User talk:MickMacNee

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

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

Robson talk page

Me:this is a continuation of [[1]]

I've replied at the article talk page. I think your start point is reasonable but the argument's become a little heated and some extreme positions seem to be being taken by people (including yourself) that they didn't originally intend. Please reply at the article talk - I'll be watching. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts vis Betacommandbot

I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts re the ridiculous betacommandbot. I am now one of those relatively infrequent editors who won't bother uploading images because of him/her/it?. I also suspect that after I complained once, the bot must have then trawled all my previous uploads and tagged most. I uploaded the self made versions of Australian Army World War Two colour patches (logos) in the Australian Commandos article. This is how Australians identify with the individual units and is really an essential part of the article. Now they will all dissappear on 19 Feb according to "it". Anyway keep up the fight and thanks again. Krait (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL thanks!. If they are self made though, i.e. you made them in paint?, then you can release them as own work public domain I think. If not, let me know where you uploaded them from and I'll do the tags for you, they improve the article, it isnt that hard when you know what's required (I've ended up learning during the fight lol). My issue is not the tagging or the policy (although it's a nightmare to understand, it's the sheer tidal wave way the bot is being operating, I don't think it's intelligent to be able to target all your uploads, I think it's just the sheer number of the last run (>15,000tags) probably caught them all. It's also not fair that so many previously acceptable images are being tagged because the policy changed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add my thanks. I don't upload images, but I've seen the destruction and irritation this bot has caused in the last few days alone. Enigma (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to give up, common sense will never prevail. Editors have pleaded with Betacommand to make his bot follow the redirect when someone has simply moved the page (without changing the precise pagename in every fair-use rationale on the article) but nothing changes. Some people are committed deletionists and the bot gives them a great big list of images to delete every time it does a run of 15k+. English peasant 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh so I'm not alone, Betacommandbot is ridiculous and now i'm being censored for a userbox expressing this opinion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin. Is it not obvious that it is impossible to write a bot with the intelligence to consider whether something is fair use or not. Google would dream to have an AI that good.. --Bleveret (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of users who have problems with this bot. Complaints have been numerous. Unfortunately, the bot has been allowed to run rampant for the most part. Enigma ^msg! 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mick - I did make them for a history presentation I gave at the Commando Unit I served in in 2001-2003. Most have now gone and I need to look for the old CD I had them saved on so I can upload. I have seen similar with the Australian PD template and have put this on the few remaining in the vain hope betacommand doesn't find them for a while. Cheers Krait (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, didn't think about the fact the govt. might own the copyright. MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of Geordie

Excuse me but you don't seem to understand, the article geordie has a number of people in it which are claimed to be "geordies", and these may be backed up by citations, but since geordie is a dialect and a local nickname for the people Newcastle Upon tyne, no source for this kind of subject can ever be accurate. As many people from the region of North East England are mistaken for geordies by outer sources who do not understand the regional nicknames of the Northeast, calling the people geordies who aren't, hence why situations like this occur, and many of these people who are in the article geordie, come from the Wearside area, which has its own dialect and nickname called Mackem (which is a completely different thing) and many people who are on the list of notable geordies at the same time are on the list of notable mackems "hence why it can never be accurate", this makes things difficult and confusing on wikipedia and hence no sources for this subject are reliable, I am offended by the content of the article, I personally think wikipedia would be better off without these "notable geordies" and "notable mackems" sections due to the lack of WP:V. You can't use news sources which mis-understand the dialect as accurate sources, play fair.86.150.252.106 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it?

• Heather Mills- born in the south, brought up in Washington, tyne and wear, which is wearside, and covered by the term mackem, is a geordie? she's not, use your common sense.

• This is being addressed elsewhere, I'm not continuing the discussion in different places. You already have enough information on the issue from me. I suggest you re-post the above on the article talk page before continuing to disrupt the article. I will not continue what is a content dispute on my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has not reverted since I warned them, and thus I have given them a pass. Gregs the bunny DID revert, and so he was blocked. That was the reason for the discrepancy. I have watchlisted the article. If the problems continue, I will issue protection on the article until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Top Buses

Hi Mick, thank you for your efforts in tidying my contribution - in particular it makes good sense to put most of the photos into a gallery (although your expression "image carpet bombing" could be construed as intimidatory). I do have a quibble, however, with your deletion of the section on Regular open-top services. I believe that (at least) the paragraph

• Open-top buses are employed on regular timetabled stage-carriage services at many scenic locations in the United Kingdom, especially at the coast. Generally these run during the "summer season" which is usually from Easter until September, and may be replaced by closed vehicles during inclement weather. They are often "sea-front" services in urban coastal resorts, but some are longer distance services which provide the best possible views of the scenery.

should be retained to give an idea of the most usual current type of use of these vehicles.

