User talk:Lost Girls Diary

I deleted the poison warning on the page about Aconite. I understand your good faith, but this is an encyclopaedia. Anyway, the fact that it's a poisonous plant is vastly treated in the article. Keep editing! Aelwyn 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lost Girls Diary -- You recently re-edited the "Ginger Snaps" article to change "their only friends are each other" to "their only friends being each other", as "very minor grammar edit in line with the British/Canadian language usage."

Outsiders at school, their only friends being each other.

Umm -- two points. (1) As written, the sentence is a fragment, which I didn't think was correct in British/Canadian or any other English variant. So for instance if the sentence were rewritten "They are outsiders at school, their only friends being each other" then it would not be a fragment. Do I misunderstand something? (2) But in that example, and in the current version, "being each other" is passive. Passive construction is common in American speech as well, but frowned upon for formal writing. Are you saying that that is not the case for Brit/Canadian usage? -- Cheers, Laura Q (lquilter 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As written the sentence says: "Outsiders at school, their only friends being each other"

Which you correctly suggest is fragmented.

"They are outsiders at school, their only friends being each other"

Which as you you suggest is indeed not fragmented.

The point is, we do not really need to say "They are", as, clearly, we are talking about the Fitzgerald sisters. If it were ambiguous, then it would be advisable to add "They are", but is otherwise superfluous.

American English is, I'm afraid often far too wordy for its own good. For instance, it is not uncommon in general usage or even formal writing for an American to say/write: "I need you to know that . . ." Where British or Canadian writers would tend to use "You should know . . ." to the same ends.

My original variant of the sentence said: "They live a lonely existence; outsiders at school, their only friends are each other"

But, the fact is, that the new version had lost the end of the sentence somewhere along the line and IS indeed fragmented! It should read "Outsiders at school, their only friends being each other, they exist in a querulous world of their own." A further edit should have eliminated "They live a lonely existence", to make it more coherent overall. I think, and hope you will find the former now puts the word "being" into context?

Sincere thanks for pointing this out. It will be corrected pronto.

Lost Girls Diary Lost Girls Diary 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep. subject & verb, check. thanks & happy editing. --lquilter 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Laura. I always like to please my readers.

If you spot anything else of mine where I've had brain fade, please let me know.

Kindest - Lost Girls Diary Lost Girls Diary 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Isabelle

Please do not revert useful edits to that article withought even giving an explanation. I removed "notable roles" and "height" from the infobox because those fields have been deleted from the template itself, and thus don't even show up anymore. I deleted "caption" and "imagesize" because they apply to an image, and there is no image in the article. As for how the opening sentence should be structured, see WP:MOSBIO - birthplace and parents' occupation does not belong in this paragraph. I divided the article into sections because that is how most articles on Wikipedia are structured. As for the filmography, I added tags like "rowspan="3"" because they make the filmography structuring easier. I removed the category "Canadian actors" because it is a parent category of "Canadian film actors", which is already in the article. I removed the category "Canadians of Scottish descent" because it is not sourced. All Hallow's Wraith 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any of your edits are useful at all. Sorry, but that is the case. "Canadians of Scottish descent" links directly to an internal (Wikipedia) page, so should be left in, so should "Canadian actors" because Katharine has done film, tv and theatre, not just film. The now unused items in the infobox should be retained for future use; and anyway, why delete when there is no need to? I checked back, and Lost Girl is right, "rowspan" is inadequate for the purpose in this instance, it cramps the latter sections. If you had checked yourself, you would have seen it. quite apart from this, the filmography doesn't need structuring, it already is structured, and perfectly easy to add to. Again, why change something just for the sake of change? The article already was divided. I'm afraid just putting in titles as you did and nothing else of note made it look bitty and uncared for. Checking back, I noticed Bacteria a fairly large contributor didn't fall into line with your previous edits when he made some minor (and I think proper) changes today. I think that speaks for itself. Relister 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept most of that, but I am reverting to the former layout. I suggest you please read the Wp: Mosbio page which tells you that they adherence is NOT a requirement. No-one else, including FCYTravis are bothered about this, and he is an admin. He has seen the page recently and hasn's a problem with it. Lost Girls Diary 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if anyone else was or was not bothered by it. I suppose one couldn't say that WP:MOSBIO is "set in stone", but there is no reason not to follow it, since its purpose is to unite Wikipedia articles under the same coherent style - as MOSBIO says - it is a "generally accepted standard that all editors should follow". All Hallow's Wraith 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, Mosbio says first and foremost: "Adherence to these guidelines is NOT required" That is the very first thing it says. That should tell you everything you need to know as to why you are wrong to keep reverting to your vision of things. In amongst the other guidelines, it also says common sense should prevail, and also says, in effect, that if the majority are happy with any given page, then leave it alone! They are the guidelines, I suggest you go with the flow. Lost Girls Diary 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try reading exactly what it says, and ask yourself why it says in the mosbio, first and foremost: Adherence to these guidelines in not required. Do you even know what that phrase means? Or, for that matter, what majority rule means? Or even what "recommended" means, it certainly does NOT mean some self-righteous prig can come along and decide what should or should not be there. It is time you learned what it is like in the big wide world, and woe betide you when you get there.

I have also read your comments on Bacteria's page, hoping he would gang up with you against me. If you took the time to actually read before diving in and editing, then you would know his reversion was about the experiment I tried with an underlining, and change of headers size, nothing more. I was going to undo, but your unnecessary tampering got in the way!Lost Girls Diary 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Legal threats withdrawn, good behavior promised. -Haemo 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Haemo 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |}[reply]

Hang on while I contact the blocking admin for their approval. --Haemo 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really don't want this hanging over me. I'm not really bad, just get a little hot headed :) I will avoid the legal rubbish in future, I promise you. Lost Girls Diary 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; I know it can be difficult sometimes, but just remember to stay cool when editing gets hot, and just walk away if you get really worked up. There are outlets to resolve problems if you need them. --Haemo 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know full well I should have walked away before and simply said to hell with it; I just let myself get too involved. I will bear everything you said in mind, particularly the outlets to resolve problems, though I hope I'm not going to get any when, or if I return to editing. Nice to know there are Admins out there who are both human, and actually show an interest in helping. Thanks again. Lost Girls Diary 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]