Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maelgwnbot (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 8 July 2008 (Robot: Template subst per WP:SUBST). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Tesco

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tesco. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)

Well, don't say I didn't give you enough of an opportuinity to read the relevant policies. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

creating a page

let me ask you a question everone elese creates a page about them selves so why was mine deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Trace (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you meant by this question, as it was your first ever edit. However, you now appear to be the reincarnation of a user indefinitely blocked as a vandal. If you continue to edit the way they did, you will likely see the same result. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One-armed bandit murder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Translation

Oh I see the message at the top. See village pump bot page ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Swansea Metro

Please don't drag me into an argument: . Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you retracting your viewpoint then? 'Dragging' you into something is irelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I still agree with you; I just don't like my name being used in an argument you're having in edit summaries. Anyway, I have posted to Welshleprechaun's talk page here. --RFBailey (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing articles bot

Regarding your recent comments on the missing articles bot, I thought you might find it interesting to read this page: WP:TALK, regarding actually confining comments to the subject at hand. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As said, I'm not sure how the state of the wikiprojects are irrelevant to that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland et al

Thanks for your contribution to the Ireland talk page, I had posed some questions for you at WT:FOOTY some time ago, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with so we can move on Fasach Nua (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you ever accepted consensus anywhere on wikipedia. Your wiki life seems to consist entirely of going against the norm, and basically pissing people off. Maybe you don't get this, maybe you do. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do accept WP:CONSENSUS it is mob rule I have trouble with Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's common sense you have trouble with. You're a joke to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil/incivil

Yes, indeed, which is why Wikpedia needs to be careful not to spread these things, although having said that, spelling mistakes are the least problematic of the things we spread around. :-) SlimVirgin 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustang

I think we need to discuss changes to this article on the talk page. It is one thing to be bold, it is another to go in and make drastic changes to an article with other active editors without at least a warning or inquiries about why things are there. Some of your changes were stylistically not too bad and I was intending to review and work them back in today, but you have removed sourced content in violation of MOS, you removed other content without asking for clarification, and you added unsourced material. I am going to look over your edits again and restore the deleted content. If you have a problem with that, be my guest and ask for a third opinion. Montanabw 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a good faith attempt to merge the new material you added with what had been in there, but I kept most of the original structure (not that it's perfect, but it is more in line with MOS). I am open to ideas that improve the article, but let's discuss before making any more drastic changes. And per WP:MOS and WP:CITE, it is really poor form to delete footnoted material. The answer to POV issues is often to explain both sides and "teach the controversy," not to remove things. Hope I have produced a reasonable compromise. I have asked some folks at WikiProject Equine to watchlist the article in case we cannot come to an agreement, this is a more informal way to help bring in some other perspectives is needed. Also, if it helps, sorry I got upset and snarky when I saw and reverted your original edit. I didn't have the time yesterday to do what I did today, and not knowing you or seeing any discussion on the talk page, I was quick to react. Hope things go forward in a more positive fashion from here on. Montanabw 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Carolinas AFD

(I'm "Mr. IP".) I am somewhat mystified by your claim that attempts to keep the article The Carolinas from being deleted are some sort of elaborate attempt to resurrect the Cackalacky article. Although I probably (probably) would have voted to keep that article as well, being generally of an inclusionist bent, my attempts to keep "The Carolinas" from being deleted aren't really related to that. I originally found "The Carolinas" while searching for the term "Cackalacky", which is now a redirect to it. On searching that article for the term, I found nothing, so I checked the talk page and saw the history. From there, I went back and re-added much of the information from it with sourcing. I had no involvement with either article prior to my arrival, and I frankly don't care that much about the "cackalacky" issue. I live in the state and think it's a pretty dumb nickname. 65.190.92.196 (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hatrick

But will the referee chalk them off for offside? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging by Euro 2008, nope. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, there's an editor lying behind the goal. Jack forbes (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the chance to warn you, Mick. Seek consensus first before making changes (exspecially those 4 articles). GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good one. I'll solve the middle east problem while I'm at it. There's nothing wrong with my version, except in the bizarre world of wiki, where common sense dissapears. So, here we are, all four of the countries within countries have a different status according to wikipedia. Right arm meet left arm. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me and go to the respective talk pages if you want to change the intros. It's not that hard. A personal attack on me is not going to do any good.Pureditor 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is extremely hard, as you well know, all you have done is remove a solution that satisfied both viewpoints, with a source. I'm not surprised at your dismissal as you clearly have no factual reason why my version needed reverting instantly, your only contribution today. Like I said, telling someone to go to the talk page in this instance is a complete piss-take, you haven't solved a thing here today. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see the above editors idea of being 'bothered' here, as he prefers to remove comments rather than answer them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Editor; I do not waste my time responding to immature trolls who have no concept of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages.Pureditor 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute and total rubbish. In case you were unaware, I'm an editor too, with plenty of experience of the five pillars, but thanks for the patronisation though, it helps me confirm where you're coming from. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See here anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

afd

I do expect an apology. The way to do it is on the afd page, using strikeout. Not that I need defense from the other editor, as Ive commented to him) DGG (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Quick and the Dead

