User talk:MickMacNee

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.

This talk pages contains recent discussions only. For past discussions please see the archive

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Howdy Micky. Why'd ya wanna keep that article, when we've already got Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have an Afd on one of two content splits, the Afd is clearly about the topic. It's moot now anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with that. Just not in the first line. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would make the article top-loaded. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ripe for it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice, as required

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Scottish football referee strike

On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scottish football referee strike, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that due to the Scottish football referee strike, foreign officials from Israel, Luxembourg and Malta were used as replacements? 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD nomination of Emirates Flight 407

Hi Mick. I don't know if you noticed this or not, but I actually withdrew my own nomination of that article, as I saw mixed opinions as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. The ones that opposed referred to the essay WP:AIRCRASH. However, I don't think you should judge closures as "inappropriate". Hey Mid (contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot withdraw your own nomination if valid keeps and deletes were registered. Even if someone refers to an essay, it is still a valid vote in that regard. This is not a case of me judging it, this is standard Afd procedure, as explained in WP:NAC. Even though you 'withdrew' it, you have effectively called the consensus on the Afd debate you yourself started. That's wrong whichever way you look at it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it would've probably been different if I had withdrawn my nomination if there hadn't been any votes at all, but I understand your explanation. Hey Mid (contribs) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Hospital

Thanks, this was something that we seemed to have missed. Much appreciated! Ng.j (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).

Cheers. I was quite amazed when I found it was a red link. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MILITARY PEOPLE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MILITARY PEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the MILITARY PEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Nomination of France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off for deletion

The article France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 82.23.146.131 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hello, Mick! I'm sure we might remember each other from some encounters in the "BISE" affair: but I need to let you know that I brought your name up in an issue you have previously been involved with[1]. I'd appreciate any comments you could give there if you're interested, as well. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The deletion review for FedEx Express Flight 647 was closed before I got to finish asking you my question: Why didn't you bring this up with Cirt (talk · contribs) before taking it to deletion review and questioning his judgment? Would you have rather it be closed as No Consensus, because either way, it was not getting deleted. I still don't fully get why you brought it to DRV either. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:RECENTISM. Nominees can have information covered in their own articles if particularly relevent. Currently this is just a list of nominees. The actual relevant information (first, second and third places will be announced) will go in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award for deletion

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _wjemather^bigissue 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation requests for deletion review

