Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 20 August 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|MickMacNee}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Who forced you?

I am just curious!--Mike Cline (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

U. MickMacNee (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Giolias

He was a prominent investigative journalist who was assassinated just before releasing a damning report into corruption. It's patently obvious he's notable - if he hadn't been killed he'd survive an AfD without a hitch. It is hardly surprising that, one day after his assassination, most of the media is, y'know, focusing on the assassination. Rebecca (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we will have to wait for the biographical material then, and let readers just guess why there is none there presently. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you usually provide a fine counterpoint to my opinions. Just to get an idea of how the Giolias article is going, would you take a quick look at it as it is currently? What would be needed in your estimation to make it postable/worthwhile? I'll do my best to satisfy your requests should you make them. Cheers Cwill151 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It can't credibly be called a biography right now imho. I suggest moving it back to Assassination of Sokratis Giolias, reverting to the old headers and structure, and then adding a bit more info in all of them. And if that info really isn't out there in the current news coverage, then per my ITN comments, I don't think it qualifies as a Main Page candidate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see very much on the web about him with a Google to exclude stuff on his death so I agree with MickMacNee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thank y'all. Cwill151 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kasai River disaster

On 30 July 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Kasai River disaster, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Courcelles (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just to say that I appreciate your calm, civil discussion and interaction with other editors over the issue of the list of names of passengers in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your appreciation is appreciated. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services

On August 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

External link

Hi Mick. First apologies for the words a friend of mine used earlier concerning the removal of an external link on the Andy McNab page. I understand you are opposed to the presence of this link. Since Grey Man's Land is the best and complete source of information on McNab you can find on Internet I believe it's a valuable addition. Our main goal is to promote McNabs work and give all the latest info (our News Page) on his projects, book signings, new published books etc. Things that are not to be added to the page itself but is still very valuable to those who want to know more about Andy McNab and to know about upcoming projects. As this is nowhere elsewhere on the Net, I'd like you to reconsider, but at least explain why you believe this link should not be there. Thanks and kind regards ACatharina (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Misplaced Pages does not allow External Links to simple fansites that are not written by a recognised authority, and I have not been able to verify who writes that site, and it very clearly states it is unauthorised and unnofficial. In addition, it appears to be a custom frontage for an independent Amazon seller, which is also not a site which is allowable as an External Link. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the fansite part, it is indeed an unofficial site. Fact remains though that it's the best source on McNab information you will find on Internet and especialy since McNabs official site if off line it is really the ONLY source if you want to know more about upcoming projects, personal appearances, interviews etc - all things people are very likely interested in if they take the trouble to find Andy McNab on Misplaced Pages. I still think its a valuable addition for people who are looking for more information that cannot be added to the Wiki page. The Amazon thing.. well that's just something we started recently to try to get at least a little bit of the expenses back that the site cost us to built and is costing to maintain. I'll tell you the result after a few months..3 Euros! :-)) Seriously, we're NOT commercial. Our main goal was, is and will be to provide information about Andy McNab! Thanks for your reply Mick! ACatharina (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, while I appreciate the spirit behind WP:ELNO, this link looks to be a useful and valid addition to the page, especially in light of there being no 'official' alternative - Alison 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how it passes ELNO, but I see no point having further discussion here, so I've kicked it over to the External links Noticeboard here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please tone down your comments. No need to pass judgement on others. RadioFan (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No thank you. I will pass judgement on anyone who has no clue about the policies and principles that underpin our title methodologies, and simply want to make it up as they go along, and then claim that is a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Although I wouldn't have posted you a template as RF has above, I wanted to let you know that another editor has complained to me about your conduct. I haven't looked into the matter yet, but as a preliminary measure, can you possibly tone down any interpersonal disputes you may be having? These things are in the eye of the beholder, and as hard as it is to accept that one's own behavior has been less than perfect, it can be an opportunity to grow and all that. Anyway, just a friendly note that someone hasn't appreciated the way you've comported yourself. What exactly is the problem you are having? Maybe we can sort it out. I hope so. --John (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue was, some people wanted to rename the article 2010 Alaska plane crash, but instead of justifying their move wrt policy, or answering anybody else's policy based objections, they wanted to argue from a position of pure POV, or worse, from positions that directly contradict policy. Well, almost everyone. Your 'complainant' (I'm liking the phrasing of his complaint btw) BilCat instead wanted to just make sarcastic remarks and bitch on about civility. I wasn't too interested seeing as simple civility never made anybody's actual arguments any more cluefull, and is usualy just brought out as an excuse for their failure to defeat the counter-points, and presumably not satisfied with this logic, he just got the hump, and now seems to want to badmouth me across the pedia to anybody that will listen. Anyway, the article got renamed, even though nobody can really justify it except for vague waves to a consensus of a ship of fools, but I no longer wish to labour the point, so it looks to be over as an issue, unless I catch Bilcat doing any more trashtalk on other people's talk pages behind my back, thinly disguised as commentary on the social issues that face Misplaced Pages today. Still, he's the one who knows about civility and all that....., so I'm sure that's not incivil behaviour at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont normally only use templates for clear cut things like vandalism (which this is not) but this template says it pretty well. One of the building blocks of Misplaced Pages is assuming good faith amongst editors. Most people are trying to help and keeping that in mind will help prevent needless conflict. As others have noted, your tone in these discussions is the primary problem here. We can disagree, but let's please be civil about it.--RadioFan (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove other's comments from talk pages such as was done here.--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mick was right to remove that nonsense from the talkpage. It was nothing but plain-and-simple disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, personal attacks, especially from random IPs, can be pretty much bitbucketed at will. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can only echo what m'lernud colleagues said. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MickMacNee. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

