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 .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
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)
- 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)
Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've no problem with that. Just not in the first line. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's ripe for it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
DYK for Scottish football referee strike
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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". HeyMid (contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
Thanks, this was something that we seemed to have missed. Much appreciated! Ng.j (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. wjematherbigissue 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Transportation requests for deletion review
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 16
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note to self :Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Hi. I've filed a Request for Comment regarding you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Please write a response there as soon as possible. Thank you. HeyMid (contribs) 08:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Micky, I've been following the trends on that Rfc. Ya should walk away from those AfDs, while you can. I don't wanna see ya getting indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Rfc stuff
I outdented your recent comment, thus making it easier to read. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy, happy
Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of SARTRE at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Safe Road Trains for the Environment
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
DRV of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124
I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mick, I edit conflicted with you at DRV. Since the article was deleted, the DGCA in India have issued their Final report into the accident. Amongst the four recommendations are changes to information passed to aircraft by ATC. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Lee Crooks
Hello! Your submission of Lee Crooks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calistemon (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Lee Crooks
Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Refs
Hi Mick, I saw you added this para to the England national football team manager article. As the article is currently featured, could you add a reference to cite those numbers you've included? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not right this minute no. Wht's so special about the numbers? I consider the numbers as ucontroversial as the rest of it, which was not cited as I don't consider it particularly open to challenge, per WP:CITE, which is the only standard, FA or no FA as far as I'm aware. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll do it. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi MickMacNee. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for 7 Day Sunday
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Chris August and Starry Night (song)
Several days ago I suggested an alternative to these articles that you reviewed for DYK. Would you please see if your concerns have been addressed? Royalbroil 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. MickMacNee (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Vickers Wellington LN514
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Channel 4's Comedy Gala (2010), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ticketstub.com/events/channel-4s-comedy-gala.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Stephen Healey
Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
And I had been told....
And I had been told that you had dropped your previously arrogant and aggressive style. Sadly it appears not.
That clause seems totally trivial: if Platini is asked a question by a half-witted journalist, or maybe an intelligent sly journalist, he might be polite enough to answer, but that does not make the exchange encyclopaedically relevant. BRD is not an accepted policy, and your editnote was not a meaningful rebuttal of the grounds that I gave for the deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd describe it as clear reasoning myself, in the face of a false rebuttal. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Aircrashes
Hi Mick. Re your comments at ITN/C re recent aircrashes. You say that these get created from the initial rush of news reports and then abandoned. While the first part may be true, the second is an illusion. As you know, aircrash investigations take time, over 8 years in one case that I know of. Yes, aircrash article get created when they are recent. Doing it this way has the advantage that sources are easier to find. After the inital creation and corrections, things do tend to go quiet, but that doesn't mean that the accident has been forgotten. Until the final report is published, there is often nothing more to add to the article. Once published, then the article can be updated and corrected as necessary. Anyways, it's not all recent aircrashes. MilborneOne and me have been busy creating articles of aircrashes from the 1920s to the 1970s, as well as sorting out the UK aircrash list. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If an aircrash is truly notable, then no, it doesn't all go quiet until the report is published. There would always be intermittent coverage. That's the core difference between notability and news infact. The fact that you seem to see no issue with creating the article straight away from the immediate news, and then also see no issue in updating it from the primary material of the report if that's all there is, is the basic issue. At no point do you ever ask the basic question - am I writing this article because I can, or because I should? Is it truly notable, or am I just adding to an ever burgeoning collection of RECENTISM? And if you really have been writing about crashes from the 1920s to the 70s, if you have been using only proper sources which show real lasting WP:EVENT type notability, rather than some poor or completely involved source like the ASN or simply resorting to searching for the contemporary news sources and just replicating the process of what happens today for current crashes, then I cannot understand how you really don't get the difference at all. If you are doing it properly, you simply wouldn't be able to write as many articles from a particular year in history as are being stuffed onto the project for 2010 and beyond. It's so obvious it's unreal, which is why those Afds full of blind assertion are so utterly disgraceful. Go and find that Afd where I presented an example of an almost exact duplicate of the crash that was being asserted as obviously notable, from history. It was a near perfect match, just from 30 years or so previously. If you can write about that using proper sources and produce something that nobody could ever hope to disagree didn't pass EVENT, then I would be convinced. But I seriously doubt you could. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- ASN has been no help with the early crashes. Anything before 1943 or so is only covered in ASNs wikibase, thus being in danger of failing WP:RS immediately. However, Flight and The Times have proved invaluable in researching these, along with a few other sources. You are quite capable of finding my articles should you so wish. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Flight is hardly independent - as always, the bar at which they choose to and to not write about an aircrash is different to Wikipedia. To support info, it's fine, to support notability, it's clearly not. And if you refer to The Times newspaper, as I said, if all you are doing is delving into archives so you can use the contemporary news coverage, then you aren't really doing anything different to what's occuring now, and aren't really satisfying EVENT at all, not the lasting aspects certainly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm not just using those sources to get contemporary news coverage. They are used to cover inquiries and reports into accidents. The first mid-air collision of airliners is obviously notable (not one I created), but what about the first mid-air fire; or an accident that was the first fatal accident for the airline involved, and which led to the first public enquiry in the UK into an aircraft crash (and the expansion of a major airport serving London); or an accident in which one of the Bentley Boys was the only survivor? Are you saying that we should not be covering these because they have not been covered in books on aircrashes? Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you seriously telling me these events have not been covered by books? You know full well what the kind of crashes are that I've got an issue with, and it's certainly not any of those examples. Not even close tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the firs mid-air collision got some minor coverage in one of MacArthur Job's books. Other than that, very little has been published for aircrashes occurring before the start of the jet age. The Comet accidents are probably the oldest that have received significant coverage. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you seriously telling me these events have not been covered by books? You know full well what the kind of crashes are that I've got an issue with, and it's certainly not any of those examples. Not even close tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm not just using those sources to get contemporary news coverage. They are used to cover inquiries and reports into accidents. The first mid-air collision of airliners is obviously notable (not one I created), but what about the first mid-air fire; or an accident that was the first fatal accident for the airline involved, and which led to the first public enquiry in the UK into an aircraft crash (and the expansion of a major airport serving London); or an accident in which one of the Bentley Boys was the only survivor? Are you saying that we should not be covering these because they have not been covered in books on aircrashes? Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Flight is hardly independent - as always, the bar at which they choose to and to not write about an aircrash is different to Wikipedia. To support info, it's fine, to support notability, it's clearly not. And if you refer to The Times newspaper, as I said, if all you are doing is delving into archives so you can use the contemporary news coverage, then you aren't really doing anything different to what's occuring now, and aren't really satisfying EVENT at all, not the lasting aspects certainly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- ASN has been no help with the early crashes. Anything before 1943 or so is only covered in ASNs wikibase, thus being in danger of failing WP:RS immediately. However, Flight and The Times have proved invaluable in researching these, along with a few other sources. You are quite capable of finding my articles should you so wish. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Picture for Isner - Mahut
If you want illustrate, picture from the match of isner mahut (the quality is good but not of the top) :
They come from : http://www.flickr.com/photos/voodemar/5535146798/ were you find more picture by Voo de mar
They are present in the french page.
I tell it to you because you are the principal contributor of Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Mamiejeanjean (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've added the scoreboard image. If you ever want to add images, it's not that hard - this is the code for that addition. See WP:IMAGE for general help. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Behaviour on ITNC
You seem to be annoying a lot of other editors on ITNC, it is not acceptable to use ITNC as your personal battleground over and over again. You made a very good point when you said that ITN should be removed from the front page, however it isn't acceptable to "force" that to happen now we are making progress by battlegrounding. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Who exactly were you addressing that comment to? Swarm X 02:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Castles in ...
Hi, I saw the page move from castles in the United Kingdom and Ireland to castles in Great Britain and Ireland but doesn't Great Britain commonly refer to the biggest island in the British Isles? There are castles on Anglesey and the Isle of Man for instance which are included in the topic but not under that title. !Castles in the British Isles! works only if you consider Ireland to be part of the British Isles and given the whole British Isles naming controversy involving Arbcomm that's a can of worms I was hoping to avoid. Hence why "UK and Ireland" was chosen, although as you pointed out it is somewhat anachronistic. Do you have any suggestions regarding the best name for the article? Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Other than tacking on 'and related islands' onto the end, no, not really. I think the title is more accurate when it refers to 98% of the land mass, rather than when it refers to 25% of the time period. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. "...related islands" feels a bit clunky, but I suppose it's more accurate. As it's Hchc2009's article I'll bump it along to him. Looks like I gave some dud advice. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I could live with either version; I suspect that my own slight confusion as to the precise definitions of GB, UK etc. will be shared by the typical reader of Wikipedia, so provided the title gets across the general theme of the article, I think it will work! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. "...related islands" feels a bit clunky, but I suppose it's more accurate. As it's Hchc2009's article I'll bump it along to him. Looks like I gave some dud advice. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)