User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rating/Assessment System

Lucy-marie,

I hope you don't mind but I've recently created a new banner design which includes a ratings system patterned after the Australian WikiProject. I'd be glad to hear your opinion on it when you have time. MadMax 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lucy-marie, I just wanted to let you know I've completed a very basic outline for an assessment scale on the project's main page. MadMax 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished reformatting Template:Uk-crime (the formatting being borrowed from WikiProject military history). MadMax 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I would like to offer you some advice, as it appears you are a positive contributor in many areas and I've no wish to see you get in any trouble. However, your recent behavior regarding the Person article could be seen as disruption to make a point. It is not appropriate to split an article into two parts to resolve a content dispute (WP:NPOV addresses this specifically), and it is not acceptable to "withdraw cooperation"-if you feel that the other editor is being uncooperative (which I see no evidence of, (s)he filed an RfC to get a wider range of opinions, which indicates that your concern was being acknowledged and taken seriously), you should attempt to engage that editor in constructive dialogue. Also, please note that we all must follow a clear consensus, even if we believe it to be incorrect. You may also wish to have a look at the manual of style-either British or American English may be used, and so long as the use is consistent throughout the article, it does not matter which. We don't, for example, have separate pages for Aluminum and Aluminium, nor should we-the article got started at Aluminium, and the American spelling is solved by a redirect. No big deal!

I strongly advise you take a step back-this isn't a hill worth dying (or getting blocked) on. Seraphimblade 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which remarks of theirs do you believe were inflammatory or uncivil? Seraphimblade 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the discussion, it appears that both of you were a bit less civil then perhaps you could have been (calling someone a "thorn in the side" and "spiteful" is pretty strong language, and he certainly could have pointed out the policies which he did more politely). It seems the matter's pretty much done with, and I'd prefer not to kick the hornet's nest. :) Seraphimblade 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to clarify your comments, I'm afraid that's to you to do-I wouldn't presume to speak for you! What I might advise, is take the initiative to speak to WGee, with a statement that neither takes nor gives blame-you may wish to put it in your own words, of course, but if it were mine to say it may be something like "Things got a bit heated up between us in our last discussion, and I'm sorry it worked out that way. I hope we can work together better in the future." Might help to defuse the situation. Seraphimblade 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, look forward to an era of civil collaboration. To avoid future conflicts, simply make sure that your contributions are within the bounds of these policies. I think both of us could do with a thorough re-read of WP:CIVIL in particular. -- WGee 02:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BNP

It's just a form of trying to find a compromise. Clearly, you won't accept WeeGee's version and he's not keen on yours. The best way to try and find an acceptable alternative is to present some options that attempt to steer between the two. If its not good enough, a change can easily be reverted. As important as discussion is, we don't get anywhere by not allowing people to edit an article. My edits to the page are not trying to be 'unilateral', they're merely my interpretations of what people are coming up with in the discussions. I adivse you to do the same - attempting to edit to make the article acceptable to all resolves a problem far more quickly than reversions.

I regard none of my edits as being unremovable and unless I think a user is being completly biased - which I don't think anyone is on the article - then I'm not gonna revert them. But what was wrong with the verison taht was apparently 'worse than teh other two'? --Robdurbar 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously resent your accusations. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. First of all, if you read my above post you'll note that I don't necessairily think that version should be used - I posted it as a suggestion. I'm happy with all three versions, to be frank, and I'm just trying to provide alternatives in the hope that one will strike a happy cord Indeed, the version that you have been reverting to was one which contained modifications I had made to your original attempt, so I don't really understand your objection. As I said in the summary, it was just an attempt to find a third way; it failed, that's fine, I'll probably suggest other ones once people respond to the comments that have been added to the talk this afternoon. --Robdurbar 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bnp page

I left a notice on the talk page, I dont like the current reversions done by someone without notification on the talk page (click the bnp page history and you will see). Would be grateful for your input :) Fethroesforia 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject userbox

Lucy-marie,

I've finally fixed the problem with the category feature for the project userbox and mentioned it on the main page. MadMax 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Arne

Lucy-marie, I've been cleaning up the wanted Articles section and, as I haven't been able to find any information a another Peter Arne, I was wondering if Peter Arne (actor) and Peter Arne (murder victim) are the same man as the actor was himself murdered in 1983 ? MadMax 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the same person dose the article about the actor make cler he was murdered.--Lucy-marie 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I spent considerable time cleaning up the article and wrote two paragraphs focusing on his death. Unfortunatly, I wasn't able to find much on his acting career or personal life prior to his murder. I'll add a statment relating to his murder in the introducution as well. MadMax 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pirate version

Let me give you a quick lesson about copyright law. Television broadcasts are still copyrighted even after they air. Does that mean that Wikipedia cannot provide episode detail, being a copyright violation? Of course not - because disseminating information about copyrighted material is legal, whether or not the information has been made public by legal means. This is distinctly different from disseminating the copyrighted material itself, which is illegal. Posting this information is completely lawful, even if these spoilers annoy some fans who are not as net-savvy as others are.

Please consider the facts before you blindly label something as legal or illegal. --DLand^TALK 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I completly agree with the above, what you're doing in the curtis manning article is effectively vandalism. IUJHJSDHE 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar and the EU

I stand corrected. The point on Jersey and Guernsey still stands. Also, none of the non-European parts of the U.K are part of the EU. Phil Bastian 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ann Leneghan

Hi, I noticed that you edited the above article subsequent to my edit (on 12th Jan). The NPOV tag I had placed there, and the edit to the ethnic background of the British killers, has been undone (although the changing of references to the victim from first names to surname, per Wiki policy, remains) and the history does not record my edit. As you appear to be the next editor, do you know what happened? Have I trodden on any toes, or gone against Wiki policy? I am surprised that there is no message on my talk page if I had made a transgression. Are you able to advise me regarding this?