Thats an idiom? Since when, where are your sources, why does it have priority over the disambig, why is it also listed in the disambig? Personally I rather doubt any of the cowboy movies with that name have any relation whatsoever to the sentence in the Bible, rather I believe its talking about gunfighters, your either quick or your dead (because the other guy is quick and shoots you, thus every duel can be considered to have one quick and one dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not my doing, I merely shuffled the content around into more appropriate locations, I never added any of the original content. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass Tours

Hi MickMacNee. I just wanted to ask you about this edit, as I was not sure that you knew that everything in that paragraph was extracted from the cited article, the one by Vicky Anderson. It might have been a trivia issue, but I did not think it was a BLP issue—unless there is an aspect of BLP that I'm not keeping in mind...? Thanks. Paul Erik 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah right. I'm not fussed, it looked as if it had been added by themselves, hence probably not sourced. I would note that the claim about being the youngest comes from them themselves though. Mostly it is just trivia-ish to my mind, is the full history of how the company started all that notable?. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was the one who had added it all, but really I was just picking and choosing a few things from the Anderson article, to demonstrate (to those involved in the AfD discussion) that there is some content that could be added. I wasn't all that careful about what to pick and what to leave out, thinking that I did not want to put all that much effort into it unless it was clear that the article here was going to be "kept". It could well be that the "interesting" tidbits I had selected are a little trivial. Paul Erik 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello MickMacNee. I recommend you let SFC's revert stand, as the re-adding of constituent country was on a trial bases (see what the reaction would be). We don't want another 'fight' there. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a procedural revert, he cannot revert simply on the basis of where a discussion took place, he can only revert on the merits of the change made and its justification, which he clearly did not. If he needs the arbitration committee to tell him that, then I guess that's whet it will take. MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll I ask is that you don't re-add constituent country; I've been there & done that (and got bruised up, over it). GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're getting bruised up because, you, as the reverters are doing, is treating it as a fight. Anything on wikipedia can be justified if you follow policy, and it will be those who choose to exist outside of the normal procedures that will suffer. Franky, their position is not grounded in policy, therefore, you are effectively being bullied off of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Mick. Hope you fare better then I did (all those weeks ago). GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

clue

Thanks, didn't know about that essay. Still, it's sad that disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning is often only wishful thinking. Dorftrottel (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit per MOS on Chernobyl disaster

MickMacNee, I'm afraid I consider your edit somewhat disruptive. I posted a note to you on Talk:Chernobyl_disaster. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Response re. my signature

Thanks for the suggestion. I will change my signature's colours tonight as I have nothing to do with that other guy who also uses a "4" in his username and hope you're not implying otherwise. --uk4ever 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this is better. --uk4ever 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Gang

Why have you removed my comments from this talk page? 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk page guidelines. The talk page is there to discuss improvements to an article only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not my personal views, every point I made is verifiable. 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cat got your keyboard? 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're trying to say. Points being verifiable is a matter for article space, not talk pages. If you have something to add to the article, do it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would but do you know something, in retrospect I can't be bothered. The Day that shower went down the drain, was a great day for English football. 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rare indeed

So is this level of wit. Thanks for possessing All the Clever. :) - Arcayne () 08:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

DRVs and userfying

Hello! While I cannot speak for all of my colleagues (Nick Penguin is also good about continuing to work on articles beyond AfDs and DRVs), as the initiator of the thread in which you commented, please note that I for one do in fact continue to work to improve the content under discussion as seen by and , as well as . So, if I initiate a DRV, please rest assured that I will in fact keep working on the article should it be restored or userfied. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

etiology

From etiology: "In medicine in particular, the term refers to the causes of diseases or pathologies", from the print dictionary closest to hand "The study of the causes of disease", please note that a homosexual sexual orientation is not considered either a disease or a pathology. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the article is about biology. It's a perfectly valid term. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a reasoned opinion on this subject

