User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

My Talk page

Any particular reason you undid Peter Symonds blanking of my talk page? rrcatto (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed It was vandalism as page blankings not done by the user usually are.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Symonds is a WP admin. I reckon my talk page can be blanked since it consisted of personal attacks by someone whose articles I nominated for deletion. rrcatto (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian Huntley

Did you read reference 3? It contains information about the ears and fingers. rrcatto (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The refrenece may have given them in reference three, I however could not find the information. Anyway the information is irrelevant and unecessary, POV and no wider context is given for the information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the BBC news article which is reference 3, you will see that it contains these lines:

"Victims' groups have condemned £11,000 government compensation entitlements for the families of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells as "a pittance."

"The £11,000 figure Holly and Jessica's families will receive is the same as for a victim of crime who loses an ear or two fingers."

The sentence in the article that I edited was "The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the murder of their daughters". A citation was called for that line. I supplied the citation and gave additional information which allows the reader to understand the £11,000 in context. As it stands, the reader is unable to understand what £11,000 represents. rrcatto (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please also see - Soham_murders - where you will find the same information with the same reference. Quoted here:

The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the death of their daughters, which was widely criticised in the media. The director of the Victims of Crime Trust, Clive Elliott, described the compensation as a "pittance".

There's a lot of duplication of content across those two articles. rrcatto (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the articles should be merged if you agree with that assessment plaese contribute to the apropritae discussion. As for the fingers and toes they are not directly relevant to the payout recieved, where as the other comments are diretly commenting on the compensation recieved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the correct spot? Found it. rrcatto (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is explained in the edit summary. The merger section of the Sohma Murders talk page, to be precise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

British National Party

I quick failed the GA nomination for British National Party due to the presence of maintenance templates ({{pov}} and {{citecheck}}). GA-class articles must not have maintenance templates on them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Beth Tweddle

Never mind. I've made a second edit which hopefully will appease everyone. However, please look over WP:LEDE and featured articles. I'd really prefer discussing things or bringing them to WP:3O rather than engaging in silly edit warring.DanielEng (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

24 Project C Class discussion and Merger Discussion

Just a note that the 24 WikiProject is having a discussion on whether to implement the new C-Class into our assessment scheme, is taking place on the assessment talk page. Feel free to add your input here. SteveBot (owner) 06:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that Reed Pollock and Walid Al-Rezani are up for discussion to be merged.

Image Fair Use Issue Discussion

Discussion is currently taking place as to how the project will use images, the quantity of images in our articles, and whether we are currently overusing images. Your input is requested on this page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use claims

(after edit conflict) Hi. I have started a discussion at Image talk:DafyddIwan.jpg about the application of Fair Use to a Crown Copyrighted image when a free equivalent exists. If possible, I would like to see your reasoning for your dispute of the deletion and links to relevant policies that support your view. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NationalRailRoundell.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NationalRailRoundell.PNG. 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) 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please?

Hello, as a veteran editor I wish your comments on the talk page for History of Plaid Cymru, and Plaid Cymru pages, as editor DrFrench is attempting to delete images without first posting any warning, images that we have understood to be properly sourced. Your assistance is very much requested. I fear DrFrench's motives may be political in nature, and do not want this to escalate out of hand. If the images are indeed worth deleting, then I wont stand in the way. But the sneaky way in which it has been done... usually I see warning boxes beforehand... leads me to be suspect.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Removal of photos from Dafydd Iwan article etc

Some of your recent edits have been questionable. You can't justify using Copyrighted photos when there are alternative photos under free licenses. It's quite simple.

--Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:DafyddIwan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DafyddIwan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I noticed that you have added the source to Image:DafyddIwan.jpg. Unfortunately, however, an image from the Plaid Cymru website is copyright Plaid Cymru, not Crown Copyright. Do you know what the licensing terms Plaid Cymru have designated for the image? Road Wizard (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been said on the talk page Plaid has given a blanket copyright waiver for all of the images to be used under terms of crown copyright. I now advocate absolutely no images due to the ridiculous and petty nature that this has taken. I also question the reliability of the other images to have sought the consent of the subjects to have had their images taken in the first place where do i express these concerns?--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no real requirement for consent in terms of copyright in the UK. If you take an image of a person then it is your image (even if the person objects). It may seem a little unfair to people who dislike being photographed, but that is what the current law allows. Road Wizard (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can you sight legal precedent or legislation supporting this point of view.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 11(1).[1] "The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it". Road Wizard (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to tie-up. If an image is Crown Copyright, then Plaid are in no position to offer any waivers. If the copyright is held by Plaid, then they should upload the image themselves using a GFDL-compatible license. In any event, Wikipedia does not accept limited waivers such as 'for educational use' or 'for use on Wikipedia' as free licences - any images released under restrictions like that are deemed as non-free images. And we're back at square one; non-free images require a fair-use rationale template to be completed for each and every article that the image is used in - and as images of living people are deemed by Wikipedia policy to be replaceable, it's not possible for to create a valid fair-use rationale. It's not ridiculous or petty, it's just protecting Wikipedia's credibility by complying with the policies created to protect Wikipedia. I tried previously to help, inform and guide you as to why the images were unacceptable, but you delete my comments. Have a look at WP:NONFREE and all will start to become clear. Thank you. DrFrench (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to retain any comments from any user on their talk page. Plaid are offering identical use of the images as allowed under crown copyright. That is why the tag is being used in this situation as the conditions being given by Plaid are identical to crown copyright.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't sound right. Either the image is Crown Copyright or it is not. If the image copyright is helpd by Plaid but released under conditions similar to Crown Copyright - then it's not Crown Copyright; just copyright released under a specific set of conditions. But in any event it's a moot point, as whichever is the case the conditions of the release are not acceptable to Wilkipedia. DrFrench (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there same way the Plaid Cymru article can be protected from Lucy Marie's attempts to delete photos ? By deleting photos which meet Wikipedia's licensing guidelines, Lucy Marie is dissuading other photographers to come forward and contribute material which enhances content. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask why it has been deemed necessary to go ahead with removal of all of the other images which are under dispute. The normal practice is that all images remain until the dispute is resolved. I am of the opinion that either all off the names should have images or none at all. I would personally like to bar any re-adding of any images to the page while this dispute is going on. Also please do not be so arrogant to refer to me in the third person on my talk page it is demeaning and insulting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several "disputes" with these images:

• Fair use images of living people should not be uploaded to Wikipedia and are subject to deletion (removing the image from the article while the deletion process is ongoing is up to the discretion of individual editors)
• Images without a clear source should not be uploaded to Wikipedia and are subject to deletion (removing the image from the article in this case may not be wise as it reduces the chances of other editors finding the legitimate source before the deletion occurs)
• Fair use images without a "Fair use rationale" (fair use images must have a completed fair use rationale for each article they appear on. For example, Image:Cymdeithas-logo.svg includes a fair use rationale for several articles. If no fair use rationale exists then the image MUST be removed from the article)

So, in summary, the images have been removed from the articles because they lack a Fair Use rationale and they have been flagged for deletion because they are fair use images of living people. I hope this explains things a little better, but ask another question if there is anything you still need to know. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for Image:Hannah Williams.jpg. --Geniac (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Moves

