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 (~~~~).

Mc/Mac

It occurs to me that you might be able to contribute to this ref desk discussion:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question tbh. Is he asking where the specific name McQueen comes from, or is he asking where Mc/Mac comes from. I know nothing about the first, but if he meant the second, my initial reaction was that there was no real significance as to whether you were a Mc or a Mac in terms of etymology (although I couldn't remember why tbh), and that the Scottish/Irish explanation is tosh. IIRC, the only thing that really mattered was what came after the mc/mac part. The top Google result [2] from m'learned friend Ewan J. Innes I then found seems to agree, so that's my answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wii Fit Girl

It clearly is a completely different article, with 100% original content. It has a huge response section, and it addresses every single assertion that the article has no standing to exist. To address each one:

• "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." - She is a spokesperson for EA Sports Active, she appeared on the Tyra Banks Show, TRL, was a participant on a show along with famous fitness celebrities, has inspired many offshoots, has received response from noted "viral marketing" experts and other journalists, response from Nintendo, has been sued over the video, the plaintiff being interviewed by Fox News, etc. It is blatantly evident that she is notable for more than just a YouTube video.
• "There are about 30 news pieces about her (one more about another person) per Gnews. All related to the one event about her youtube video, doing hula hoop motions on the Wii Fit, dressed in t-shirt and panties, filmed and posted by her boyfriend, without her knowing, over 8 million views." - The article clearly establishes that her notoriety has grown beyond a video, though the video is clearly the trampoline into these other ventures and news.
• The only reason it was deleted is because no one who actually knew the actual history and events of this person noticed the AfD. If you honestly believe that her notability is based solely on the YouTube video, then you aren't looking hard enough.

I will still file DRV, but will also point out that requiring a DRV for THIS situation is the definition of bureaucrazy [typo intended]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not I have no strong feelings about the article (I only created the redirect and found about about the Afd when I went looking for her a while ago, having known she had an article at one point, and seeing it had infact been deleted well after the event (incident was early 2008, Afd was June 2009). But seeing you recreate it, I know someone will definitely CSD it at some point, so the only way to ensure long term survival if you really want the article to stay, is to overturn the original Afd via DRV, per your above arguments. I suggest if you do want it to stay though, it definitely needs work, as currently, the refs are unformatted, and it is definitely a hard read. I'd say it has a chance, but I myself wouldn't bother though, the BLP activists have DRV in their pocket, and the only thing they will see is that it is an article about a living person who has been 'harmed' by Wikipedia by having a bio written about her, and vote delete because this is a concept they absolutely cannot bear. They won't bother themselves to consider how she has apparently embraced it, and has (maybe) developed notability beyond oneevent and allow that to be properly debated. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The references being unformatted doesn't have anything to do with notability, though. And she clearly isn't upset by the subject, by the fact that she embraces it [even calling herself the Wii Fit Girl to this date]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I already said I don't care either way, the above is only advice and information. As long as you take the article to DRV, which is the right thing to do, I have no other strong feelings on the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

flight 253

Why remove this sourced information?

Abdulmutallab travelled to Yemen in August of 2009 to study Arabic, and in October had cut off contact with his family. His worried father reported his disappearance and "extreme religious views" to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria on November 17. As a result, Abdulmutallab's name was added to the U.S.'s central international terrorist database, but not to shorter search-before-boarding and no-fly lists, and a two-year U.S multi-entry visa granted to him in 2008, was not revoked. Several reports of pre-attack intelligence linked Abdulmutallab to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based, senior al-Qaeda member who was also linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers and may have helped to radicalize and motivate the Fort Hood shooter. Reports also indicated the U.S. had received intelligence regarding a planned attack by a Yemeni-based Nigerian man. Abdulmutallab trained at Al-Qaeda camps in Yemen where Awlaki was one of his trainers, the imam who personally blessed the attack, and is believed to have helped plan the attack.

Bachcell (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I only removed the last line [3]. The rest was just moved. Please read wp:lede - if you want to add sourced information to the article, add it to the main article sections (and please format the citations properly, see Template:Cite). Al-Qaeda and Yemen are already more than adequately covered in the lede, which is a summary. MickMacNee (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Togo national football team bus attack

On 9 January 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Togo national football team bus attack, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Refuge (United Kingdom charity)

On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Refuge (United Kingdom charity), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse

Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The kittens thank you.

Meowz!

I might not always agree with your methods, but I have to compliment you for this. Thanks for taking the petition in good humor.  :-) —David Levy 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first kitten ever posted on my talk page. For that feat alone I say thanks!. MickMacNee (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Hello

Hi, kinda confused cause I just delivered the above newsletter to you. Who you were referring too when you wrote: "You are no leader, you're incompetent."

