Wong (surname)

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 (~~~~).

Apology

S'ok. I've nearly got over it... ya bollocks...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm thinking (a day later...) can you discuss you thoughts on the Template talk:Famous players on the template's talk page? We're in a bit of a mess at the moment because it's transcluded in loads of places and the wording is changing twice or more a day... Cheers.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Ross Kemp in Afghanistan

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your brilliant contributions to Ross Kemp in Afghanistan I award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. It nearly sent me barmy doing it. It still could do with moving all the references to the end of paragraphs, although that's tricky to do while keeping track of which references what. I'm not entirely sure how you do do it, short of using inref quotes. So I decided to commit it with them in the relevant places as a permanent record, and then address it later. As you can probably see I then forgot all about it. Also, a good many of those refs are primary sources, something to remember. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shearer banner pic

Your input is requested at Image talk:AlanShearerBanner.jpg. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist error?

Did you know your bot was adding {Reflist} to articles that also contained {reflist}, thereby producing double entries? See here [1]. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that article contained {{refist}} (no "l"). Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 2 September 2008 (GMT).

Bizarre, it still seemingly displayed the references with it mispelled as refist, see [2]. ? MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see {refist} is redirected to {Reflist}. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I will Tfd that template, as it's probably better as this case shows just to make users aware of the mistake and fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 2. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these. 79.71.56.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: UK operator article guide

Hi! Yes I would be interested in becoming part of this, it seems a sensible idea. Before I say anything else, I should probably tell you of List of bus companies of the United Kingdom, would List of United Kingdom bus operators be the same then? Hopefully we can get all operator articles up to standard. Arriva436^talk 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I knew about that one, this is going to be a pure alphabetical list of current and former operators, public and private. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonty Haywood article

Hello. Jonty's apparent editing of his own articles is getting a bit tiresome, but I'm not sure I understand the rationale for dropping "the largest", when a source supports it - it'd be worth bringing this up on the talk page rather than edit-warring, so that if there's a consensus we can just point to it in future.

And I'm sure you're aware of it, but you should watch tha tyou don't hit the three revert rule. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was drafting a post right now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to this issue on the discussion page as the last discussion seemed to lose track and reverted to people making accusations about who I am again. As McGeddon says, the source supports this fact, as does any reasonable evidence such as a Google search. It is not as if some large chunk of irrelevant information is being added. The issue here is whether LoseTheGame.com is just a website about The Game (which infers there are many others of similar content and notability) or whether it is in fact the largest website about The Game (as supported by sources, Google and Alexa). I feel that replacing the "a" with "the largest" is a genuine improvement to this article providing a more accurate description of the website that is being described. Rabidfoxes (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lion Rampant at Talk:Scotland

Last "circle" from me for you to go around.

Cheers. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Hey MickMacNee, just want to say... thanks very much for your contribution to the LHC safety article! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just killing time before the end of the world, lol. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we should get the LHC safety article featured on the main page on October 21, what do you think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I'll drop a note on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, you seem like an experience editor who maybe can help explain/discuss something with me, as I've had problems with it before. I got your name from some AfD that is going on right now, and perhaps we can use that as a specific example (however I just need general help on notability as well). I really try but I can't see the argument you are making that Muslim Massacre does not fit the notability guidelines. I've read Wikipedia:N maybe 100 times, haha, and everything within that seems to point that it is notable. Here is an excerpt from the article which I've read over most: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it." Then when reading the guidelines it goes on to say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." Using the AfD as an example, or any other example, can you show what you are arguing? To me it seems like if it is covered by several independent major newspapers/websites/magazines then it is notable and therefore should be an article. Basically I've had problems with notability before and I want to make sure I'm not missing something completely. Thanks --Banime (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The key issue is if the sources are all news reports about a single event. Currently, based on the sources, the article should actually be titled Muslim massacre video game controversy, because the game itself is completely unworthy of note, only the name. And per WP:NOTNEWS, if coverage of that event (the release of a controversial video game) does not ultimately extend beyond temporary news exposure, into analysis of a theme, then it arguably has no right to be here. We do not have a list of controversial video games for this precise reason, and this non-entity of an event is harldy worht including in video game controversy. The games given as examples to create an other stuff exists defence, on closer inspection, all seem to be coming from Video games notable for negative reception. Now, comparign that list exposes another major flaw in that argument, all games on that list are official releases, and that list is actually supposed to list games with bad reviews, and appears to have been hijacked by the Google news addicts by adding one or two games that were controversial. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your train of thought. Because the news sources are only covering the controversy associated with the game, then the controversy if anything is notable, not the game? I'll have to think about this more but you bring up a good point that I had not thought about before. Thanks for your reply. --Banime (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