Please do not make potentially contraversial moves without discussion. This, by the way, was very poor - fpptball? Your moves have been reverted and I strongly advise you to go to WP:RM unless you want your edits to be considered vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be consistent with your {{fact}} tagging. You tagged this immediately after adding this without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And finally, when telling others to be careful with their spelling in your edit summaries, please note Autumn is spelt with two u's. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronisation now go away.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No. While you chastise others, please ensure you follow your own high standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "chastise others" at the moment it feels you you are interfering in minor minor edits for the sake of it.--17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one making the incorrect minor minor edits and using the edit summary to tell others what you're doing, e.g. "use standard or british not american english in this article so avoid stuff like Fall and remember to include the letter U and S not Z" and then you correct Fall (which is fine) to Autmn (which isn't English). And as I clearly stated above, adding {{fact}} templates to some articles and then adding unreferenced material to other articles. Seems anomalous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is more likely to be read in an edit summary by annon users who make the vast number of edits which break the guidelines on types of English to be used. So what I made one spelling mistake if you are that concerned then correct it and move on, don't get hung up on one letter. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is unreferenced and the information is not available online. also the reference could have been added at a later time by myself if given the chance to add the reference after finding out all of the necessary information to add a complete reference. The other articles have virtual POV statements in them which do need verification and sourcing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So tag the article not the individual sentences. All I'm saying is practice what you preach. Your error was quickly corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Next time don't make such a song a dance out of just one letter, there are far more important things to do with one's time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Like move Striker to Striker (association fpptball)?! Practice what you preach. Expand the Wikipedia, don't wreck it with bureaucracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All i am attempting to do is improve Wikipedia by removing ambiguity from some searches that will be carried out and matching the article titles up with the other titles such as Formation (association football), Assistant referee (association football), Kit (association football) etc. ect. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're killing Wikipedia. What's wrong with looking up "midfielder" and getting the most common usage 99% of the time with a "For other uses" at the top? Why make it impossible for 99% of people to get what they want first time? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are holding a very morbid outlook on Wikipedia can you please explain how this most minor of moves is "killing" Wikipedia. I Would also appreciate it if you could stop being so melodramatic with what you are saying and let me and other get on with editing and improving wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No melodrama, you're just wasting a lot of time and effort (yours and others) by making unnecessary moves. You're categorically not improving Wikipedia with these odd moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am being bold and if you have a problem please speak when you are calm and not in over the top melodrama and claim that I am "killing" wikipedia. I am far from "killing" Wikipedia, I think you are just being blatantly disruptive by hammering on with this. Move on and find something better to do.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold is good but, for example, moving striker to striker (association fpptball) is madness. You need to look at whether you truly believe moving pages around for the sake of it is improving the browsing experience at Wikipedia. You didn't answer my question by the way. What's wrong with looking up "midfielder" and getting the most common usage 99% of the time with a "For other uses" at the top? Why make it impossible for 99% of people to get what they want first time? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How about that, I didn't answer your question, move on and find a better thing to do with your time and mine.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting more time than just your own by these reckless moves. Pack it in and improve the Wikipedia please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wasted the time of a bot which was created to correct spelling errors. I say the same to you get a life and move on.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attack on this one occasion. Your move was reckless, pure and simple. If you'd like to chip in at WP:FOOTBALL where your actions are being discussed and explain them there too, it'd be appreciated. A bot will not move pages due to typos, you should know that by now. Bold is good, reckless is vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Look I will say this one more time, shut on this subject and move on. Any further posts you make with regards to this topic shall just simply ignore as you are hammering home a dead issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And any more personal attacks will result in your account being blocked. I will "shut on this subject" providing you reduce your "boldness" and listen to consensus. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox person

Hi! I don't think that there is consensus to add that parameter to the infobox. Discussion is still going on, and your latest post (17 Aug) has not had enough time to be discussed. I would suggest that you make it clear that you seek to add a new field rather than it being just a suggestion, just to make the debate more finite. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on the importance. Two users have questioned the need for having a vague parameter. Your last post was on August 17th, and has not given sufficient time for them to debate on that. Let's see what they have to say. For the call sign field, I mentioned that I would like to have the field, and no opposition to the inclusion cropped up in the ten days time I had proposed it. I also cross posted in the bio wikiproject. If you have any concerns on the inclusion, I'm always open to a rethink if sufficient editors feel that callsign is not an important parameter. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'm not convinced why "Cheers!" would cause you to use such a rude edit summary of your own but please don't bother insulting me that way. It'll only end in this account being blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't take threats lightly, stop making baseless threats and go and find something better to do other than stalking me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That was no threat, it was a promise. It's far from baseless. Avoid personal attacks please. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I find some of your edits are in my opinion inflammatory to create controversy where none existed please can you refrain form these types of edits and can you refrain from stalking me, I also take it as a personal attack that you are promising to block my account.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary was a personal attack. I made no such breach of NPA toward you. Requesting you to refrain is not against NPA. Reminding you that to continue to breach NPA will result in your account being blocked is not a breach of NPA. As for stalking, this is Wiki right? You don't own any pages and you and I obviously share areas of common interest. You'll have to get used to that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some pages you have only started editing since the Schumacher incident.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your theories I'm afraid. I've made over 44,000 contributions to this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can make 44000 more for all I care, just try and be a bit friendlier and less confrontational with the edits you undertake..--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me how to go about my business, thanks. Just try and be a bit more thoughtful and less careless with the edits you undertake. And cease the personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

Don't take it personally, it just really helps other editors know what you're doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)