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about some sort of unofficial inclusion guideline for IPC sections. It's clear that some subject are genuinely notable when it comes to popular culture, but we don't have a proper gague of the lower end of the notability spectrum. All thoughts are welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear heavens

Do I have to be your example? Durova 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are eminently notable according to coverage in the reliable sources :D Anyway, I have my own thread on WR now for voting on the DRV, so my comments are also presumably now discountable as a bad faith conflict of interest. I guess I won't be around much this afternoon, I will obviously be busy taking calls from Guardian journalists all day :p MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Shakes head) makes me glad I nominated one of those Guardian journalists' biographies for courtesy deletion; gives me a leg to stand on. BTW could you give me a link to our site's statement on WP:UBERADMIN? I never did understand that op... ;) Durova 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DDStretch

Hello MickMacNee,

Whilst I think it would be more offensive than helpful to you for me to point out WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL (you're clearly an experienced editor), I would ask, respectfully, that you please give User:DDStretch less of a hard time on the mediation page and elsewhere. He is (AFAICT) the only gentleman who has taken action against multiple sockpuppets who've tried to spoil the process, and has, if you read through, done nothing but try to help on the UK/country mediation issue.

Although your posts are clearly written with an element of frustration with the process, I don't think it's fair to channel that towards him at all. Even if you haven't intended to, your messages come across in a way that continually disapproves of his actions, IMHO, when really, it needent. I'm as equally frustrated with the process, and have infact stepped away from it today (I don't think with that particular userbase a resolution will be made), but I'm confident that DDStretch has not only acted in total good faith, but has been prudent, patient and offered alternative ways of looking at things, when others haven't.

Remember, it is not DDStretch's responsibilty to manage the participants of that process - not only is he a brand new administrator, he is merely an interested party (as opposed to a mediator). I for one think it is worthwhile having both of you on that page, working together on the issue in hand. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here - seconded. 80.41.215.137 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Biology and Sexual Orientation

To answer your rude and unnecessarily inflammatory comments in the edit history of the Biology and Sexual Orientation article, yes, English is my first language. You could try being more polite; rudeness tends to make people rude in return. Your preferred wording is, 'Biology and sexual orientation describes the research into the possible existence of biological influences on the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in humans.' There are several problems here. Firstly, the word 'existence' is totally unnecessary in this sentence, since if there are possible biological influences on human sexual orientation, then by definition biological influences on human sexual orientation may exist. The concept of possibility includes the concept of existence. Secondly, the word 'ultimate' is totally unnecessary, since 'development' implies a final outcome. Thirdly, the word 'specific' is unnecessary, since 'human sexual orientation' implies specific orientations. All three of these words could be removed, and the sentence would have exactly the same meaning. Since sentences do not become clearer or more impressive just because they are longer, I am going to undo your edit. Try seeking a third opinion before reverting again. Skoojal (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't be, you are clearly owning the article now you have reverted two separate editors, and have little or no understanding of the lead section guideline. I absolutely have to question your knowledge of English given your interpretation of the words 'may' and 'appear' with regards scientific method, and your total obsession with grammatic succinctness. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, I don't understand English because I like keeping sentences short and simple when possible? A more detailed explanation of what you think is wrong with the way I phrased that sentence would be more helpful. Incidentally, I am not trying to 'own' the article. I've encountered this attitude in others, and I dislike it intensely. Skoojal (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

You've made it into my funny/clever/witty things list. Read and enjoy. - Arcayne () 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Honoured :D MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Heat (film) article. While the Misplaced Pages community appreciates your efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we cannot accept sources which appear to be the original work of the editor. If the material you added can be attributed to a reliable source, you may add it back if you cite it. This increases the reputation of Misplaced Pages as a whole and aids in the verifiability of the article. Trevor GH5 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't understood WP:V with regards films. Nor have you understood WP:OR. Finally, please DNTTR, when you have been reverted with a valid reason, do not simply repeat your revert with the exact same summary you used the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England

Hello Mick. All of us will have to let the 4 articles decide for themselves individually, as to what they want in their lead. Currently - England has , Wales has might become , Northern Ireland has & Scotland (surprise, surprise) has . Perhaps we should all follow Scotland's lead; (if we can't beat'em join 'em). GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy (if not continually restarting after half a day), but there isn't much logic in each edit being made on one article with the justification of achieving consistency with the other articles, when the principle of consistency has been rejected. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep our fingers crossed, that each article will decide on it's own & those seperate choices happen to be the same. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)