Hi Mick. The party's finished. Are you going to close the debate? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth someone else closing, an uninvolved admin maybe. I don't realy want this process to become attached to me. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken! Fair enough, well since you started the formalisation perhaps you could find a neutral admin to do just that. Sarumio is itching to get back to work... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is ANI an appropriate place to request? MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick to WP:AN, it's not an incident really, just something needing admin attention when possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant of course ;). I'll post it now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is owned by Medway Council and is under a very long lease to Arriva Southern Counties, whose permission has to be obtained for its use by other operators.

Please do not mis-represent the position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTAOHSF (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arriva are obliged to allow all operators reasonable access at commercial rates, as per the MMC report, the lease cannot and does not prevent this. This is all sourced information. MickMacNee (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your basic premise that BC's behavior continues to be a problem. However, don't you see that you're not in a good position to get anything done about this? Why not let it go? It's apparently not an emergency, as it's a problem we've been living with for a good long time. Friday (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'living with it' is the problem. Nothing has changed, and I proposed impartial monitoring in the arbcom, ignored, and outright opposed by the likes of Lara, and instead, I was laughingly told to do it myself. For which I get the obligatory accusations of stalking and harassment from beta. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to do more to nip these problems in the bud. But what to do with an established contributor who's been getting away with it all along, is a difficult question. Honestly, I am more bothered by his inability to engage in rational discussion, and his dismissal of valid criticism, than I am by whether he's "nice" or not. Someone can be a bit cranky and still be able to collaborate with others. BC isn't able to effectively collaborate. This is the big problem as I see it. Friday (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His chronic incivility is irretrievably linked to the behaviour you see above. If he knows he can easily dismiss/ignore/insult others, then there is no incentive to do the rest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, so now Angelo has closed the debate with a consensus going for option C, are you now going to seek out the general consensus on how to implement it - as you said in the poll for option C - "a standard should apply as in B (and be enforced), but can be overturned with consensus in particular cases on individual talk pages " The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, are you planning to do anything re: the comment above? I'm more than willing to discuss any rules (but for the life of me, (for the English articles anyway), can't think of any rules as to why one club would have FC abnd not the other!)

Am i thinking correctly that, as Option A and Option D werent chosen, that the only rule is basically the one you stated in the poll - that club names should only have FC attached in the Infobox header if the subject has been discussed to the point of consensus on individual article talk pages?? Cheers Sarumio (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose one now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And done nicely too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they choose the Stadium of Light instead?, to be honest its a better shaped more suited and coloured venue. 81.158.178.213 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official page [1] cites the history of exciting matches held at SJP, and the 'great atmosphere' the fans create. I can't imagine why the stadium of lihgt wasn't considered. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear me, strange from a tynesider .... 81.158.178.213 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought long and hard about PSNI, and decided not to include them because they are the territorial police and are therefore covered by Template:UK Police. SOCA and the SCDEA are there, but they are not territorial police. ninety:one 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, thanks for setting up the discussion so swiftly. I am concerned the way the discussion/constant bickering is going though. Could you clarify, either to me personally, or on the template talkpage, what the main point of this disucssuin is and how its different to the previous discussion attched to the original poll? At the moment there seems to be 4 or 5 editors trying to agree with you/making a few stipulations regarding foreign clubs names, but then theres 2 or 3 editors campaigning to have the infobox header the same as the article title (option A (voted against) in the original poll). Its making the votes of those who chose Option C pointless as if they didnt count!! Soo all thats happening is the two sets of editors are bickering again - an exact replica of the previous (now archived) disucssion. We seem to be going round in circles, almost to the point that we're back at Square One in that Dudesleeper and the Rambling Man are, once again, trying to row with me (and others) trying to make us explain ourselves and explain why we dont think it should be the same as the article title. I'm at a loss, i want this to progress properly, but the way its going, we're just going over old ground again! This should be the "next step" in finding a solution/common rule, I feel like we're jumping up and down on the previous step discussing the same stuff we did 2 weeks ago! I don't know if you can help or make things clearer to me/anyone else. Kind Regards Sarumio (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I kept forgetting about this. Yes, I agree we might be going over old ground here in our respective views, but I have no desire to act as 'referee' here, we're supposed to collaborate. If the discussion can't go forward with the imo adequate explanations I thought I had given for doing so, then I'm not particularly minded to get a hernia reigning it back in. Closing as no consensus is just as much a decision as anything else i'm afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

