand, LOL). Further playing devil's advocate, as to your perception that you are somehow a gatekeeper, protecting the Wiki wonderland's sanctity by installing discipline regarding guidelines of submissions. Ha! No one editor has that role, neither you nor a bevy of your slack-jawed followers. Now, as to the assertion that I do agree with you, it is all a matter of taste, I might like the stew but not how it is cooked or presented, and your dishing it out is what I object to. You go after all and sundry, whether neophyte or expert with the same bludgeon. How many admins and editors have cautioned that you could catch more flies with honey not vinegar? I have seen numerous attempts to get you to moderate your language. Sorry for writing in a stream of consciousness manner, but I am trying to get my thoughts down on the screen. Whether you believe it or not, I hold no animosity for you, and am not on a personal vendetta, as you have postulated that others are, either in the process of, or are contemplating. I write, for a living, and admire your turn of phrase and use of vocabulary but do not appreciate the way this skill is turned on others. Now that I have enunciated the same tired rephrane, I await your last word.

Let me correct one inaccurate assertion, in that you spend the majority of your time on talk/discussion pages. The result here clearly shows that you have made significant contributions to article space. FWiW, see edit count Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Which five examples? I'm sure you appreciate that you can't really say that without giving diffs. I have enemies, but not ones that deserve my respect, due to the fact they do not respect policy or DR, and instead play silly buggers and attempt to use CIVIL as a weapon, and get jealous and butthurt when that fails. How many of those enemies I accrue, or how many of those are annoyed by me, doesn't bother me one bit. They reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned, and this is the same view that a good many seriously good contributors here hold. I dispute that I take a broad brush approach, or deploy an indiscriminate bludgeon. I am very careful at Afd to make my responses proportionate, on point, and relevant, to what the specific person has actualy said. An opposing comment that makes a point or a counter-argument in the right way, is worth a thousand pointless attacks and non-policy arguments. I can and do work reasonably with the former, but I do not shirk from being robust with the latter. But I do neither in an incivil way. I'm not sure which experts you refer to, but if it's aviation accident experts, even they are expected to read and follow WP:Afd#How to discuss an Afd at Misplaced Pages just like anybody else, and not just give an argument through assertion, or any other WP:ATA. And yes, the community is the guardian of policy - the whole community, not just those members who have rather naively in the past at Afd loudly and repeatedly exclaimed that I am a disruptive editor, that I don't understand consensus/policy in this topic area, that all these articles are simply of obvious worth to the pedia, or any other excuse that has been offered up for making exceptions to EVENT etc, and that I should effectively just shut stfu and stop making all these "ridiculous" Afds. The Windjet outcome put paid to that theory, once the wider community got involved. Because it is the wider community that wrote EVENT, GNG, NOT, and everything else. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Any five examples!! I am loathe to find anything other than minor tinkering in article space, correcting spelling, expanding statements and the like. How about you propose an example of the exemplar of your writing because, seriously, as an editor, I would savage your work, as sloppy and here's that word again, "lazy." The assertion that you tailor your responses may have some merit, as your commentary on this "string" clearly indicates that you do have some deliberative thought behind your statements, but whether that is the way you constantly approach others is not borne out by the exchange that I noted between yourself and an admin. You used all of the declarations in the aforementioned first passage above against this one individual. Is that considered proportion or reasonable behaviour? Your use of incendiary descriptors like "butthurt" is not becoming nor necessary. You state emphatically that you are "robust" but your actions belie that, and numerous confrontational incidents have been recorded. I have to break for now as I am the campaign manager for my wife's re-election (campaign manager, euphemistically stated, as most campaign managers don't marry into the process) and she has just called me off to work. FWiW, I'll get back to you with more of your transgressions when I am off the hustings. Bzuk (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Current events template

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)

I don't know what there is to discuss. The template documentation is crystal clear. Despite the unfortunate name, no, it is not a flag to simply identify articles that are about current events. We have hundreds of such articles every day. MickMacNee (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have monitored this category in the past. There has never been hundreds a day. Five is a better number. I'm going to bring up the discussion there and you're more than welcome to comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BI-Taskforce & BISE

Please, start a RFC. I don't mind being scrutinized, labotamized, amplified, terrorized etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention the t word for god's sake. Sarah will be here like a shot. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, ahhhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading straight into blockable territory here, Mick...

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)