The use of examples is, admittedly, biased towards southern England, but it provides a clearer picture of some classic bus rides which almost warrant an article in their own right. Without those examples, users will not be inspired to include their own examples from elsewhere (which would enrich the article significantly). I realise that you created the article and may wish to see it retained in more or less the same format that you originally envisaged, but that isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, is it? By the way, where was there any inclusion of a "timetable" as referred to in your edit summary?

Sorry if this sounds a bit terse, but I feel just as strongly about inclusion of my contribution as you feel about deleting it (and deleting it requires a lot less thought and is a lot less time consuming than being constructive). Weydonian (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, no probs at all, but I would say that you should remember WP is targetted at a global audience (admittedly English speakers), so as it was it seemed too UK centric. Rest assured I know where you are coming from, but in my experience, general articles such as this need to be as neutral and unbiased as possible, or, if it gets to the stage of regional examples, un-biased. There are editors in WP who patrol and tag any article too skewed towards a particular country where it is not warranted (not me I might add, please think of my edits as preventative through experience). There may be a case that these sorts of services only exist in the UK, for climate reasons or whatever, I was struggling to think of others as I editted (California?), if that is the case, there may actually be a case for a new article, or inclusion in a tourism in britain type article. I am totally not against the text (although there are policies against WP being a tourist guide or timetable, which the info borders on: think what happens in a year's time when we have gone elsewhere and someone reads this article, it might be completely irrelevant by then). On the image comment, it was meant to be light-hearted, but again, for me there is a learned precedent behind it, images are not meant to be the overwhelming articles from the out-set, and the thumb format allows one click expansion if the reader requires to look in detail, so again, don't take that as a malicious edits just because of the subject, you will see that is not my bag from my previous edits if you look back far enough. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. reading back again, please feel free to start a UK centric tourist bus type article, I will support you in it whatever happens. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My AN/I Comment

I've responded to your post on my talkpage. I like the 'royal wiki finger' comment! Its pretty funny, I'll use it again if I remember. Avruch ^T 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

replied MickMacNee (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Gotta run, so just a quick note to say thanks for your interjection - it helped!! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Geordie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. , what you don't seem to understand is to use the talk page and you can't accuse me of being a sock as an excuse to revert, and "you believing you are right" does not excuse you from 3rr. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite simply, unbelievable. You have to laugh sometimes I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock, and the version will be left at the sysop version until concensus is done on the talkpage, the references are invalid because there is no definition for the term itself therefore you can't define who is a geordie, Gregs the baker is pretty ignorant and so are you. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It gets better... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just wow isn't it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to revert any further, you can re-revert back to your "right" version, but then you face 3RR, you are gregs the baker don't seem to understand just because you think you are "right" you can win an edit war, all this was explained on greg's talk page by the blocking admin. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't think we are right, we are editing as per wikipedia policies. I would point them out to you, and the reasons why you are wrong, but as you and I know, that has already been done time and again. Only one person here is unable to build a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about ZogontheTyne. I've been speechless and astounded since tracking down what he has been up to, (as my dearly departed mum would say, "bless his little cotton socks"), and I've only just gotten to the point where you were 3 hours ago. Yes, wow. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear Grylls

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Eh? I have never met Grylls, I have never served in the Armed Forces. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring on Bear Grylls, and also blocked the IP editor in such a way that he can't log in anymore. In the future, please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. east.718 at 19:29, February 17, 2008

Mick, five reverts in a short space of time. This is inevitable. You know of WP:3RR, don't you? I know it's frustrating but you've got to play the game... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

heads up

Since you so gladly asked for more communication and want to assist in helping fix images that BCBot identifies as failing WP:NFCC, I am going to have the bot notify you when it tags an image. β^_command 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

yay, more carpet-bombing of talk pages. Plus, Mick just got a block, so he won't be able to fix things for a period of time anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is serious abuse, what the bot just did. Enigma ^msg! 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI report. See below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (Betacommandbot and MickMacNee talk page)