What is the problem to include this phrase, that has a FIFA source?: "Argentina and France are the only national teams in the world which have won the four most important titles organized by FIFA: World Cup, Gold medal in football in the Olympic Games, Confederations Cup, and the Continental Cup (Copa America for Argentina, and UEFA European Football Championship for France)."

Am I wrong? I think that it´s a valious record, that -actually- only two teams in the world have: Argentina and France. What is the problem of including the phrase?

See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, my interest is on the spanish wikipedia, where I´m a well respected user (Lancha_8795). I don´t care about what the english wikipedian users say or think about me... I only "fight" against vandalism and lies in the languages I can "harldy" dominate or speak, as english or portuguese... I know the wikipedia rules, and I know that when some user deny the official sources is vandalism here and in China. Oh, I´m NOT out of control nor i didn´t call crazy to anyobody. Please, read carefully the discussions.

--Ultracanalla (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should stay where you know what you are doing then, because quite clearly, you do not know what you are doing here. Reverting your opinion is not vandalism. I have read the discussions, that is exactly why I made those comments. All the pages you continually REVERT IN CAPITAL LETTERS were on my watchlist before you ever arrived here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I won´t give up. I will stay here until many articles be as they have to be. I will continue in this fight against lies invented by many supporters, that many other users -icredibly- defend. --Ultracanalla (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a serious problem if you think you are right and everyone else is wrong and a liar, judging by your behaviour now in two completely separate issues, which both have multiple editors who are against your opinions. Anyway, if you carry on this way I am sure you will be banned soon enough. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I´m getting an appointment with the Psichologyst in order to cure my insane... --Ultracanalla (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to say I've noticed your good efforts in the football club parameter issue (trivial as it seems). It is good to see that you are trying to resolve difficulties in a considered manner rather than attacking them head on. I know Ultracanalla isn't the most co-operative user (some people might say the same about you looking at all the 3RR blocks) but I just thought I'd say using language like "quite clearly, you do not know what you are doing here" is likely to stir the flames. I also think you need to take language abilities into consideration, if English is not their first language, starting or contributing to debates is much more difficult. We need to encourage constructive contributions from editors with in depth knowledge of South American football and Argentina (my areas of interest) rather than argue with them. Anyway, keep striving to make Wikipedia better, all the best EP 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm yes and no. I have honestly tried to work with him rules wise, to the point of actually staying completely out of the actual content dispute even though I have an opinion. My recent comments are pretty much illustrative of me reaching the end of the line (my line is short, but hey, I'm no admin), in the face of a lack of (despite repeated requests) admin intervention (yes I know, embrace, don't banish), but this guy has real language/wp issues that prevent normal process. However, I will absolutely support your proposal to adopt him and reign him in ;) . MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Mick, we must stop with this useless discussion. I prommise i will treat with more respect everybody and I want you to do the same with me, please. I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I´m not a bad user and I only try to help in the football articles. We start again at 0? We all have to give the other cheek!