If it was Berian he is a ARS member too.

Regardless of who this comment was addressed to, could you please strike or remove it? Thank you. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does this make it any clearer? It certainly wasn't directed at Berian, but I guess you only see these things on the second look... MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MickMacNee. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey MickMacNee. I think it would help out a lot if you would "tweak" your comment a little. I know emotions are running high on that issue and obviously I won't be blocking anyone :) and I understand where you're coming from, but I think your comment is a little over the top. Bearian is a pretty nice fellow. He just doesn't agree with you on this issue. I don't either. You can call me names though, I'm used to it. ;) Cheers. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are people getting this idea this was directed at Bearian? I am right now, totally confused. MickMacNee (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a poor diff reader I guess. I'm still not sure exactly who the comment is directed at. Anyway, take care and have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

MickMacNee, activate your email, I need to explain what is going on, and how to help you.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. This barnstar is awarded to MickMacNee, for the wonderful idea of this: Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse. Ikip 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

?. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to talk, you know were to find me. I did my best to close down the ANI I accidentally inspired. Ikip 05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving my comments

I am not going to edit war with you, but please do not move my comments. "precedence" is not something we run Wikipedia on and you don't have the option of removing anything that disagrees with your point from a page you started. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a talk page, I am not barred from moving your comments at all if they are not supposed to be there. I'll take the established precedence for petitions on Wikipedia in the absence of any other official or consensus direction, unless or until you want to demonstrate otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just don't move my comments in the future. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't put them where you shouldn't, and I won't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide which comment go where? Who put you in charge? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:TALK, and WP:CLUE, and whatever else that helps you see this complaint for what it is, unless or until, et cetera et cetera, as above. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your productive response. Please do not move my comments in the future. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not repeat yourself unnecessarily on my talk page. That orange bar gets quite irritating when it is abused. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

mick, try to bring down the conversation a little, please. Ikip 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League