You made a comment at WT:BISE which I removed here. I do not need editorialising, nor do I need an annotated version of the page. I can read, I can see what is going on, and your assistance in helping me understand is not required. TFOWR 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick attacking someone for not be civil is really the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps you could explain this attack not on one BUT two editors. Bjmullan (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BI

Mick, I guess I'm going to be blocked for supporting you. Ne'er mind. Good luck! LemonMonday Talk 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should try and be nice there and follow the rules lol, WT:BISE can help undo some of the damage that has been done in recent years during the crusades if the issues are focused on. Getting yourself blocked will solve nothing, even if you feel better in the short term for speaking your mind, think more of the long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

You seem to have attracted an impersonator. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I suppose you should be please ;-) They're blocked anyway. Let me know if you see any more. TFOWR 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just some sadfuck who has a hard-on for me, and tries it on about once a month. I probably bitch-slapped him in a past dispute and he's never gotten over it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. TFOWR 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to look that hard, he's not so bright tbh. I think 5 edits before being blocked might be his record actually. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AIRES accident

I've added a bit on the METAR, but put the code in the ref. I hope that you find this acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my talkpage intrusion, but in my opinion, a note, akin to that we used for Airblue Flight 202, is ideal, because it keeps the aviation community happy, preserves the encyclopedic nature of the METAR info, and is accessible to those who wish to access it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi there - I don't believe we've interacted before, but I just saw your comments at WT:ITN here and thought I should remind you about our WP:Civility policy. Clearly this is an issue you feel strongly about, but that doesn't justify talk about 'patronising bollocks' and 'poxy countries'. Try to remember to keep cool in future, and if you're feeling stressed, take a wikibreak or edit elsewhere rather than continue with the dispute that's annoying you. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you maybe need to read the policy you are trying to educate me about. So, thanks, but no thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's look at this edit

Your edit summary says "rm fatality name per BLP, no encyclopoedic reason for inclusion"

She is dead. Once someone is dead, BLP has no effect for that person whatsoever.

