User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lucy-marie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
MedCab Case
Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dont start making accusations, this a fresh start please do not ruin it. Seddon69 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise, I was simply stating what had happened in the past and saying that we should move on.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lucy, I think I should just tell you, I am intending to prepare a statement for this case as well, however, I will refrain from personal attacks against you. If you have a look at my record, you will see a lot has changed, and I will do my best to portray my view as best as possible, and adhering to relevant policies, not my personal point of view. I would ask that you also refrain from personal attacks against me. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand and that is what i am doing. This is a new start and i expect civility from all users in this case. Seddon69 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lucy, have a look at this, it's my opinion on this merging/deletioning, as asked by my admin coach. It has no mention of you whatsoever, and I think that if you read it you will see it is very reasonable. I'd also ask that you respond to this on my talk page, I have gone out of my way to be civil, and I'd ask that you do the same. In case you are wondering, I am Cro0016, but have had a name change. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Truce?
- It appears you do not wish for any sort of truce. Thats your call. I tried. I won't resort to personal attacks, I'd ask in the MedCom case, that you do the same. But, if you're still willing to come to some sort of truce, as in, a "peace", then I'm willing. You know where to reply. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly Lucy, I will elaborate. Since we last had discussion, I have changed. I want to apologise for the personal attacks I have thrown at you, and the bad faith I have assumed at times. What I'm saying, is that I may not always agree with you, I think that it does not mean that I, or anyone, should be uncivil. Additionally, as you see in the Mike Doyle article, I changed my opinion on this merger, I see that, unlike some editors, have reasoning now, after reading policies, and considering things. My general opinion on this debate is here. and please note, there was absolutely no intention of a personal attack whatsoever. If you feel this was the case, let me know, this was not my intention. I hope we can all work together more effectively. Feel free to look at my recent history, you will see I have improved as a Wikipedian. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- You still haven't responded to my above comment. Are you ignoring that? And, Seddon is waiting for a response from TunaSushi, Angelriver, and the others who have not commented. Have you read my comment? I think you will find it appropriate, and not subjective, but more objective, not biased to my personal opinion, per se, but more reliable than something I would have said a month ago. What are your thoughts? Cheers,Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, I feel that's reasonable, I just felt you were ignoring me. I've spoken to Seddon, and I'll ask him to move the mediation along, and maybe we may have to consider leaving out the parties who have not commented yet. It's an option, but I'd rather not do that. But, I tried to be as neutral and as reasonable in my comments in the case. I'll also ensure not to personally attack you, I've known it's happened to you by the parties involved, also by me, and it's something I feel bad about. I'm not proud of it. I may have an RFA in a few months, and if I get adminship, I won't use it to push a POV, or push decisions. Thats not how we work. Best wishes, awaiting your reply. The truce is genuine, and I feel its not a "cabal" of any sort, its just an agreement to not attack each other, be civil, not do what we've done in the past to each other. I'm willing if you are. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you regarding DBD. I've also made my thoughts known to Seddon, and I stated that he mishandled the case. as I am a mediator myself (currently mediating 2 cases), I have a good knowledge of how mediation should work. Mediators first of all, do not make any rulings. Their role is to help two parties with different points of view, to try and foster a consensus. We do not deal with user conduct, and as such, he should have never recommended mentorship. it goes against the mediation policies. My summary of them is here.
- Additionally, I have spoken, and cautioned TunaSushi for incivility, when myself, him, and Seddon were discussing the case on IRC. We were not collaborating, my opinion is completely my own (took me a week to write, and i wrote it on pen and paper first). I strive to be neutral, and I've read a lot of the policies, and my understanding of them is quite thorough, maybe not perfect however. And as such, I have opinions on the merging of these characters, based on policy. Objective, not subjective. Seddon actually said he would have had me mediate, if I wans't a 24 editor. But I am, so I'm just a party.
- Could you show me the link to the discussion on the Soham Murders? I'll weigh into it.
