User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Clean page

yay! a Nice clean page! (I will be the first person to write on it! I win, I win!) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

British National Party

Please see Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles --AW 15:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know much about that topic, but it seems to me that you are rejecting what everyone else seems to agree on in regards to that page. Perhaps you are too close to the issue or need to cool off a bit about it. The other people's suggestions seem reasonable and fair to me. --AW 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page with a statement that simply summarizes my panoply of descriptive edit summaries. -- WGee 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ian Huntley and Soham murders

It seems you forgot part of the customary proposing a merger process:

After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger.

V 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know. . .

That your name is under author of the help page? I was wanting to know who created the help page? --Darkest Hour 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay

I found the true author. Thanks though for putting up with me. Cheers, --Darkest Hour 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please complian to me about me"

You wrote on my talk page:

You seem to be unaware that your complaining about me behind my back will not solve any problems you have with me. You also make wild accusation about me being a know nothing and such. You also claim things to be a foregone conclusion. If you have a problem with me talk to me directly and back things up with evidence and when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?

- Firstly, I don't, as you say, have any problems with you.

- Secondly, I have not complained about you behind your back. I have, though, had a discussion with another editor who is as frustrated with you as I am - we have shared our frustrations.

- Thirdly, I did not make a "wild acusation" about you being "a know nothing" - post it if you can, but you can't.

- Fourthly, I gave an opinion that if YOU complained about Hackney and the editing of BNP the result would be a foregone conclusion - it was not a claim - but I stand by that. You would lose.

- Fifthly, there is no point in talking to you directly - you don't read what is put in front of you; you do not respond to reasonable requests; you do not respond to repeated questions. There is more than enough evidence of this on the BNP page in the last week or two.

- Sixthly, when did you complain about me? You memory is short - you could check your own edit record, but to save you the trouble let me post some extracts here:

6/12/07 Talk:British National Party/Archive 4 In an aside, I wrote: "(Out of interest, why is it only right wing groups that claim that they are not what they are, backed up by supporters and apologists? I've never heard anyone on the left claim to be anything other than a left winger. Is it because if you are or were an open or a closet Nazi, and you want to get public support, you need to pretend you are not as extreme as you are? Just a thought.)"

Obviously completely misunderstanding me, you replied: "Please refrain from personal atttacks on my character by claiming i am a closet nazi. I simply want to have clarity in the article and my opinion on labelling a group on a few isues as one thing or another is wrong. I am not a nazi or any other rediculous thing you can think of. Please refrain from rediculous comments and kep thoughts about someone to yourself."

To which I replied: "Please read more carefully. I have in no way suggested YOU are a closet Nazi. I have no thoughts on you at all, have made no ridiculous (or other) comments about you at all. I did refer to some of your earlier writings which I quoted. The words you are referring to are in my last paragraph, in brackets, clearly an aside and not about any one person, let alone you."

In the meantime, you posted on User:Samuel Blanning's page a note titled Personal attack complaining about me. You received short shrift, because he clearly read and understood what I wrote. (I'm sorry I can't retrieve the exchange - he has archived his Talk page and I can't get to it. Perhaps you can.) If that wasn't a 'put down', what was it? Emeraude 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong again. You wrote on MY Talk page (and this is the second time I've copied it here - see above, and my page): "when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?". No mention of Hackney. Just me. So my sixth point stands. Apology please. Emeraude 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like both sides could chill out a little bit in my humble opinion! There is no need to point fingers and argue about these things! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my Talk page: "Please continue ranting as you will not recive a reply until you calm adown and stop trying to bully me (my opinion).--Lucy-marie 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)" I am not ranting, but clearly you do not intend to respond to any of the requests put to you or even admit now to having made any accusations about other editors, myself included. Do you now accept that you complained about me, unjustifiably, to User:Samuel Blanning? Have you answered any of the questions I put to on editing matters a few days ago? Have you answered the questions put to you by Hackney? Are you going to stop giving your 'opinions' and start giving facts? (If your 'opinion' is that I am trying to bully you, make a complaint, but be aware that this is a serious allegation.) I do not need to calm down, but you do need to reply to me, Hackney and others who have questioned your contributions to the debate. Emeraude 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge section

Lucy-marie,

I recently complicated a brief list of articles to be merged and their status on the project page. I've left a note at WikiProject Crime for other editors to vote on the matter. Also I've done some cleaning up on the Wanted and Expand Articles sections, specifically regarding unreferenced articles. MadMax 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Remain cool

Hey! I see you have been in some contentions debates on the article on the BNP. Might I reccomend remaining COOL in these situations as it will help things flow alot smoother. I have been following this for a little while and if the parties invovled cant start playing nice together, I will protect the article until you do! Hope all is going well for you otherwise. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reported