I didn't want to revert again without talking to you, but I doubt anyone wants to expand that section since that tag has been there for more than two years. And besides, nothing's stopping someone who is interested in making a section like that from doing so, i'm just looking to make the article a little cleaner in the meantime. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't be sure nobody wants to do it. Somebody might come and expand it tomorrow. I might even dot it. We most certainly do no go around removing cleanup/improvement tags from articles to make articles look 'cleaner', that's simply absurd. If you want to make it cleaner, you should expand the section and remove the tag, that would be the true Wikipedia way to do it. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The odds of someone coming are fairly small given the time frame it's been there, if someone wanted to expand it by now they probably would have. I would equally posit that no one person is the authority on the "true wikipedia way" to do things given the collaborative nature of this project. However, i'd be happy to help you expand it if you do start on it tomorrow. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Odds have nothing to do with it. And tbh, I'd be amazed, truly amazed, if you could ever show there is any kind of consensus that this kind of 'cleaning' is desirable. MickMacNee (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be amazed if there was a consensus otherwise given the lack of interest in expanding that section. So, are you ready to expand that section? Doc Quintana (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think you would be amazed, prove it. Otherwise, stop wasting my goddam time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to prove it to you. If you're not interested in expanding the article, i'll assume nobody is and remove the tag again. I would also ask that you improve your demeanor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Get fucked. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MickMacNee. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week for There can be no justification whatsoever for this.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Block is now indefinite. Prodego ^talk 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Would a Civility Restriction be a better alternative? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay you're a saint, but really? After all this? Alastairward (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the key is to rehabilitate the user before MickMacNee, because they may make socks if indefed. Either we can continue block and reblock the socks until the person operating MickMacNee gets bored, or hopefully we can change their behavior so they can become a constructive part of the community. I'd definitely prefer the latter solution, this behavior the user has shown over time is not acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You were in an edit war over an "expand" tag. If someone puts a tag like that on an article, it should stay there. MacNee's all-too-typical "fighting Irish" response does not alter the fact that he was in the right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can disagree on whether he was in the right or not: that tag had been there for years, if anyone had wanted to expand that section by now, it's likely they would have. I apologize about the reversions however, I wasn't sure if it had gotten to the point of a true edit war or not and I hoped to resolve our differences of opinion here on the user's talk page, but if I did go too far into an edit war, I apologize. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe this is part of your learning process. There was no reason to remove the tag. Because tomorrow someone might come along and expand it, even if it's 3 years old. There's no deadline in wikipedia. It's different from a "POV" tag that some users will post but not comment on in the talk page. To me, those are just gratuitous and are fair game for removal. But something benign like an "expand" tag, or something generally benign, like a "fact" tag, needs to stay, to alert other editors to potential improvements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I disagree on them not being as superfluous as the other tags since the expand tag is usually either a request from an editor for someone to expand a section when they cannot or a cop-out from expanding it themselves. Either way, nothing would have stopped a user from expanding and recreating that section even without the tag, it was utterly superfluous there. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be arguing for removal of the tag project wide, Doc. I agree with Bugs; if a user wants an improvement tag on an article and there is no definitive reason it should not be there, you should not remove it. Tan | 39 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone makes a proposal to deprecate the expand tag(s) let me know, I'll be right there to support it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What would be a good alternative? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you know, something like... actually editing the article!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I barely know anything about the subject, so it'd take me awhile before i'd feel comfortable editing it extensively. Little stuff like tags or grammar can be done by anybody though.Doc Quintana (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident Mick won't create socks. If he did, that would merely extent his block. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you extend an indefinite block? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Super Secret Triple Probation Block :) Doc Quintana (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite is of non-fixed duration, it can be extended to a ban as often happens when a users evades blocks with socks. Dealing with socks is not that hard. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so there's "indefinitely" blocked, and then there's "definitely" blocked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Most definitely so. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm not going to question the actual block here, but people should realize that Mick has been on the "front lines" of a certain debate where several admins have behaved very inappropriately and are not only still editing but are still administrators (and some even have more privileges). It should hardly be surprising that he's pissed off and acting less then civil as a result. None of this is an excuse for his poor behavior, and like I said above I don't actually question the block, but all of us share some responsibility for at least this block.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA makes it clear that the level of repetition and just the severity of the violations should be taken into account in a block. There is a thread at WP:ANI#User:MickMacNee you can post at if you disagree with the duration, but policy does not require personal attacks to be severe when there is an ongoing pattern of such behavior. Please remember that indefinite does not mean forever, it means the duration is not defined. This block will be reviewed in the future to see if it is still needed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I agree with the several points that both of you have brought up. Make of that what you will...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reposting my comment above at the thread also. But, as is often the case, there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted here, on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong. --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Check out the block log. Check out the talk page history. You don't know what you're talking about. Indefinite blocks are subject to unblocking, same as every other block. Tan | 39 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right. No evidence for *this* block. We've all seen poor admins using the "Block Log" to justify a bad block. I'm looking for the evidence for this particular block. Where are the warnings? Where has the evidence actually been presented? We're not mind readers you know... --HighKing (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't initially say there was no evidence for this block. You said, and I quote, "...no evidence presented of 'an ongoing pattern of such behavior'". So, I told you there was most definitely evidence of such behavior, and you .... turn it back around for only this block? Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. Tan | 39 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tan is right, indefinite is not "infinite". I've seen a number of "indefinite" blocks overturned, sometimes quickly, sometimes after many months or even years. And no one can go by the talk page, as editors are free to delete just about anything they want from their talk pages. But they can't touch the block log, so the block log is a more reliable indicator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that indefinite was the same as infinite....the point being that indefinite *could* be infinite though, if the block is never overturned... --HighKing (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. And whether it gets overturned will depend on reasonable unblock requests that accept responsibility rather than playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 1 February 2010 (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:

Yes I was incredibly rude to Doc Quintana, it was an unfortunate confluence of external factors and my perception that he was baiting me with his comments above. That was seemingly already dealt with by Spartaz with a weeks block, yet before I could even respond to that situation, I find myself kicked off the project permanently, seemingly on the whim of Prodego and a few people with axes to grind coming out of the woodwork. This is highly irregular, and frankly, totally unfair. If I am to be kicked off the project with not even an Rfc against my name, and I will have no issues if it goes down like that, I want it done legitimately, with a proper consensus of uninvolved editors with no vested interest in seeing me screwed over like this. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that blame others are dismissed, see WP:NOTTHEM. I note the remarkable absence of anything resembling an apology.  Sandstein  23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Mick, you mention that you wanted uninvolved editors to look this over. There is Wikipedia:ANI#User:MickMacNee where the community at large has been made aware of this block and is reviewing it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Mick thinks I want him to be screwed over when I've been the one ambivalent about an indef block, or that he thinks that a simple disagreement is seen as baiting. People disagree, not everyone is always going to agree with you. At this point, perhaps I was wrong on AN/I and perhaps an indef block is appropriate since it seems the user has no interest in rehabilitating their behavior and perhaps Wikipedia is not the right website for them in my opinion. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you had 15 other blocks to figure out the way Wikipedians are supposed to act. If you choose not to act the way that is expected of you, no RfC, RfM, RfAR, or block is going to change that. Only you can change that, and that unblock request shows no indication of a willingness to do so. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 1 February 2010 (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:

I unconditionally apologise for the response to Doc Quintana above which was of course inexcusable. It was a heat of the moment post which came during an extremely difficult afternoon for me for reasons I really don't want to make public, which put me in a frame of mind to see intentional provocation where there was none, and I had no opportunity to rectify the situation before I noticed this indef. I of course fully acknowledge I have behavioural issues for which I have accrued a rather large block log, but in that time which has spanned several years I have imo made a good overall contribution to the project, not least by writing countless articles and improving thousands more. My first ineffective unblock request was genuinely the result of a perception that this, my first ever indefinite block, had unfairly come out of the blue with no warning, but this is of course irrelevant. Although it also hardly matters, as others pointed out, I have not been blocked or even warned for months as far as I am aware. On one issue though, while others might disagree, I do think it is highly relevant that, blocks and warnings apart, nobody has ever seen me to be so incompatible to the project as to instigate dispute resolution proceedings against me, or put me under any kind of special arrangement. Going forward though, I will accede to any arrangement or pre-condition that would see me be allowed to edit in future, with the trust of my colleagues. I don't think banishing users when their block log reaches a magic number teaches anybody anything except that it pays to keep cycling identities if you ever do get a block. I have made it a point never to hide my user history, I have never cycled my account and have never refactored my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Because of the apparent honesty and forthrightness of the above, the indef block has already been amended to the original one week block. I hate to call this a "declined" unblock, more of an "declined immediate unblock, but happy to reduce from indef as per the will of community discussion." Note:this does not specifically preclude you from submitting another request for a more immediate unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

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

I am inclined to reset the block to the original one week. Any vehement objections? Tan | 39 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good decision after the new comment above. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me think about it a day or two, this is much more reasonable. Prodego ^talk 03:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me too. This is a good content contributor. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, just to explain my reasoning, I spent a goodly amount of time reviewing the "difs" and contribution histories of the parties involved. That's what I do sometimes when I'm bored. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Just so you know, User:Gladys j cortez went ahead and reblocked for a week despite the unblock request being placed on hold. Since she didn't come by to leave you a note, I thought I'd do it. AniMate 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The apology is certainly a change in the user's behaviour. After a certain point though, an abrasive attitude to other users may very well turn off people who could otherwise have been valuable contributors and we end up with an imbalance. I hope Mick bears this in mind when dealing with other users in future. Alastairward (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about that not-leaving-a-note; I thought I had, as I'd definitely STARTED back to your page; unfortunately, I have this problem with WP where I tend to get lost. If only ppl didn't leave all these shiny little links lying around for me to click on, maybe I'd get from point A to point B sometimes..... Anyway, see you in about five days, eh? (And seriously--be careful.)GJC 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back (in a week)

Yo Mick, congratulations on your comments and as your pretty much a net asset to the wikipedia I hope you keep a lid on it in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best wording there. Prodego ^talk 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no idea what you mean? Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's not have an argument on Mick's talk page. I think he's probably had enough drama here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Assistance

Listen MickMacNee, this seems to be your last chance.

If you want to bitch about the project or an editor, DO IT OFF WIKI in e-mails. Talk about how much so and so is such an ass. Lord knows editors talk off wiki all the time (according to many arbitrators) If no editors that you can talk to immediately come to mind, you can e-mail me, when my email is back up this same time tomorrow. around 12 AM EST.

The best and most influential editors control their emotions (which I myself am still learning after 4 years), the editors who can't get banned, and quickly forgotten.

Ikip 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Mick,

If you ever feel like you are under pressure or that circumstances in your life are affecting you on-wiki, send me an email via the wiki. I'm happy to listen - think of it as a way of blowing off steam to a sympathetic ear. The emails will go no further than you and me.

Anyway, you may not feel you want to do this, but if you do the offer is there.

Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an editor from the past, I dont get on much these days. But every so often I check on him to see a debate or two.

This guy MickMac should be admin IMO. Sickening that someone abusing admin, who I would bet has not contributed half as much, can clamp at the slightest opportunity like this. He is what makes wiki. He stretches the debates, highlights holes, he plays a part, he has never spammed, nor vandalised. He just contributed. Wiki needs him.

TBH I'm outraged at the power flexing of an indefinate ban.

He is hardly a bad user, just look at what he has contributed, the articles he has created.

--82.39.72.210 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight 82, there never has a ban, and the block is set to expire within a week. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit I've just realised its a week ban--82.39.72.210 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, oops. Tan | 39 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Block, not ban. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles he has created are mostly trivial. I cant wait for the admins to stop sitting on their hands and give out a full ban. It would be no great loss. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Doing a Leeds

On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doing a Leeds, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting piece, thanks for contributing it MMN. Ericoides (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)