Also the fact that she is the only one to die means that her name warrants special attention for inclusion. If 20 people died, one wouldn't make a point of listing all of their names in that paragraph. But she is the only one dead, so her name warrants special attention.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not, due to the potential for distress of relatives or such like. And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning. If you disagree, do not edit war over it, follow BRD and file for a third opinion on the talk page, but this is how it's always been as far as I know. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mick here. WP:BLP states, "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased". Previously, BLP policy also explicitly stated it applied to the recently deceased, but that seems to have been removed. Hmmm - Alison 02:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Using what you quoted, Alison, BLP doesn't cover dead people. BLP policy clearly says "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" period, despite the second sentence. The second sentence is something to consider, but it itself is not a part of BLP.

But what implications would apply in this case? If it was something scandalous or something that could affect a court case, that would be one thing. But I don't see what is contentious about saying that she died of a heart attack.

I noted this edit. I conclude that while the rationale was disputed, ultimately, based on WP:BLP, my rationale that BLP does not apply is the factually correct position, based on the statement that Alison quoted. Even though Alison's "third opinion" was to exclude the name, the two sentences she copied clearly underscore the fact that my rationale (BLP does not apply) is correct.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the talk page part about "recently deceased" people Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_17#Applications_for_the_Dead_or_Recently_Deceased WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For matters that are still under dispute:

"And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning." - AIRES's #2 press release took special care to mentioned her name exclusively, before listing the people who lived. Newspaper accounts also make it clear she was the only person to die:

Voice of America: "Authorities said the fatality in the incident was a Colombian woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, who had a heart attack."

Associated Press at Dubuque Telegraph Herald: "the only one killed was a 68-year-old woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, San Andres Gov. Pedro Gallardo said."

"If you disagree, do not edit war over it," My standard practice is to revert once and explain why I reverted, assuming that the dispute will stop after that one revert. Then if someone still disputes it, then I begin the dispute resolution process. One of the reasons why I reverted was because the "this is covered by BLP" portion of your rationale was clearly incorrect. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy. It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased, and BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives, so pretty clearly, BLP applies here. And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist. But even more generally, even if you don't think it does apply, you still have to convince us that there is an encyclopoedic point to mentioning the name in the article, as I simply cannot see what it is. Of course newspapers and the airline mentioned her name, and the reasons for that are obvious, but that is irrelevant, as Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. What is of information value to a newspaper is not necessarily what is of information value to an encyclopoedia. It has absolutely no value to the article or the reader that I can see, or that you have explained for me. Please carry on this discussion at the article talk page if you want to disagree further, as that is the correct place for it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I will continue talking about the BLP portions at: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

I will start a talk page discussion about your other points once the BLP matter is clarified.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-BLP discussion: Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to continuations of discussions will be added above. Normally one shouldn't edit archives, but the archive here needs to include links to where the discussion continues. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN for France national football team

On 19 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article France national football team, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Black ball final

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. Thanks, _wjemather 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The black ball final. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _wjemather 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know all about 3RR, just like I know about BRD. If you are not too busy dishing out templates to regulars, then bring a better reason for your proposed change to the discussion. Being supported by guidelines = Good. Not being the only one who doesn't understand it, but using that as justification anyway = Bad. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see from your block log that you are well aware of the concept of edit warring but still choose to go ahead and do it anyway. _wjemather 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

3RR report Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Although you haven't been offered the opportunity you would be able to revert your last edit. Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, my notification to you must have got caught in an edit conflict with your reply above. _wjemather 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

I removed part of your post(s) here. (I removed part of another editor's post(s) too). I realise the pair of you have issues with each other, but frankly I do not care very much. Both of you are being disruptive. I've now closed the entire thread with no action taken - instead of locating sources the pair of you have bickered and I've had enough. If you two can't disengage of your own accords I'll enforce disengagement. I'd prefer to have some sort of topic-ban option to keep the pair of you off WT:BISE but in the absence of that I'll settle for a block. TFOWR 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)