I have reported you to WP:AN/3RR for breaking the three revert rule. Thank you. One Night In Hackney 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is regarding the G8 template, you hvae only reverted 3 times. If you do it again, I will block you for violating the WP:3RR. Same goes for the other reverting party who is currently at 3 reverts as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They may be, but re-reverting it right now would be a bad idea. I am here to help other editors but also uphold policy. I get no joy from blocking any editors. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page, if there is already a discussion that you believe has acieved consensus and the edits are against it, point me towards the discussion and I will attempt to determine what the consensus is. Hope this helps, thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found your edits at the article on G8. I need your ssurance that you will not rever the G8 article of the {{G8}} template until this matter is resolved. It would be much easier if you were willing to cooperate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I won't revert again. Just tell Hackney not revert a concensus. --Lucy-marie 21:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, calm down! I am working it out. Do you have any sources that show that the EU is not part of the G8? This to me appears a possible issue of facts. I have asked Hackney to provide me sources showing that the EU is technically part of the G8. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The facts that it has never and cannot chair meetings and individual members of the EU are members of the G8. If the EU was a member the individual states would not need representation. Also i Have never found any statment regarding EU inclusion and the maintext says it is merly represented.--Lucy-marie 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what i was tended to believe. I however need to here from Hackney before i get too much involved. i want to hear both sides and understand where both sides are coming from. Thanks for the explanation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An aside I have had the page protected to stop revertions.--Lucy-marie 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Or more accurately to protect the page on your preferred version, like you have done before. One Night In Hackney 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is to stop all edit waring on the page. I view that statement as a personal attack.--Lucy-marie 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Merges

Lucy-marie,

I've just merged another two articles, however I was wondering which article should be merged to which regarding the murderer and victim (ex. Michael Hamer/Joe Geeling ? I'm assuming it should go under the victim (or as the Joe Geeling murder) unless comitted by a serial killer, mass murderer, assassin, etc. ? MadMax 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've merged the remaining articles with the exception of two as I assume there is still some discussion going on. MadMax 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

The cool wall lost does not have to be on their website to be their intellectual property. The list is broadcast by the BBC and is the BBC's intellectual property, we cannot reproduce it in whole or in large part without violating copyright, unless an officer of the BBC is prepared to release the contents under GFDL. It would be OK to list a small subset, but not large numbers. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lucy-marie, when content is removed by an admin citing copyright, and the admin makes a comment on Talk, it's wise not to keep reverting. OK? Guy (Help!) 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Adding comment here rather than Guy's talk page as it's relevant to this page.) Please also see my comment on Talk:The Cool Wall. Guy your comments to Lucy-marie seem a bit 'heavy-handed'. Without a rationale for the copyvio assertion, I think the average Wikipedian would revert your changes (I certainly would). There sems to be an implicit threat in your words above, which is not really warranted. There's no evidence of bad faith here. DrFrench 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

vote

Vote Keep on the delete nomination discussions on Jessica Lindgren , XXL (band) and Friends (group),if you feel like it i want to add.;) Thanks.----Matrix17 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As i sayed its up to you. Why should i vote against JCG?--Matrix17 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Merges

Lucy-marie,

I've been trying to merge the remaining articles on the open tasks list using the title "Murder of" as a compromise, however User:Ryulong is against merging them on the basis of their biographical articles and has reverted all the mergers. You might want to discuss the issue with him. MadMax 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you do see any issues with the recent mergers, please feel free to let me know and I can certainly revert them. I do think it was an honest mistake by Ryulong, however. The double edged sword of being bold on my part. ;) MadMax 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TG

Hi Lucy-marie, I didn't actually add anything to the TG page. I just reverted the change made by User:Shas'o sodit where he removed a word. I only reverted it once - back to how it was before. I happned to think that the sentence flowed better with that word, but I'm not going to make an issue out of it. Cheers! DrFrench 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another case

You might be interested in Stefan Kiszko, strikes me this could be changed to incorporate recent developments [1] into something like The Lesley Molseed murder? SqueakBox 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Ipswich murder investigation

Hi I've just reviewed a section on the above article as Wright is due back in court on 1 May. I have to agree with one of your edits, a while back, stating that there was some frivolous information in the court appearances section. But I disgaree with the last part refering to the name of the judge, and the reference to Belmarsh prison - I wrote this and attributed to the PA wire service which I access. So I've re-inserted part of it... as any court reporter will tell you, the name of the judge and the prison are important and not frivolous facts. Best wishes. Escaper7 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gates archive redirects

Please stop creating redirect pages to Bill Gates on the mainspace pages associated with talk archives such as Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 1. Unlike most talk pages, talk archives do not need an associated article. I've deleted both of your redirects under WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo). Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not important. Maybe I got you confused with someone else. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions concerning ethnic organized crime articles

Lucy-marie,

I thought you might be interested to know about the recent cfd/reaming discussion relating to Category:Gangs by ethnicity as well as all ethnic and historically related street gang categorires which includes Historical gangs of London (a subcategory of Historical criminals of London) and I assume with effect naming conventions of general crime related categories to eliminate ethnicity from crime related categories.

Also, a related discussion on changing Jewish-American organized crime to a "less offensive and accusatory" title will also effect article naming conventions for similar organized crime related articles such as Talk:African-American organized crime and Talk:Greek-American organized crime and I assumed related British articles as well.