If you are unfamiliar with the matter, and do not know anything regarding the above, then I apologise for disturbing you. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I note that your edit referred to above was changing use of first to surname - which I had also done in my "missing" edit. Your explanation that I simply forgot to save after previewing seems the likely scenario (it wouldn't be the first time!) Thank you for your time. LessHeard vanU 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi, in relation to your comment on my talk page, which page and which reference specifically are you talking about? I usually try to use templates except when only a website address is needed. Famousdog 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ira Gaines

Sorry. I actually didn't know the merge had been proposed until after it went through, otherwise I would have voice an objection.

Perhaps my wording in the summary was a bit harsh, but I do think merging Ira Gaines was unnecessary. He was effectively the main villain in the first season until the introduction of the Drazens and appeared in more episodes than most other characters in the villains template. I do think the article can be expanded though (maybe I'll pull out my DVD's and watch some early episodes in the next few days to brush up) but that's not the same as warranting a merge.

Though I've opposed merging this and a few other characters, I'm not opposed to merging per se. If you'll notice, I proposed a merge for Ahmed Amar, being only a minor player who was killed off after four episodes. I think Arthur Rabens at two episdoes probably warrants merging too. I haven't decided if Yuri Suvarov deserves a separate article but Anya Suvarov probably doesn't. I've proposed a fwe other mergings for characters as well.

Thanks. --T smitts 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ira Gaines and Kevin Carroll

I agree that the articles are rather bare as they are, but I think expanding the article is the answer for both, not merging. Ira Gaines, I feel, was the principal villain for the first half of the season, comparable to Syed Ali, Ramon Salazar, Navi Araz, and Ivan Erwich.

Tell you what, give me a couple of days to brush up on those early episodes and get some stuff to fill out the articles before anything as rash as merging is done, okay? --T smitts 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy

Userfy means to move to user space, like User:Lucy-marie/subpage. It is a compromise reached for dealing with problematic userboxes, check out Wikipedia:Userbox migration. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Soldier2000 created {{Nuclear Bomb Supporter}}. To userfy would be to move {{Nuclear Bomb Supporter}} to {{User:Soldier2000/Userboxes/Nuclear Bomb Supporter}}, thus taking that template out of the template namespace and moving it to the user namespace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just click on the move tab and input User:Lucy-marie/Userboxes/Nuclear Bomb Supporter as the new title. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Message

I see you have altered your last post in the BNP talk UAF section. There was really no need; they were clearly genuine mistakes and you could have left them in and no one would have thought the worse of you.

The main reason for this message concerns the Hearsay in English Law article which you recently edited, adding the words "civil partnership" after "pedigree or the existence of a marriage". Good edit I thought, but then it occured to me that the Criminal Justice Act may not have been specifically amended by the Civil Partnerships Act. (See my notes on the Talk:Hearsay in English Law page.) Having further researched, this does seem to be the case, i.e., 'civil partnership' should not be added to the article as you did it (within a quote from the original Act). However, it may be that the Civil Partnerships Act does in some way affect the operation of the Criminal Justice Act in which case it needs to be mentioned in Hearsay in English Law somewhere - perhaps in brackets e.g. (as amended by the ...) but we need evidence for this. It is nowhere in the Schedules to the Act (where one would normally find amendments) but if you want to read the main body of the Act please do so. (If you've never read an Act of Parliament before you might find it hard work, but give it a go). Emeraude 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ira Gaines and Kevin Carroll

I know we agreed on the end of the month, but if you'd hold off on merging a bit longer, I can promise something of substance by this time tomorrow. The truth is my parents were in town for the week and staying with me. This left me little time to look over my DVD's but I'm now quickly catching up, if you'll allow me.--T smitts 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings

Hey! Removing warnings is a generally bad idea. If you would like to, it is probably best to move it to archive. I see that you viewed the warning and took it under advisement. We all make mistakes and I have personally had warnings that I wanted to remove. In time, it will get buried away in the posts on this page and nobody would eventually notice. Trying to hide warnings by deletions is a much worse idea! I am not trying to give you a hard time! By the way, i see you are 1 of 5 children? You might be interested in this userbox

sibs-4This user has 1 older sister, 1 older brother, 1 younger sister, and 1 younger brother.

If not, just ignore it! If there is anything I can do to help you, or if you have any questions, please let me know on user talk page -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is cool! Trust me, I have been there and I am not pointing fingers. It was probably a good removal. The problem is, there are just as many problem editors that try to hide there past by cleanisng there talk pages of neagtive stuff. I am sure you are not the case of this but generally is is very frowned upon! Thanks for your great work overall, it is much appreciated. If there is anything I can do to help in the future, or if you need help in a situation, please feel free to let me know! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you the middle of 7? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(If you dont mind my asking. If you are uncomfterable answering that, then i understand that too. The reason I ask is I am the oldest of 7 and i think it is cool that you are proud to be from a larger family (at least you seem like it, i could be wrong). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have alot of respect for that! Keep up the great work. If there is ANYTHING you need here on wikipedia, please feel free to let me know! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

←If you dont mind my asking. What is the gap between oldest and youngest. Are they all from the same parents? (I love big families. An irony about me is that I am the oldest of 7 and my girlfriend is the youngest of 7). If you are uncomfterable answering these questions, I understand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! That is almost the act gap we have. Oldes is 22 and youngest is 7. I will stop asking you strange questions about your family now and get back to blocking vandals! Kepe up the good work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ira Gaines and Kevin Carroll yet again

I restored Gaines and expanded the articles on both as promised. Accordingly, I also restored Gaines to the villains template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T smitts (talk • contribs)