See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually prefer it if you took adoption from a user such as EP. It was said as a joke, but on reflection actually makes sense. Your language problems are extremely disruptive because they prevent others interpreting your actions. A case in point is your use of the word 'vandalism'. This has a specific meaning in wikipedia, and you were using it incorrectly. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you a cookie and apologize for my comments here. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Buses on princes street.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Buses on princes street.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your handling of the recent discussion of deleting the Wikilobby template, was really excellent. it was extremely sensible and helpful. thanks for your efforts. I look forward to being in touch further, and perhaps working together further at some points in the future. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I think you are mistaken, I had to change the disambiguation page from replica to new-build. I hope you understand this Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per what it says on the tin, I'll block you if you make any more edits to BC or BCBot's talk pages. If you have a problem with the code, you know where BAG are. This disruption stops here and now. Nick (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the selective removal of comments by BC to actively mis-represent the timeline and nature of the discussion. But then again, I know full well that jack shit will be done about it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, I know you're both causing disruption and that's what I am stamping out. Nick (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't care, that would actually involve looking at the facts of the situation, which just does not happen regarding beta, no matter what he says or does. I swear to god he must have fixed Jimbo's VCR at one point or another, because he sure has immunity for any and all infractions around here for some reason or another. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think you are doing a service to the people who disagree with BC by taunting him like you do? Your attitude is really not helping. Just stay away from each other, please. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realy think he is ever going to change except by coersion?, after 2 arbcom cases and hundreds of AN/I threads? Actually scratch that, because there are obviously enough admins to protect him when he runs into trouble in his latest excuse, or blow off of a user, so in fact, he will never change. I happen to think if you looked up the archives, his behaviour years ago is no different to today. Wikipedia is stuck with him warts and all, and it's a situation they appear to welcome with open arms. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, I notice even though there is a topic ban made above, one of the BAG has ridden to beta's rescue and protected his page anyway. Pity they are unable to restore/delete comments on his talk page in the order they were made/removed by him. But that would require just the smallest amount of impartiality and judgement. Oh how I laugh when I recall the lengthy arbcom discussions over impartial monitoring of his talk page. It's quite clear that was never going to happen. BC is apparently using his employers company confidential code for wikipedia and distributing it to other editors he trusts (but does his company?), bc is apparently deceiving the community when he strongly insisted before his second arbcom case that he absolutely could not separate his tasks due to technical reasons, bc is obviously not interested in doing anything the community asks if it inconveniences him, even if it comes from a large demonstration of consensus. He's a law unto himself, and the above statements, as well as numerous other AN/ANI/BAG appeasements only serve to show exactly why he gets away with it, as well as more basic violations of CIVIL and AGF, just days after arbcom 2, and in the days after if anyone excuses that as an abberation. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider topic banning you from mentioning Betacommand at all, anywhere on Wikipedia, but came to the conclusion that would be un-necessary, keeping you and BC apart would be enough, but it seems it's not. Do you really want to be banned from discussing, commenting on or involving yourself in anything to do with Betacommand, or are you going to drop the issue and return to productive editing that has absolutely nothing to do with Betacommand, his bot, his friends etc ? Nick (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think it's irrelevant, as it is my assertion that it doesn't matter whether you object to anything bc says or does civily or incivily, he will respond with the exact same behaviour he has always done, ignore, revert as vandalism/trolling, or a basic insult because his knowledge of bots is infinite, even though he is an expert/amateur programmer (depending on who you ask and what the situation is). If you can find a single diff to suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. The fact is, if you ask or say something he doesn't want to hear, he will just act like a child. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've only just spotted this unseemly dust-up. From what I can see, Betacommand is sensitive to criticism on this topic. MickMacNee may not be the most diplomatic editor in the world, but that does not justify Betacommand's edits here, or the edit summaries here and here. Also, the comment here (to another editor) was similarly grossly incivil. Nick, I see that you said "I know you're both causing disruption and that's what I am stamping out" - which is fair enough. In the interests of fairness, could you also deal with Betacommand and tell him how his behaviour needs to change? Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's only fair. I was considering a request to put Betacommand under civility parole of some sort. That said, the regular baiting by MickMacNee is not helping - two wrongs don't make a right. And for what it's worth, I believe Betacommand is a good programmer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you understood what he is on about re. not being able to split tasks, for a technical reason as opposed to a 'its a pain' reason? And do you believe other users have seen his code, if it in actual fact contains company confidential novel technology? Either his company is extremely lax, or their tech is not exactly of interest to anyone anyway. No one has actualy ever suggested he is a bad programmer as far as I know by the way, the problem is everything to do with what happens when you indulge all the other faults of a person just because they are perceived as having an indispensible programming talent to offer. Someone wrote a big piece on it in the arbcom, very informative, and apt. MickMacNee (talk)