This needs to go on the record. I've started an ANI thread here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page was unfortunately used for disruption; you can find the offending material here. east.718 at 13:43, February 18, 2008

I saw it, thanks. I find it rather amusing that that is his method of consensus building. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

you stated FUR's that contain redirected links are valid but not readable by BCB. Tagging these images as non-compliant is against policy., but that also is not true BCBot does follow redirects. β^_command 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly true in the case of db pages and the litten thing.MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

those are not redirects, and thus not valid. so your comments is not correct. β^_command 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NX

I assumed it was uncontroversial as it was up for nearly a week. Maybe a new article should be created integrating many brands so National Express UK. Companies all over the UK are being rebranded by National Express. I have not removed this from WP:RM so feel free to move it back or at least carry on the discussion. The alternative name which i originally gave was National Express (bus company). I still think National Express should redirect to National Express Group. Simply south (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I literally started looking into it again prompted by the recent hat edit. I was also considering relisting the RM. I am up for further discussion at Talk:National_Express_Coaches#Requested_move. I will revert the basic moves to keep the current context for discussion, and make new proposals. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about it I'm going to start this discussion at the National Express Group talk page as that page is the least likely one to change name. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've retagged, reopened and relisted. Simply south (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a new hobby

Your constant prodding of Betacommand is getting old now. We've already established that a lot of your claims are not accurate and your approach leaves much to be desired. Running to AN/I every other day with Betacommand on your mind is seriously inappropriate. Ease up. Nothing constructive is coming from it. You're baiting him into losing his cool while making yourself look bad. Go find something else to do. Wikipedia is VAST, I'm sure you can find a project. Lara❤Love 08:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Lower Manhattan

Your recent editing history at Lower Manhattan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--David Shankbone 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Again another pointless warning from an editor involved in the actual war. What is the point, seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one does wonder what is the point: you go to Table dance and dislike the photo, you nominate the article for deletion, then you go to every page where that photo is located, Lower Manhattan and Meatpacking District, articles you have never cared about before, and you get involved in edit wars on both to remove the photograph. Seriously, what is this point? --David Shankbone 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What policy says I can't do that? An irrelevant image is an irrelevant image, however many times it is re-used. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors such as yourself tend to burn out quickly. You end up pissing enough people off, not caring anything about the "work together" spirit that is required to successfully edit Wikipedia, and you eventually get blocked, banned, or you storm off. I'm not going to edit war with you. I have patience --David Shankbone 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the advice, I seem to recall you "leaving" WP once already. Working together is not 2 people argueing, by the way. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Meatpacking District

Your recent editing history at Meatpacking District, Manhattan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --David Shankbone 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See above. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to know which article you are referring to. MickMacNee (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand‎, regarding the MfD notice. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)^

6RR

You now have a choice. I could've blocked you both, but I am going to unprotect this page now. One more revert and you get a holiday. I have left a similar message for Betacommand. Black Kite 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute was not of my making, it is clear what betacommand wants to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent DRV

Hello. I was the admin who closed the MfD and redirected the pages to the Administrators' noticeboard subpages. I would really have preferred that you had tried to contact me rather than simply trying to reverse my "deletion," mostly because I would have explained that I didn't delete anything at all. Everything is still available in the page history, not a single revision has been lost. There is no way for any admin to "vanish" revisions, we delete them sometimes, but even then, they're not really gone. Here is the revision of the page before I redirected. So... would you mind if I closed the DRV? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the discussion has been 'dissappeared', without any clear commitment to that outcome, so no, I do not want it closed. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving would have been better than a protected redirect. Discussion needs to be archived. There is lots of useful discussion there that will not be found by anyone in a few months time, let alone next year. If you think of it as an RfC in the wrong venue, RfCs are not turned into protected redirects, well, not usually. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Throw down the tiara and step away from the babysitter

