User talk:Keri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiptoety (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 29 June 2015 (Reverted edits by 172.7.162.92 (talk) to last version by Keri). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom


CSB

Regardless of the reliability of CCR, per your talk regarding the article on Rafael Moure-Eraso, the cited article is an unsigned opinion piece. As mentioned in my edit notes, the opinion was rendered prior to the hearing and well before the resulting letter. There are a number of factual errors in the CCR piece regarding the Safety Case and PSM which call into question the conclusions drawn and make it a highly questionable source for this topic. IceBear2310 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshit. Keri (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanbridge Earls edit

Hi Keri,

Just have a quick question with regards to the edits with regards to Stanbridge Earls school

1) How do I make the proper reference to links and articles like you did. When ref to link I do not seem to get the time stamp like yours.

2) I removed the part about the accusation with regard to the 12 years old as I could not find any reference to it in the news articles linked and neither did the Tribunal mention any other girls either.

3) I removed the section with regard to operation Flamborough as I thought this was now superseded with the conclusion by the CPS and the police investigation. I refer here to this article http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11189307.No_charges_after_allegations_of_sex_abuse_at_school/ which states at the bottom that "Operation Flamborough is now complete"

Keen on your view about these edits

WeathergoWeathergo (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Weathergo:. There's a great page at Wikipedia:Citation templates which shows the different types of templates you can use for creating citations, be they books, newspapers, websites etc. Very handy. With regards to the article, it probably needs a thorough pruning and reorg now that the dust has settled. I'll take a look after dinner and get back to you with some thoughts. Keri (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hangover (book) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hangover (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangover (book) (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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Courtesy nomination because the speedy deletion tag you placed has been removed. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


How to make progress after a receiving a stop sign for warlike activity.

Hi Keri, thank you for the stop sign. I had just logged in with the intention of 'removing' the edit in question, having started to feel 'contrite' about it. In a nutshell, it was a quick reaction for having been given a full block this morning after posting a similar addition last night. The editor that blocked me is from a country that seems to have people who react hostilely to the subject matter. An editor (maybe the same one) had previously removed my addition without giving any feedback, and I tried to improve it from experience I was having with a different edit. However, I am finding that after giving criticism from a few editors, I still get criticized/blocked after making suggested improvements. Most do not engage in dialog. Therefore, I would like to work on the BBC Panorama edit now and to ask you if you can see any way that I may post improve it, and include it again without the likelihood of people deleting it / blocking me again. I hope you have the time to read it (pasted below.) Gerrytlloyd (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrytlloyd: With the additions to the Panorama article, you must restrict yourself to media coverage of the episode and critical responses to the episode. You mustn't use the article as a coatrack: an "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects." It's debatable if this is even a notable episode. South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority suggesting that "it could prove an obstacle to justice if Dewani was put on trial" is just about the only notable aspect of the episode. Keri (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keri: I see what you mean. Can you recommend an article that would be appropriate? It is the closed-book quality of the legal system that worries me in the South African context: There is an unworkable mixture of apartheid-derived trial procedure with western plea bargain ideas that proved very damaging for Shrien Dewani. I tried to constrict my description maximally but it still 'bulges' in the Articles have tried to edit (Jury, Jury trial, Right to a fair trial.)
@Gerrytlloyd: You might try asking at The Teahouse. There are usually a number of knowledgable types lurking in there who may be able to point you in the right direction. I've mulled it over and have to admit I'm not quite sure how I would go about tackling this subject, either as a stand alone topic or as an addition to an existing page (eg Courts of South Africa). There is certainly plenty of source material (eg here in The Guardian, here on the BBC). Perhaps someone more creative than I at The Teahouse will be able to offer you more constructive advice. Keri (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Keri,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War? Don Lane (Santa Cruz) Un-Negotiated??--Not True!

My main revision (+812) was negotiated on October 15 2014 under my previous IP Address: 67.180.161.221 with a representative of Don Lane.

Please revert to the most recent revision done by me.

Who are you to play Edit Police especially when you haven't done your homework?

Don Lane, himself, refers to this episode in a recent local piece: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/6203-on-his-terms.html

So, this is direct evidence that he wishes the information to stay current while trying to manage it to his liking. The Man of Heart (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Man of Heart: Edits to Wikipedia are not "negotiated" with representatives of anybody - they either follow Wikipedia's policies or they don't fly. Take the dispute to the proper venue - Talk:Don Lane (Santa Cruz). Keri (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false allegation

Sorry. Since you have read and monitored all my correspondence, you know that I have denied that I am one of the recipients of the Obscene Valentine's Card as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donner60#Thanks_for_your_help_with_Don_Lane_.28Santa_Cruz.29 It is the "Rep" of Don Lane (Santa Cruz) who is assuming this. It is patently untrue.The Man of Heart (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Vermont

I note that IP user 67.184.44.6 blanked a section title after your initial warning. User:HopsonRoad 19:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nilsen article

Kudos and thanks for your efforts in improving the references etc. on the Dennis Nilsen article. Much appreciated. Regards, KS.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. Keri (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keri&oldid=669161147"