Well, if you hate the idea of leaving articles alone that clearly has a vast consensus against you, I recommend leaving Wikipedia, because you're going to run into that a lot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. As usual. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to explain "you're fighting against a vast majority of people" better. You've been attacking anyone who dares consider this notable - and how dare they indeed, based on those few (read: many) sources from reliable sources establishing its notability through its controversy. And the infobox was added by another user, and I readded it after you removed it. Obviously you were the only one who felt it necessary to remove the infobox, and conversely, you should have left it alone. Oh, and I added content - how unlikely was it that there was a developer for it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, multiple sources proving controversy (over one day) = article? If you don't understand what an absolutely wrong statement that is by now given the myriad of explanations, you never will. But, I am gladdened that at least I know I am not being faced with any form of serious intellectual opposition, no matter what the number of sheep there are, given your support for inclusion of a virtually empty infobox on a two paragraph article. I'm afraid you have got me there, consensus or no consensus, I just can't argue with that kind of ....... logic. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Over a day? Why the Hell do you keep saying "over a day"? It's been several days since it's release, and there are news and reviews in reliable sources. You've decided that one day is the magic number for development, and there have been nearly a dozen sources appearing in just today, many of them from Muslim sources. You complain about gameplay, and it was added. There was reception, and there's plenty of controversy, including a major figure in the Muslim community. You complain about "controversy over its name" and "created to create controversy", without explaining why V-Tech Massacre wasn't created to create controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not re-arguing the Afd here just because you didn't get it the first time. You don't understand the not news policy, I get it, you don't understand the difference between this amateur pile of crap about nothing versus an official game about a real world massacre, I get it; you don't understand why quoting other stuff exists is a bad thing, I get it; you don't know what the article naming policy is, I get it; you generally have no clue what wikipedia is, I GET IT. Your ignorance of policy is not in doubt here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