152.91.9.144

I'm giving you a Wikipedia:Yellow Card. Regardless of your intentions, or how you present them, your continued input is being seen in some quarters as disruptive or harrasing. The ritualistic "shooting of the messenger" has begun. A key wiki-skill is trusting other users to do the right thing in your stead. It might be best if you took all these BC-related pages off your watch list for a little while.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I do hope you can seperate my request from the, uhh, more pointed one below. Secondly, I repeat that I beleive that at this point your well past where you're doing any good. Carth. is doing a great job at pressing forward and is attracting less heat. Have some faith in his (and others) abilites to get a positive outcome. (I say this will the knowledge that in all the times I've asked other people to back away slowly, only one (Splash) ever took my advice.)
152.91.9.144 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I think I may have made a UTC conversion mistake, and that you might actually have already taken my (and Ef F's) advice. If so, please just trout-slap me and move on. Sorry. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove

MickMacNee, if you don't stop making false statements and spreading misinformation, information which has already been pointed out as inaccurate,[3] you risk being blocked. Patience is running thin. Lara❤Love 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is innacurate in that statement? Enlighten me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How does the tag placed on newbie uploaders pages help when it's full of technical terms and contains no links to an FAQ designed to meet the repeat questions

The tags left on the talk pages, as pointed out in detail on that page, make it explicitly clear what the problem is and what needs to be done to fix it.

BCB's talk page and his 17-point 'why it's not my fault' box

We've been over this already. It's 10 points. This exaggeration is done to purposefully disrupt.

relying on the copydesks goodwill to answer the same quesions day after day after day who even had to set up a separate board to deal with the questions

We've been over this before too. Everyone is here on a volunteer basis. You are pointlessly attempting to place all of the burden on Betacommand. Those of us who help at the image desks do so because we want to. Many BCB questions aren't really about the bot at all. And there is a FAQ now, so we'll see how much that helps. Regardless, Betacommand shouldn't have to answer the same questions day after day either. Two years of that bullshit is why he's snippy with people like you, who are too lazy (see below) to take care of problems, too lazy to do your research and too lazy to get your facts straight before launching a campaign against him and his bot in the form of a "proposal" full of misinformation and ignorance.

I've seen plenty tagged articles with marginal subjects that would get no attention within the 7 day limit

That's not Betacommand's fault.

in my and other editors cases, seeing 15 tagged articles of this type occur in the same day in your watchlist, you lose the will to even start to help

That's not Betacommand's fautl either. You're too lazy to fix the problems. How is that his fault? You've got the time and will to create a waste of server space to attack him and his bot, but you can't spend an hour fixing some bad uploads of precious legacy images that you so passionately adore?

As per usual, your posts are non-productive, repetitive, off-topic and contain mis-information. You pound the same problems into the page over and over while never offering a way to improve said problems. Your hypocritical criticisms of Betacommand's responses coupled with all of the above is what I and others are talking about. Lara❤Love 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Off_topic_comments_.28failed_discussion_threads.29 Also unhelpful. Lara❤Love 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Yet again you can't even see the difference bewtween his talk page and the bot's page, (it is 17), and completely can't separate comments about the bot and him, or separate suggestions from impreovement from attacks. How is it my fault he's had to take crap for 2 years? In your own words, that's nothing to do with me, and as everyone but you can see, absolves him of nothing in terms of lack of AGF or adherence to policy. There is now a FAQ? If it's the one I'm thinking of, its creation owes nothing to him or his participation, and is not linked from his page or anywhere it might be useful to someone looking at a tagged image, check if you need to: [4], so he deserves no credit for it. If you have spent the time fixing the images in the way the bots presents them to you, more fool you, some of us are intelligent enough to see it can be done better and more efficiently, if one of the links in the chain was actually receptive. If you think answering the same questions day in day out on the help desk is the only way to deal with reactions to the bot's runs, then once again, more fool you, again people with a better perspective can see there is an easier way to inform users about betacommandbot's what's/whys and wherefors, bar the 17 point excuse list. What's worse is you don't even see the merit in raising these issues, and the complete hypocrisy in slapping them down when betacommand sees fit not to even contribute to the discussion at all. So, on you go, you don't have the time to waste to be talking to me. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I sit corrected. I did think you were speaking of Beta's talk page and not his bots. Yea, the bots talk page does have 17 points. They detail information and contain answers to some frequently asked questions. IN FACT, I bet that could be turned into a FAQ. How about that? Just add some questions to it... yea. I'll look in to that. Though there is the other FAQ and, regardless of who created it, it's being developed, which is what you wanted, so stop being picky and be glad. As you can't take any credit for it either, past incessant whining I suppose. So you see, MMN, some of your concerns actually are being addressed. We're picking them out of the "bullshit and lies", as it was referred to, and we're addressing them. You're getting the response from everyone that matches the tone you give. Speaking of that, as far as intelligence goes, I don't think you're one to be judging me. Lara❤Love 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara, if he insinuated that you're unintelligent, that's not a reason to fire back with "No, you're the stupid one!" If you feel he's being uncivil, I'm sure you're not alone, but that's not a reason for more incivility. There's already been plenty of it from all sides on the current issue. Enigma ^msg! 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A request for civility