I have read it without input (I know nothing of writing bots). If it's a pain for Betacommand then it can be a justification not to do it (i.e. if I ask Betacommand to only use tail-recursion in his code so I can prove it works easily). For what it's worth, Betacommand does do the programming and programming is not necessarily easy. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had spoken with BC in private, but I've left a note in public too, just so everybody knows the score. Nick (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In future, please do leave such notes in public. Simply having a private word with one side of a dispute, and giving a very public topic banning to the other side, gives entirely the wrong impression. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another appeasement as far as I'm concerned. I know full well that he will treat any editor questioning him in a way he doesn't like or suggesting a course of action he doesn't want to take in exactly the same way, I've seen it time and again for months, and seen the complaints of others for years. I posted a query on the arbcom page as to the enforceability of remedies by admins in arbcom case 2 given certain phrases in the policy that state remedies are enforceable by admins. Strangely it met with a deathly silence (I haven't checked it in a while though). MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Franamax, he was talking to you when he said you don't know what you're talking about, the reply was in sequence with your comment [2], but don't take it personally, this is his standard reply to many people, per above analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering why you had removed the category "Structural Engineering" from this page? I am a structural engineer and I do seismic risk analyses (among other things). I have to say that I am not particularly bothered by the edit (I feel that the whole page could do with rewriting anyway due to the folksy style), and I am also aware that "Seismic Risk" may mean different things to different people. What does it mean to you?

--Muchado (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was because Category:Earthquake and seismic risk mitigation is sub-category of Structural Engineering. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Dust1235? Did you manage to contact him? Or did he just vanish? 122.54.91.154 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your edits to {{User DGAF}} & {{User DGAF2}}. I was wondering, did you consider the possibility that all of the users who have those templates on their user page liked them the way they were before? Just wondering about the thought process you employed before your edits... thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed they wouldn't give a fuck. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've commented on your reversion of my changes to the article Routemaster, along with what drove me to make the changes, on Talk:Routemaster. I'd appreciate your response there. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on talk page btw. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick. Would you be able to update Image: AQA graph.JPG? The relevant data are:

• 29 February 08: answered question no. 11 million
• 21 April 08: answered question no. 12 million

Both of these are from AQA's own press releases at http://www.63336.com/news/. Cheers Charlie (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't let your personal vendettas interfere with Wikipedia. I'm sure it is no coincidence that the only comments you left there were in opposition to people who have blocked you previously. Yeah, the two of them are wrong, of course. [3]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with wikipedia that lazy admins barely go beyond the basics as you have just done, and assume blocks are always justly and unbaisedly given out. If you want a real lesson in the variability of admin judgement around here, just take a look at betacommand's last failed Rfa, something like 70 for 80 against, it should be required reading in wiki admin school. And as far as I know in the current flux in procedure, anyone is allowed to comment in the BAG votes, and an example of bias towards BAG members and the continuation of the cabal suspiscions are wholly valid points to make there.MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, I wanted to drop you a quick note about refactoring sections that have been in place for a long time. It's INCREDIBLY annoying, to visit a link that someone else referenced somewhere (say WT:BOTS or WP:AN), and then have to search around for where it is *now*. IIRC it's all already been moved around once, and, it would really be better if these ones retain the original titles. We didn't used to have that section up top, and, it wasn't there at the start of those. But, now that it's there, further noms should probably use the format you were changing them to. For now, why don't we leave them as they are, please? SQL^{Query me!} 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems someone else had a brilliant way to do both! [4] SQL^{Query me!} 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolz. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC}