V-Tech Rampage was made by ONE PERSON. On NEWGROUNDS. It was NOT an official game. Why won't you give ONE single explanation for why V-Tech Rampage is notable besides creating controversy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested. "Other stuff exists" is a lame argument, end of. Why that article exists, I couldn't tell you, maybe its Afd was frequented by the same clueless people as this one, I just don't know. The fact youe are obsessed with trying to claim some precedent just shows you have no proper argument to make. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, hi? I added developer, publisher, and platform? And have just added genre and media? And merely reading a review shows what controls are used? That's more than enough for an infobox. You seem to really dislike this article, to fight over trying to drop the infobox of all things. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is redundant to a two paragraph article. Seriously, how hard a concept is that to grasp? MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you and no one else can define which articles get infoboxes? I've added plenty of legitimate content to the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Content? Don't make me laugh. You are pushing the realms of reality here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I can see why you might have such an agenda, since you seem to have history editing Muslim-related topics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong (as usual). However, in the interest of fairness, I will give you the opportunity to withdraw that statement, otherwise, I will bring you to task over it, with ample evidence that you do not have a clue what you are talking about. 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, once you drop your attitude to anyone who thinks that succeeding notability standards is enough to pass notability standards, I'll take it back. Agreed? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, respect is very give-and-take, and you seem to owe a lot of respect to roughly everyone in the AfD discussion who voted keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you had the ability to back it up. But it's nice to see you can't even admit that, along with your absolute failure to know basic policies such as vandalism, let alone more sophisticated policies such as not news. As I've said before, I make no apology if enough people turn out to be as mis-informed as you, whether you want to use 'he's not nice' as a lame ass tactic to excuse your ignorance. Like I said, there is an essay around here that illustrates that problem perfectly, a hundred people making a dumb point does not equal a valid consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more like I don't care about respecting someone who decides that cries whenever people don't agree with his imaginary policies. Are you prepared to act as if you deserve editing Wikipedia, or are you gonna continue acting like a child and insulting everyone who says things you don't like to hear? I'll just assume your next reply - "waah no, it's stupid crap but V-Tech Rampage am totally notable because it was made in Adobe on Newgrounds, NOT NEWS". I'm outie. It doesn't matter what you do, since common sense is going to prevail, and the article will be kept because you've failed to present any reasonable policy or guideline it fails (or, Hell, ANY policy or guideline). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No Policy presented? Now I know you are just out and out fantasising. You have to be stupid if you think I haven't given you ample reason why you are wrong. If you want to claim superiority based on the fact enough people are daft enough to think wikipedia is a newspaper, go right ahead. I am sure that in a couple of years time we will all be able to bask in the glory of the article you have worked so tirelessly to improve (infoboxtastic), and how it was a seminal piece in the general theme of controversial video games that people actually documented and analysed in the third context (I will understand given the evidence if you don't understand what this sentence means). Or alternatively, we will all ask ourselves what the hell it is doing here at all wasting bandwidth, as nobody, not one single person, has bothered to mention it since this week, and its creator is still an attention seeking nobody. It was your call to make, you failed. Compared to your logic and reasoning, even this game looks good. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

For purpose of closing this dispute, I have requested a third opinion to try to resolve this ongoing AfD dispute. Be advised that if this does not work, I will have to initiate a request for comment on the dispute per the dispute resolution process. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, MickMacNee. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with your involvement in the previous AfD. Thank you. --Kizor 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chanelle Hayes. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. In fairness, although your intentions were seemingly honorable; I have to warn you over the 3RR rule. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to take this seriously, Mick. Looking at the AN/I report, I'd say you are on thin ice. A block history like yours could result in much stronger action being taken than has been the history for you. I'd hate to see you blocked, for I believe you are acting in good faith. But sometimes that isn't enough. Do not edit war, period, not matter how right you are -- or think you are. As soon as it appears that someone else is willing to edit war, back off and use WP:DR. Seek consensus (even with stubborn POV-pushers). Making strong good-faith efforts to address issues raised by other editors, as manifested in their edits, soliciting further comment from them explaining why they want, for example, to remove sourced material, and then slowing down the pace, so that you don't even get near 3RR or even 2RR, may protect you from being blocked, or help recover if you are. Get help. Be patient. You can ask for page protection in the meantime, and while a page is protected, if you can find consensus in Talk, you can fix problems with the protected version. Page protection simply stops the warring, and if you get lucky, it gets protected to a decent version. I'd help in detail if I had the time. I don't. If you specifically ask me, I'll try to make time. But good luck, in any case. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you're saying, but 3RR and RFPP are not as helpful as you would think faced with low speed but obviously wrong edits. 3O usually works especially for obvious cases. I'm sticking with that having used it many times before. Getting help in an asking specific people kind of way is not my style, and not very fair to my mind as it is often abused. The 'system' should be self correcting to the right content whoever is/is not aware of the dispute at the time. Unsolicited comments in a disupte are always welcome from my point of view though, when it is clear they are not as a result of canvassing by one 'side'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mick, please be aware that I think you are usually correct, as far as content is concerned, when I've seen you edit warring. WP:3O was fine, that was a very good move. What wasn't good was not waiting. With BLPs, there is a strong bias toward removal of possibly defamatory content, applying what works elsewhere to BLPs can, in fact, get you blocked. I once reverted an edit by a banned editor to a porn star article (it was planted, I'm sure, to attempt to trap me; the editor vandalized my Talk after making the edit) restoring material about the star having contracted AIDS. It was, in fact, legitimate, and not controversial. But, nevertheless, I was warned by an arbitrator, no less, to stop. Normally, a banned editor's edits can be removed without even paying attention to the content....