Can I advise to tone your comments down on the Betacommand admin noticeboard page and to other users involved? I've been watching it for the past few days and I've observed that your manner is unnecessarily inflammatory. For example, this is inappropriate, as you were implied that Lara was unintelligent. I strongly advise you as well to research more before posting (see Lara's examples above). Be aware that more unnecessarily inflammatory, uncivl, repeating stuff that obviously isn't true (policy supports that, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS) will result in a block. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out to me these examples of inadequate research, as there are none in that post above? MickMacNee (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the examples above are perfectly valid. Maxim_(talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and will be challenged if necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I am requesting specific examples of inadequate research or deliberate false statements on my part, given the subsequent comments above. MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Swansea Metro

For someone who contributes to a lot of metro related articles, I thought you would have agreed that the Swansea Metro is not a Metro system and it is important to clarify it on the relevant pages. I can see you are notorious for edit wars. Please do not persist in this one or you will be reported to administration and blocked again. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not a sane person in the world that would read that article, then get to the bottom to your sentence and say, wow, thanks for clearing that up. It's completely unneccessary, what next, clarification at the end of Metro (newspaper)? I will add a hatnote line and defend that version in any dispute, to head off confusion in those readers who might be completely confused before they read the first sentence. I am confident there is no third party that could possibly think that sentence in that place is needed at all. Note: you cannot request a block as a resolution of a content dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Metro (Belfast)MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging templates

I think it would be a good idea to merge the template I just created on public transport concept with the pre-existing one Modes of Public Transport. Modes of public transport are concepts, and many people who read the articles in one category would be interested in reading those in the other. The "modes" template is 5 sections long, and the "concepts" one is 4. If they were joined together, this would be a total of 9 sections, most of that contain just one line, so in all, it would not be too badly long.Sebwite (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not overly bothered to be honest, it does create some tenuous associations though, i.e. Metro - > bus ticket. If done, perhaps a rename to just Public Transport linking to the main article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

punitive, rude, retrospective and disruptive block - no warning or even a heads up was given, considering the last relevant edit was made 16 hours ago, and I was clearly working elsewhere at the time the block was made, potentialy leaving that article in a complete nonsensical state

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for revert warring before yet continue, you are in a situation where you know about the revert warring policies, so the excuse that you stopped ages ago doesn't work, the fact you continue after a block shows you have not stopped edit warring and it's prudent to block you again until you understand we do not tolerate edit warring and that every time you edit war, you will be blocked. Nick (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

patent nonsense, when it's clear that a block without warning could disrupt wikipedia, which is what blocking for 3RR is actualy for, not retrospective punishment, and is also made with incivility, then it's clearly a bad call. How long after an edit war has been disengaged from must an editor expect punishment without warning? 16 hours? 24 hours? 1 week?

Decline reason:

You have a prior block for the three-revert rule violation. If that was not enough of a warning, then what more warning do you want? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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

You've been blocked for edit warring before and yet you continued. It's not unreasonable to assume you don't wish to adhere to the policy on edit warring and that being the case, blocking you seems entirely within the blocking policy, as well as being a most sensible precaution to take. Instead of trying to rules lawyer over your block, go read the edit warring policies to make sure you never break the 3RR policy again. Alternatively, I'll unblock you now if you agree that if you ever edit war again, you agree to an indefinite block. Choice, choices, choices... Nick (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the policy, hence why I know that in this case it is not to be applied as a retrospective punishment, and is not to be applied at any indeterminate time after the edit war, when it is clear the disrution is not ongoing and the block is likely to be just as disruptive. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it's not a retrospective punishment but a sensible precaution. You've edit warred before, acknowledge that you know the policy, but evidence shows that you are prepared to edit war regardless. That's most certainly ground for a precautionary block. Nick (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the template, you cannot review the same block multiple times merely re-stating your first decline. The fact of the matter is, this is a punishment, the blocking admin made no attempt to establish any of the facts, and left another article in a disrupted state by not even having the decency to inform, contrary to the very disruption to articles that you are claiming it is preventing. There was no disruption for 16 hours by me while editing as normal elsewhere, I am clearly not a rampaging vandal and I engaged in discussion about the issue, the block is clearly a punishment and not preventative. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say, you weren't warned, does that include the what, 65 very recent 3RR - 6RR warnings on your talkpage, from various editors? SQL^{Query me!} 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it refers to this specific block, in this specific situation, much as you really want it not to. I am still waiting for an answer as to how long the period is after the event you can expect a punishment without warning. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You will also note that every single warning above, both the spurious and the deserved, were placed at the time of the dispute, and not 16 hours after the event. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Current bus operators in England