- Lastly, a word of advice. I see you quote policy a lot, which is good. It backs up your arguments. However, might I suggest you be a little more specific when you quote policies, such as quoting passages in the policy, like I have done in my statement in the 24 case. It just helps strengthen your argument. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I remember that case. I'll look over the discussion in a couple of hours< I have work in half an hour. And as for this, I agree with you. It's fancruft, its not encyclopedic at all. I did that quite a long time ago. Just wondering, what are your reasons for merging on the Soham murders? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
|
Olive branch | |
| For accepting a truce, and making a pledge to work with me peacefully, I give you this olive branch. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
- I remember I asked you before, but I didn't get a reply, you might have missed it. I'm just wondering what your reasons for merging are in the Soham murders article. As the 24 articles stand at the moment, a few of the ones under mediation probably should be merged. However, this is a different case, and I was just wondering your reasons for merging here. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just bolding it in case you missed the message. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
David Lammy
Surely you are not going to go beyond 3RR on this? You are removing a Key-issue Voting Record for an MP! How can it be a "pointless" thing? You are putting me in an awkward position. MP's are allowed to bypass the whip (and even people like Lammy do so occasionally). The Voting record shows what the votes are actually about. What could be wrong with that?--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
24 Mediation
I'm not expecting the beginning of this case to move at a great pace. You must be mindful of other editors in this dispute. I'm doing the beginning of this case in this style for the main reason is that i don't just want policy after policy quoted. I want things to move forward in this case. Please be patient. There is no time limit on this case and you are free to work on other articles in the meantime. Seddon69 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice: Can we talk?
Lucy, I'd like to talk to you on my talk page ASAP. I'm now the 24 Wikiproject co-ordinator. As such, there will be some changes in the project I'd like to discuss with you. So, as soon as possible, please post a note on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I don't see why you can't join. :) Well, what I am currently undertaking is a list of goals for the project, which will also involve a lot of research, and checking for sources in articles, to establish notability if possible. I'd ask though, in light of this, that you consider not merging the Walid article, at least not yet. I understand your reasons for wanting to merge, and I agree he probably isn't notable. However, is it possible we can wait just a little while before merging? If not, I understand, but I'd appreciate it a lot if you give me a little bit of time to get the project fully up and running again, as it's been quite dead recently. I've also sorted all articles by quality, all the info is on the project page. Kindest regards, and awaiting a reply, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A link to the project page is here, and our goals are here. I think you will find them palatable to you. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
it helps to remove these lucy :)
London olympic protests
That's not POV, is it? The disruptions to the relay did reach their apex when the torch had to be diverted onto a bus. "Optimum" is a bit of an unfortunate word choice, but those are the breaks of running an international site. --Kizor 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Miles/Kilometers
Hi there. Can I ask why you've altered the articles of British motorways to put km first and miles as a secondary distance? All British motorways are in miles, and miles is the British unit of measurement so they should be miles primarily and a conversion to kilometres after. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is because the motor-ways are not just UK motor-ways they are Euro-routes as well, The Euroroutes are in Km so to so should primarily be in km to maintain a standard over a greater number of articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, they are UK articles and as a result of the MOS they should be in the appropriate units for the country they are in. In the UK that is miles. They are primarily UK motorways, not Euro-routes which is a secondary designation for them (and they're not even labelled as such in the UK.) As a result miles takes precedence. Canterbury Tail talk 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi Lucy. Capital "D" or small "d"? TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- As in "Deaf" or "deaf"? TharkunColl (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why is a capital "D" preferred, and by whom? TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had assumed it was to do with the difference between Deafness as a culture, with its own language etc., and deafness as simply a physical attribute. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
martha logan
Lucy, I'm glad you are on. Can I please speak to you on the IRC channel irc:Wikiproject_24. Please. If not, on wiki is OK, but I'd prefer on IRC. You can use mibbit.com if necessart. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, can you have a look at Martha Logan and give me your thoughts on it? I'd like the mediation to move forward, and it's really your input we need. The article is fully referenced, is written from a real world perspective, and I feel, it has asserted notability. Could you let me know your thoughts? I, and another editor re-wrote the article, as I was deeply unsatisfied with it. My target is getting it to GA. Your thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged this article as a possible hoax but you did not explain this. This may have never been a common practice in the UK, but in the United States, it was a very common practice in days past. Some people still do it, including people I know. If you look up "mouthsoaping", "eat soap", or wash your mouth out with soap (no quotes) on Google, you should find a lot of information on the practice. If you still think all or part of the article is a hoax, please explain your reasoning on the talk page. Thanks. Andrea Parton (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Smile
Thanks a lot Lucy. I've been having a rough week, that really brightened my day. Would you mind having a quick look over Martha Logan and let me know if its OK with you?
Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Quick question- do I need to still leave the talkback template, or are you watching my page already? Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You have messages :)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lucy, you never replied to my comments on my talk page :( I archived it, but please have a look at them, and let me know. Please. The diff to the comments are here ant the bottom of the section. Please help us :) You can reply in a new section on my talk page Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
House of Commons ratification of the Lisbon Treaty
I notice you reverted on the House of Commons vote on whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Can I direct your attention to the talk page of the article? I'm disturbed that a simplistic approach is being taken in this table, which presents a mistaken impression. Is the table supposed to give the number of representatives in each Chamber and their views, or to give the simple result of the vote? If the former, then two tellers should be added to both "in favour" and "opposed" as they are part of the sides but not counted when the result is given. If the latter, then the number of abstentions cannot be given as no MP actually abstained - there being no mechanism by which they could do so. (They could just not vote)
If there has to be a figure for the number of abstentions, then it has to be the number of MPs who were able to vote and did not. The two tellers for each side do not abstain; the Sinn Féin MPs did not abstain because they were unable to vote; the Speaker and his three Deputies did not abstain because they do not take part in votes except to break a tie.
UK Parliamentary divisions are not the same as chambers in other member states. Treating them the same can seriously mislead readers of the article. Can I ask you to discuss this rather than revert? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
24 mediation
Given the success that occured with the martha logan, which i found out today was promosted to GA im thinking of closing the case for the time being. The idea is that the Article Improvement Drive which i got steve to set up will strive to provide information on characters to establish notability and to eventually get them to GA or even FA standards in the future. This isn't that all the characters have been established as notable but that i feel that for the long term success of the project i feel that this process should handle most of the work. I will still be involved to unoffically mediate any problems that occur but i would like you all to see if you can work towards this. I hope you will all be able to cooperate to help improve the quality of these articles. Seddon69 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
24 Wikiproject
Lucy, I've been delaying this message for quite some time, merely because I didn't know what to say. Firstly, I'll note Martha Logan reached GA status today, something I'm rather proud of, and given time, I am sure more of our articles can each this status.
As the mediation is now, well, closed, and the articles have been moved over to our Wikiproject page, I just wanted to let you know I'll be soon sending you a project welcome message, it has all the links for the project you need.
I'd like to point you to the Merger discussions talk page, also a page for article split discussions. This was created, so it can be a central place for all discussions regarding articles. I have also set some guidelines, specifically that the discussions are not a vote, and that user bashing, I will not tolerate. My offer to perform the mergers still stands. This would take the heat off you, and the heat on me, I think you have had to put up with enough recently, and I'm gonna stand up for you. Please reply to me as soon as possible, I would really appreciate it. Cordially, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the template spam, but....
|
|
Sorry that it's standardised, but it has all the links that you need. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Current Article Collaboration
Chase Edmunds.
Please try and help us improve this article.
Merger Discussion
Feel free to discuss the merger on the Merger Discussions page. SteveBot (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to you on the Merger discussion page. I see no reason why anyone would object to the merger, let's just discuss the content first. Could you do that for me please? And, see the guidelines I wrote up, they're specifically so you don't get user bashed :) Cos, well, it's unfair. You think the discussion page is a good idea? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion page is a good Idea.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:) Thanks :D Anyway, I'm proposing a version right now, as always, I'd like your input. Is that alright with you? Also, the page will be used for discussions on splitting articles from the Minor characters in 24 page, but they will be thrown out of the discussion unless they meet notability criteria.
Which reminds me, what about that notability policy for 24? You suggested it to me a while ago. MedCab is closed now, so we might as well start on it :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, thanks for fixing this. My sandbox had the testing template on it, that's where it was. Forgot to change it. Also, check the merger discussion page. I've gone ahead and merged it, I strongly request that we discuss this policy you thought of. Please :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)