Be very careful about falling into the trap of responding to incivility with incivility. You are being attacked. It's actually ancient advice to not respond when attacked. 3RR may not seem to be helpful when dealing with a content dispute and the other side doesn't care about edit warring. But, remember, you are here for the long run, I assume. The article can be missing some material for a day. You can solicit comment and wait. You don't have to edit war to get the article back on track. Get a comment or some comments, find consensus or at least rough consensus, you can then make an edit that would have been edit warring if you'd done it the same day as others. Slow edit warring is still edit warring, but finding and implementing consensus, if that is what you really do, isn't edit warring. It's what we are supposed to do. You just don't *insist* by edit warring. If it is really consensus, you will have help. If you can't get help, you don't have consensus! Further, if you actually try to find agreement with the intruding editor, the article may end up better and easier to maintain.

I'll note that RfPP would also have worked in the article in question. The page ended up being protected anyway; instead of edit warring, consider this: you can realize that an edit war is starting when you have made one revert, if you are reverted. Right at that point, you can go to RfPP, file the request, then make one more revert. It's a crap shoot, but you've got a good chance of having the article protected in the state you want. Don't abuse this, if you did, it could be considered gaming the system. But it really doesn't matter which version the article is protected into, unless it's BLP violation. As you might notice, the protecting admin removed the controversial material. Even though protecting an article into a preferred version can be a conflict-of-interest act by an admin, here BLP was involved, plus there was already an apparent consensus. Regardless, what properly happens then is that the involved editors -- and anyone properly brought in, or even otherwise (numbers don't really matter, in the long run, it's a mistake to make a big deal about canvassing unless it's massively distorting things, and even then the solution is to bring the matter to the attention, neutrally, of a wider audience) -- seek and find consensus on the Talk page, and if they can't, use WP:DR, and then an admin can be found to implement what they agree upon. And thanks for listening.

By the way, I learned about WP:3O by watching what you did here. I'd somehow missed that, it's much faster and more reliable than content RfC. Thanks for showing me that. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Routemaster

You dodged a bullet here, Mick. You could easily have been blocked for edit warring, and with your history, it could even be indef. As you may know by now, Oxyman42 was blocked, apparently as a result of the RfPP that I filed for the article. The admin could easily have decided to block you as well, I was a bit worried about that risk. I'm aware that you were doing a number of things right: you were not being uncivil, even when faced with incivility, and you were, at least to a degree, explaining what you were doing. When there is a conflict like this, it's very important that we seek consensus and, where we cannot, as can happen with a tendentious editor, we seek and defer to broader rough consensus. As I've said before, you are a valuable editor and it would be a shame to see you lost to the project over one photo of marginal necessity, as the matter stands. Oxyman42 is an editor who clearly has serious interest in London transport, and who can, potentially, be very useful, if he can avoid his own incivility and edit warring when he's convinced he's right. Much of his work has not been contentious. Let's help him participate. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I know what you're saying, but I very much doubt an indef block would have stuck. Communication and consensus building is fine if you know who you are talking to. Valuable editor he may be, but I have never resorted to socking, and anyone that does is clearly a major threat to the project. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You might or might not be right about the indef block sticking. I'd have argued for it being lifted, given the provocation you faced in this situation, and, my guess, with your history of positive contributions, it would, as you think, not have stuck. But I'd rather not try to find out, and the loss of one day of your work isn't worth this image not going missing for a day. A new IP has appeared, purely disruptive, it looks, supporting the position of Oxyman42. It could be him, or it might be some other editor with an agenda, trying to provoke either you or myself into getting 3RR blocks. I've got one of those; Plus I've assumed that the older edits to Routemaster from 87.112-87.115 aren't him, but that is known IP for him. And a lot of others who living in the area. (He also uses other IP available to him, so the current IP warrior could be him, though I've not seen him use this range before. And he usually has better spelling.) I've requested, anew, page protection. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Oxyman42's block was lifted to reset it to "infinite," for threatening suicide. Definitely unstable. Socking wasn't the issue. (Though his choice of language seemed to assert that, he was really claiming that others edit warred, which was true, perhaps, but nobody else crossed 3RR. You hit 3, I hit 2 when the new IP showed up.) My worry was that, given that you'd been blocked for 3RR violation on Routemaster, you'd be blocked short of 3RR next time, or that you'd be tempted to add just one more.... but you did not. My second RfPP was ignored (it was a note tacked onto the previous one that had resulted in Oxyman's block instead of page protection, and so it was either overlooked, or it added to the unblock denials on his Talk, no way of knowing unless someone tells us). The new IP was not blocked, but neither has it reappeared yet. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