MickMacNee, I have noticed a pattern with the above DRVs. There are several transportation-incidents-related deletion discussions, which you brought to DRV, all of which resulted in an "endorse" of the original deletion discussion's closure. The subsequent DRVs have all turned out the same, and consensus was in most cases pretty strongly in favor of "endorse". With these results in mind, bringing these matters to DRV seems like a waste of the community's time. Perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, and allow for the possibility that other editors might step in, instead, to take a look at these issues? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no pattern there at all, except in the last three. You are right that DRV is a waste of time in that respect, where I should have gone is ANI, or raise an Rfc on whether you are doing a good enough job in properly explaining to the entire community (which includes dissenters) how you come to your decisions in closing Afd's with respect to the actual points made, or worse, whether you are even reading those debates in detail at all, for what is clearly a disputed field. Frankly, what is a waste of the community's time is if the only people in it who can agree with your vague and non-specific closures, are shock horror, the group who really love the articles, and really hate the policies and guidelines that plenty of people think suggest they should not exist, and who you declared the 'winners'. That is not consensus - see WP:WFTE. If you want to carry on claiming there is a "strong consensus" to be found in these Afd's/DRV's, rather than following up your own suggestion and allowing other admins to close them, then you had better start realising that that is a pretty strong assertion that one side of a debate is talking absolute shite. Strong claims or judgements like that require strong evidence, or at least the presence of multiple admins coming to the same conclusion - you closing them on your own, and then pointing to dumb vote counts and the expression of ignorant mob rule in flagrant ignorance of policies and factual, evidence backed arguments, is not that evidence in the slightest - see WP:CON. I will ask you one last time to satisfy my doubts if you are getting this or not: in that last AFD, which specific arguments did you weigh positively and negatively, and which did you discount, per the Afd closing instructions and with respect to the facts/policies presented, on the point that the article even existing violates the nominator's argument that 'Wikipedia is not a list of hull losses' (WP:NOT#INFO). If you continue to absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that is a valid question for someone to ask you, as the closing admin, then I don't think I am going to take up your suggestion in future, and I'll remind you that if you want to take it further and make it a more formal instruction, that you are INVOLVED in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, I find it disturbing and unfortunate that you would try to twist this into an attack on a single administrator, when I have not closed the majority of the DRVs or AFDs cited above. In fact, other admins have also closed multiple deletion discussions you have been involved in on this topic, with similar resultant outcomes. Unfortunately, this appears to be an issue of WP:HEAR, for you, on this topic, and on multiple different deletion discussions. I hope that you reconsider. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You closed 3 out of 3 of the relevant Afd's listed above, that's a 100% majority to me. That is even a 60% majority if including the irrelevant ones you also mentioned. The only lack of hearing here is coming from you, with your by now familiar ability to ignore 90% of what people say to you, the above post and reply combo being one of a long line of examples of that in my experience with you. You're an admin, you know that this is not an acceptable way to communicate, especially if you are making allegations, so if you are not going to read and respond to the entirety of my posts going forward, then don't waste my time by posting here at all. You can do whatever you want to do to further this issue you think exists here, just make sure that you really have the independent, community view, of what's what and who's who. The flaws of DRV as that mechanism appear to be lost on you, and I've just discovered, although I really shouldn't have been surprised, that there is someone not-so-neutral or cluefull feeding you some pretty poor information about what I supposedly do and don't do, and how much support I do and don't have in this content dispute, whether that is measured in dumb vote counting, or cluefull and considered opinion. I suggest you not make the same mistakes he has done for months, in knowing what is and is not proper admin conduct in a dispute, content or otherwise. So, with that, that's end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, if you intend on again making a reply that ignores 90% of what I say, or in any way gives me the impression that you think that I, as a three year plus Wikipedia veteran, really am some sort of fucking idiot, as your citing of HEAR suggested to me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WP:HEAR issue was brought up, to me, by other users, including Sandstein (talk · contribs), diff and Heymid (talk · contribs) diff. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sandstein is the guy who recently tried to act as judge, jury and executioner with an attempted community ban on me without the discussion phase, who then took the huff when it was overturned as a kind of super-admin posturing, and his subsequent request for arbitration was rightly thrown out for having nothing behind it in terms of the required evidence of prior dispute resolution except a few diffs of unsubstantiated rabble rousing at ANI, and then belatedly, a wish to cite my legitimate but utlimately pointless attempt to to stop the supposed admin who is trying to use you as a proxy in this dispute, as somehow being evidence against me. So no, I hope you can see why his opinion on what I do or don't do is worth less than nothing to me, even if it is to you. As for Heymid, I've no idea what he based that on, but I think he has been involved in these Afd's at some point. Without specific diffs to back it up, I unlike others you are hearing from, am not willing to say anything further as to whether he is neutral and uninvolved, or not. And he's not an admin either, although thanks to the guy feeding you info, I'm not sure if that is relevant anymore in terms of how much weight you or others should give their opinion on another user. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you will not reconsider, but I thank you for your, um, candor. I hope you are well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I have to agree with Cirt (talk · contribs) here. None of the AFD's showed a strong community consensus to delete, so bringing them to DRV does nothing besides kill time. I still doing understand why you are doing this, I left you a question above and you did not respond to me. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded in the DRV on that question. And if you still think those Afd's show a "strong" consensus after reading what I've said there, fine, but your position is exactly the same as Cirt's - you are saying it, but not showing it, or even hinting at showing you could actually show it even. To explain that concept, I will point you to WP:WFTE. Cirt didn't seem to want to see that link above, maybe you might. Why don't you have a crack at properly closing that Afd in a way that explains to everybody how the hell one side in that debate made such a shit job of arguing their case with respect to policy or evidence, that there is a "strong" consensus to be found for the other side, whose arguments were 90% pure blind assertion, or much worse, like making up your own notability standards! Anyway, beyond that, I seriously am bored now trying to 'explain' w.t.f. is wrong with the way these articles are being debated w.r.t. policy and procedure, and Cirt's role in that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, lets say we took the other sides votes into account. Would you have had it/them rather closed as no consensus? Either way they would have been kept, but none of them were applicable for deletion per what the !voters said. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of this hypothetical exercise? If you believe he did not take into account the delete side, and the debate could have been closed as no consensus (which is a million miles from "strong keep"), then surprise surprise, that's a wrong decision that is open for review. If you don't believe this is what happened, then why are you suggesting it as a discussion topic? I asked you to have a go at closing it yourself, to see if you can put into words a closure that matches the arguments made, properly weighted. I'm not interesting in discussing outcomes you don't believe could have happened. The issue is Cirt closed this as "strong keep", and he doesn't want to explain how, at all. Here is an example of a closer doing it correctly, which ironically Cirt was actually going to relist - maybe the issue here is that Cirt does not believe in the whole concept of 'no consensus'? And frankly, with regard to the difference between that and keep, your suggestion that 'either way, it doesn't matter', for EVENT based Afd's, it actually does matter - see WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTAGAIN. It matters a great deal infact. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self :Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]