Category:Current bus operators in England, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Ulster banner

The Ulster banner is not the flag of N Ireland, and isn't in use anywhere else on wikipedia to represent N Ireland. It's clear from your talk page that you have some trouble getting along with people here (to say the least), don't make me contact an admin to tell you the exact same thing as me. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be <Great Cornholio>"Are you threatening me?"</Great Cornholio>. Sorry, couldn't resist :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha thats hilarious! Html tag humor and a Beavis and Butt-Head reference in one, genius. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing my work

Just because a section contains a lot of redlinks, doesn't mean its unnotable, and just because you see redlinks and remove them doesn't make you right.. Please understand, Queensland is a state of Australia that is the size of Spain, France, Germany, and Poland combined, and you are reducing the section of the article (List_of_bus_operating_companies#Queensland) to something that just recognises a small area around the capital city. Also, the city of Rockhampton is not a Translink area and does not belong in the Translink section. Central Queensland is about 600km away from that part of the state. aliasd·U·T 13:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And can you please understand that your particular set of redlinks is not justified on geographic area alone, have you seen how big that list was with everyone's redlinks included, with equally large areas covered? If they are notable, create the articles. Otherwise, they fail the WP policies on collections of links, notability, lists, what WP is not, and several others. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflaming discussions

The end of this edit "some sort of super-wiki-editor who is above all others?" is needlessly inflammatory and adds nothing helpful to the discussion. Please don't do this. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous examples to support that statement. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What did it add to the discussion about the bot? Nothing. It was totally unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this already, have you not been watching? Are you seriously going to suggest that bc is not being given continual preferential treatment? Go back a year, two years, you will see the same behaviour, and the same warnings like this to opposers. I can ask you what vandalising my talk page brought to the discussion, I can ask you what his numerous incivil and rude remarks brought, I can ask you what his stalking brought? Would you have an answer? Would you be on his talk page like you are on mine? And finally review the comments that remark followed, and tell me even that one page doesn't support the case bcb is being given an innordinate amount of leeway, to the point of having a proxy bot created to allow him not to be accountable at all. This is all on deaf ears no doubt, but there you go. MickMacNee (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of bus operating companies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. You have reverted three times now on this article. Given your history, a block may turn out to be very serious for you this time. aliasd·U·T 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And just noticed the italics, way to game the system, you must be so proud. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not seen any argument from you yet about why an extensive list of purely red links that has existed for god knows how long without being created is appropriate, and only for Australia, beyond your personal objections at having 'your' work removed. If you realy like scrolling down pages and pages of crap, you're welcome to it, people who know what they're doing know how to do it properly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The content is notable, the article is not written, and your disagreement isn't just with me, I have seen two other users also disagree with your edits in this particular case. Yes the article is too long, but that just means it needs to be split up, content does not need to be haphazardly removed, and as I have pointed out, you are actually introducing factual errors in your edits by removing the context around sections you leave. This isn't about my work personally, but I know the stuff I work on should be there. This is all beside the fact that you are violating WP:3RR, however. I have no problems with cleaning redlinks if the redlinks exist because the subjects are not notable enough to have an article, but you are removing redlinks haphazardly and without any deep thought or regard. You may think that you are being bold, but the way you handle content disputes seems to be with complete disregard for other editor's consensus and complete disrespect for other users that have added the content in the first place. If I were you, I would consider a Wikibreak, I am going out on a limb here a little, but you seem to be completely disenchanted with the community. aliasd·U·T 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)