There has never been a Prime Minister of Scotland & the last Monarch of Scotland was Queen Anne pre-1707 Act of Union. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Armored car (VIP)

Thanks for sorting the tags out on the above page... I'd used Twinkle to tag it, couldn't decide which one was relevant and not un-ticked the other two. Cheers anyway. Booglamay (talk) - 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eddie Stobart logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie Stobart logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Track maintenance

I don't think you intended this redirect page to loop! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

lol. Good spot. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perma stubs

These not are isolated hamlets or villages with no government sources or data but they are municipalities or districts. Hell we are missing municipalities in Mexico with over 10,000 km2 and information available to expand them to GA class. And you still think they are perma stubs about non notable subjects when they are an abundance of reliable sources available to expand them immediately. Myself and Ed have worked our arses off to expand some of the crappy stubs we have on here. Sandhikharka in Nepal and La Palma, Chalatenango would have been your original idea of perma stub? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Shall we have an Administrator give a third opinon? GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm drafting one now, I'll list it at WP:3O in the normal way. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, we sit & wait. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on tenderhooks, lol. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm always reluctant to edit other people's talk page contributions, however your summary of the UK country-within-a-country dispute contains some clear factual errors. Since you present your edit as a summary of the preceding argument, maybe you could change what you wrote. Particularly 1) there is an official description of E/S/NI/W as "countries". See my edit for the reference 2) given an official description, that also counts as a primary source; 3) many other Wikipedia articles do say what the subdivisions of the country are called. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've covered that, to say the above in a 3O request wouldn't be neutral. It is a fact that one side rejects the existence of a primary source, and the other articles, I have to state that. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stained Glass

Can't understand your removals! You leave in the link to one solitary studio, Judsons, which shouldn't be there, because it is or ought to be covered by "glass artists", leave in the link to something as twee as Suncatcher and remove the link to the leadlight article which one of the major links as it explains why some glass is historically termed "stained glass window" and other glass is historically. Amandajm (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) termed "Leadlight".

Agreed, leadlight was a mistake, I hadn't meant to remove it. Suncatcher looks relevant, if a small topic. The studio seemed to assert notability, so I erred on keeping it in without knowing any better. Make any repairs you deem necessary, but the original list was way too big. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images in Riot control

• Please discuss your reasons for bulk-deleting the image gallery in Riot control. I have gone throgh them twice removing those that seem to be irrelevant. I have read Wikipedia:Image use policy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Image galleries are not appropriate for articles, that is what commons is for. And sizes should be thumb except main image. The removals have nothing to do with copyright. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Huh?? Thousands of Wikipedia articles have image galleries. These images are mostly in Commons, and the article points to them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)