You were right to reverse my reversal - I missed your second paragraph. Apologies, should not edit late at night! --Snowded (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I see you have placed a third option at the Wales page vote for constituent country or country. I believe your option is the same as option 1 ie: country. If option 1 was chosen it would read as you say, Wales, a country within the United Kingdom..... --Jack forbes (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who have I attacked? MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing another editor to Robert Mugabe who is generally known for his human rights abuses, is a personal attack, personal attacks against other editors are prohibited. Please stop or you will be blocked indefinitely for continued harassment. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a case of creative interpretation to meet a pre-determined objective, the comparison is the response, not the person, as is plain and clear from the wording of the post. To misinterpret it otherwise is a clear attempt to twist my words. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you have been warned, the next time, it will be an indef block. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted, happy now? MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies MickMacNee, I was unaware of all the facts of the situation when I made the warning, I am retracting the warning at this time. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shearer poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Mosmof (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a tag to this image as a non-free use of a promotional poster. I think that it would be better if you cropped the image to leave out the persons at the bottom, and you updated the information to say that it's a cropped version of the original --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very impressed by your breakdown of the situation here. Spot on. Enigma ^message 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin noticeboard thread has been opened which may be relevant to you. Please see WP:AN#Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry for details. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MickMacNee. Thanks for the good work you did splitting List of sportspeople by nickname into separate sports. I notice that quite a few of the names have a dash and an equals sign between the nickname and the full name. Was that intentional? Or did you just miss changing some of the dashes into equals signs? I was going to remove the dashes, but when I saw there so many, I thought I'd better check first. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equals is to identify colums if later tabulated, so I think the dashes are supefluous, a result of it not being uniform before. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry#Proposal_for_drama_reduction is over the line. Clearly you dislike Betacommand, but please try to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Much as it pains me to say it, please consider this a warning. Any more and I'll be very moved towards the block button. The phrase: "rise above it" comes to mind. Martinp23 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would point anyone looking at this comment from you, to the input you made at the last request for approval of another betacommandbot task." --- That is now the second time you have made this type of comment. What are you talking about? I have never commented on any of BetacommandBots BRFAs. Check for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the BAGRFA page. Same difference to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a diff? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If/when required. And more. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially reverted your edit because it doesn't follow other railway station articles. For example, you would see Cardiff Central station rather than Central station, Cardiff. If you feel I'm wrong, please 'discuss before reverting as not to cause an edit war. Thank you User:Welshleprechaun) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. It's safe to say from my POV and by sources that you are forcing a made up name to satisfy some unadopted wikipedia standard, rather than actually reflect reality. The whole issue is a complete joke, and is exactly the kind of thing that makes normal people laugh at wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reinstated the rumours of sven being sacked. I have not reverted until I discussed it with you. However it is a rumour until it is confirmed by either source in the discussion (in this case the employee (sven) or the employer (man city)). No statment from either party has been made to this effect and as such it is still a rumour. The friend of one of the parties involved is not a reliable source. Please let me know if you think I have it wrong, if not I believe this kind of edit should be reverted, at least until the decision has been made one way or the other. Pbradbury (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have not seen any respoce, I have reverted. Please let me know if you have a problem with this. Pbradbury (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, reverted, sorry, forgot about this, and wasn't clear which revert you were talking about, I was reverting rumours from that page all week, but now I see what you removed, my objection is the fact that the BBC article quoted Tord Gripp, who is Sven's agent, not just his friend, plus it's not exactly a secret that this has happened, tabloids or not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not true Athole Still is Svens agent, and he has stated that he is in the dark about Thaksins intensions see [5]. Please don't re-add before discussing here. The sources you provided merely say that someone said that, they do not verify that it has happened, wikipedia is not a newspaper or a magazine Pbradbury (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, stay in the dark all you want. MickMacNee (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, good shout on the straw poll. Most of my energy has been consumed by trying to convince him and Grant not to edit war each other to hell and back. Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that's not to say it will stop anything mind... MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Anyway, Champions League final calls. Enjoy (if you're watching), have a relaxing night (if you're not, or both!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the nominators did not know Dust is a SPA. Please recreate it! PLEASE! 122.54.93.104 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They know. Freaking H Christ they know. Go and have a lie down in a dark room. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Then recreate it! 122.54.93.104 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my recent edit to Manchester City F.C. with the edit summary standard in many team articles. Exhaustive lists of every official, major or minor, may be present in some articles, but seldom in featured ones, where it has generally been viewed as undue weight. Several of these people are not sufficiently notable to merit an article, which is a good yardstick for what to include in the main club article. In any case, the information is still present in the daughter article Ownership of Manchester City F.C., where it is more pertinent. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same guy as the one who is bothering you. I am recreating the template. If you are an admin, ban Dust1235 This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this post is about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it's all about, this user says their other account was indef blocked. It seems to have to do with deleting Template:Seconds From Disaster and the DRV for it. Maybe you'll remember after seeing it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know its about the template, I just have no clue what he is actually trying to say. He's been bouncing around the wiki bothering everyone and anyone about this template. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really had any interaction with you before, but I've seen your comments about Betacommand in multiple forums recently. It's apparent that have a real animus towards that editor - I'd like to offer the advice, as I did at this MfD, and as AuburnPilot did at WP:AN, that you walk away from the Betacommand situation. The tone of your arguments is completely undermining the concerns that you have. I'm not saying that you have no basis for your criticisms - just that it should probably be someone else who raises those concerns. Betacommand seems to be under close community scrutiny, I think you can rest assured that if he does something against policy it's going to be called to his attention. Kelly ^hi! 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say, given the nominator attacks at the Mfd, I am not minded to set much stall by your supposedly neutral 'advice' here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacks"? Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you view any kind of criticism as an "attack", then it's probably best to disengage from this conversation - it's unlikely to achieve anything productive. But I'll warn you that you're likely heading for some kind of dispute resolution forum or topic ban in regard to Betacommand - when it happens I'll be happy to endorse as someone who tried to talk to you about this. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good advice Mick. Not everyone who disagrees with you is attacking you, and you have been demonstrating that you have an ax to grind with Beta. If Beta's behavior is a problem then other people will notice it too, it is probably best if you just avoided Beta. _{1 != 2} 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have no appreciation of the difference between addressing the nominator and addressing the nomination. That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Thus any topic ban would be demonstrably be a complete joke, and even worse, to uphold an agenda. If I ever actually make an action towards beta himself, and not a perfeclty legitimate nomination per policy, then you can come back to me. Otherwise, keep your bias under control. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very important distinction. Let me be more clear, I am not talking about the MfD, I am talking about the fact that you are clearly bias when it comes to Beta and that you would do better to let others handle him and just stay away. You don't have to accept this for it to be true. _{1 != 2} 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't both be right, and I'm confident in my position. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets just see what the community thinks at the noticeboard. _{1 != 2} 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the subject of a topic ban here. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could very easily happen. Since Al's name is actually 'Alan', and Alan Shearer's first name is often abbreviated to Al, it is perfectly reasonable to assume this could occur. As such, I have readded the hatnote. asenine ^{say what?} 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For once I agree with MickMacNee on this one . It's a needless distinction, just serves to overcomplicate things. The footballer has pretty much never been named as "Al Shearer". No need for the hatnote. MattM4 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for disruptive editing, namely, needless incivility, provocation and personal attacks. Telling someone they don't have balls is a personal attack; provoking others, namely Beta, being intentionally disruptive, and adding gasoline to the fire, just in the last few hours. I asked you to tone it down on AN, but you continued on, and told 1=2 he has no balls a few minutes later. This is unacceptable behaviour and is harmful to a collaborative project. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an amazing aggregation of ingredients to concoct a block pie, from a BAG member surprise surprise. Per 1==2, demonstrate he is willing to change the consensus at WP:WBE instead of doing a runaround in an obscure Mfd, otherwise he has no balls, simple as (if you prefer I will call him a chicken if that gets people out of a block); per Beta, provoking? hardly (all things considered) - that was the implication towards me, that I was wrong in both occasions (and you're talking about provocation elsewhere), so I assume you mean I am not allowed to defend myself; and finally, as for getting blocked for quoting an essay in a talk page, then you are so far out of the block park, home base is a dot to you. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise he has no balls, simple as (if you prefer I will call him a chicken if that gets people out of a block) and then you are so far out of the block park, home base is a dot to you. — I rest my case. Maxim_(talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm laughing my tits off at the mere idea of Maxim ever even considering blocking Beta for 24 hours for, let's say, telling someone to "shut the fuck up" a few days after his second arbcom. Or the thought of 1==2 ever giving full disclosure before faking neutrality at AN. Userpage protection in 5..4..3..2..1. We must silence this user, before he says too much! MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]