Talk:Mike Dickin

ELO

I assume the ELO mentioned is the Electric Light Orchestra? If so, could someone please make a direct link of it?

His health is not in question

Breathtakingly reactionary right-wing?

I get the feeling an avid militant Guardian reader has been around a lot of the Talksport presenter's entries. Are such phrases a fitting way to describe an individual in an encyclopedia? McGonicle

Ok I went in after I wrote this and started to rework it a bit. I've deleted some of the stuff that seemed a bit off colour ("Mike Dickin is much loved (and hated)", come on guys!). It s still probably below spec, but then again, we can sort it out together I guess. McGonicle 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Charlie Wolf Page should be a model for many of the presenters as it manages to convey the humour of his output and state the facts

Well the spelling and grammar seems of a high standard, but again, it is clearly not impartial. An encyclopedia entry should state facts, and restrain from conjecture. Listing someones supposed political views relies on someones personal interpretation of what he has said, and depeneds on those views remaining unchanged. Quoting things he actually said may be more desirable than putting things in his mouth. Claiming he is a "notorius right wing Zionist" seems less than impartial as well. McGonicle 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining standards

I reverted some edits today as they were pretty aweful. Phone in hosts can be the source of much contention, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We can not just claim that left wing thinkers hate him, and that he is responsible for stirring up racial conflict in the UK, which is conjecture (and in my opinion total fantasy). Neither is it the place for documenting your "games of cat and mouse" with him on the radio. I also think it would be highly misleading to suggest he has a fixation with gypsies, or that that he feels everybody should emmigrate. McGonicle 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is right to include that he is right wing and hated by the left. This is clearly shown by the numerous vandalism of this page suggesting that he is a nazi, etc.

I dont understand how that is supposed to work. Because the page is vandalised many times, there must be truth behind the graffiti? Flannel juice and gibberish. And "the left" is one unified homogenous whole is it? I think it would be a sweeping and severely blinkered generalisation to suggest that every person I meet who proclaims themselves to be "left wing" will automatically hate Mike Dickin. That sounds like some kind of preconceived notion to me. I'm sure there is an "-ism" or two as well. I am amazed by how many people seem to think, that in this British democracy, simply holding a political view that is different to someone else's is cause for them to hate them. The leaders of all the three main British political parties have enjoyed excellent personal relationships throughout the post war period, and to a great extent before that as well. Having diffirent political views to somebody else need not inspire hatred towards them personally, just becasue they have a different point of view. Mike Dickin may give the left wing a hard time (as he does every other wing) but he deals with people on an impartial basis personally. McGonicle 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dickin has never been known as 'The King'

86.129.179.3, at no time has Mike Dickin ever been refered to as 'The King'. As long as you can not provide a reasonable referance to back up you assertion, any such claim will be treated as vandelous. McGonicle 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, have removed the sentence a coupple of times, as well as notifying the user and warning him/her. If he's nicknamed "the king", it's a little-known nickname (not found via google), so a reference is required. Bjelleklang - talk 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions to old version flagged as being below Wiki standards

I reversed a reversion today. The reversion was not justified in the discussion, and went back to a very old former of the document which had been flagged as being below Wikipedia Quality Standards, and was obviously very flawed in terms of NPOV. There was also an accusation that I had been banned from editing in the edit description. That is not true, you just have to check my talk page to see that. Can we please justify future reversions in the discussion, in terms of how the previous version was inferior, and how the new version is superior. Thanks. McGonicle 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGonicle's user page:

Article not found

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

We don't have an article with this title, but you can create it if you log in or create an account. As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created. Please read our introduction for more information about Wikipedia.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:McGonicle"

He is not an administrator and his overzealous censoring of unbiased, truthful and accurate information reveals his bias to all.