By the way, I finished the last of the articles to be merged. If there's any I've missed, please let me know. Also, I've been talking to User:Wooyi about a possible "collaberation of the week" between the various crime related WikiProject and I was wondering f that would be of interest to WikiProject: British crime ? MadMax 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories of merged articles

Hi, I noticed that the categories of the articles you have merged (i.e. Sarah Payne to Murder of Sarah Payne et all) no longer make sense as they refer to people not events. I've tried to make some sense of them by cutting those in the article and replacing them with ones pertaining to the event itslef. However, because the categories are a good way of finding the article in question I've kept them by moving them to the redirects for the victim and murderer. This way the categories perform in the correct manner, look right in the article and the name in the category is correct. Its the same procedure as used for siblings who share articles (see Wright brothers). Since you seem to be behind the moves (which I think are a good idea by the way), I thought I should bring this to you and you could pass it on to the relevant places if need be (I'm not very experienced at editing crime articles). If I have made a mistake and these edits are incorrect or inappropriate then by all means let me know and I'll revert them myself. --Jackyd101 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Crime newsletter

Lucy-marie,

I've been talking to User:Wooyi regarding a Wikipedia crime related newsletter as a collaberation of the various crime related WikiProjects and I was wondering weither this might be a good idea for WP:BRITCRIME ? MadMax 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Original barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your many useful edits to Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. Lradrama 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never

I found this over at User talk:Lucie-marie (and have now deleted it) but it must have been meant for you:

DYK

On August 6, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amanda Dowler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

-- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not a topic that I know very much about. So much nastiness in the world (cf. Madeleine McCann). Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neilson

Your call. If those are the rules, then that's not for me to take issue with. However, I think it's slightly unnerving referring to children/minors by their surnames. Most murdered people under the age of 18 are referred to by their first names only. Is James Bulger referred to by his surname (he was only three) or any of the Moors Murderers' victims? Lesley was 17 - not regarded in UK law in 1975 as an adult. Also, referring to any crime victim by more than a mere surname affords them respect and dignity, setting them apart from the perpetrator. I have no powers or rights to bang on about this, but I'd ask that you consider this viewpoint if a review of Wikipedia policy is mooted soon. Fond regards... Bentley Banana 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The POV argument is valid but I think it is in danger of being overblown and used for its own sake. If I were Lesley Whittle's brother and saw the article on his sister's killer which put her on the same level as the man who killed her I'd be taken aback, at the very least. I also think it doesn't pay to get too precious about this. The point about rules is that they can be changed or tweaked if they are seen to be not working or have room for improvement. It does Wikipedia no favours to come across as a site run by cold automatons. Bentley Banana 07:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, your comments seem to have missed both my point and my context, but I'm not especially inclined to continue this debate. The Neilson article is one on which I did the initial expansion work quite some time ago, and barring the POV issue over names, I'm more than happy with it. We'll agree to differ, but I have other things to occupy my time. Thanks. Bentley Banana 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP BRITCRIME member template

• Lucy-marie,

I replaced the generic image with a public domain image of the Old Bailey. I apologize, I hadn't realized the Krays image coundn't be used in a template. Unfortunatly, Wooyi's taken a leave of ansence from Wikipedia and as WP Australian crime hasn't responded yet, I'm unsure of the status of the planned newsletter. MadMax 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

Lucy-marie,

I've just finished a rough draft for the first issue of the Crime Newsletter. I was only able to find one specific article, the peer review for John Martin Scripps, which related to British crime although I'd certainly appreciate your opinion if you'd like to look it over. Ideally, this would be written by numerous editors from each project and I only have the project talk pages to go by. MadMax 07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Leanne_Tiernan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leanne_Tiernan.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on BNP

Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar, User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:86.146.242.233, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [[2]].

User talk:86.146.242.233 shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that 86.146.242.233 and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.)

Mineral has made the following statements, among others.

Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."

On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."

About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear writing for phrases on 2006 Ipswich murder investigation‎

Hi Lucy-marie

Thank you for your contributions to the above article. I was uncertain regarding the correctness of changing the sentence: His bail was cancelled on June 6, 2007 and he faced no further action in connection with the inquiry. to Bail was cancelled on June 6 for the first suspect , as no more inquiries involving the case were to be undertaken involving the first suspect.

Is this suspect involved in other inquiries? Was bail only cancelled because the inquiry lacked sufficient questions? Actually, he was released from bail because he will not be on trial.

Have fun → friedfish 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tariff

I guess this is in relation to "tariff" meaning "minimum sentence" in England and Wales. My "Shorter OED" identifies this a "Late 2oth century." For the rest of the English speakers, it is a helpful thing to add the "minimum sentence" disambiguating term. I suppose it comes from the notion of having a little card to look up, for various things, the cost. Edison 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP follow-up

I advised you to "drop it" because making a public issue of BLP deletions is not going to produce the changes you want to see. I agree that BLP has been taken to extremes in the past, and has been abused by individuals wishing to promote an agenda without community approval. However, it is impossible to be sure of another user's motives in any particular case, so I'm willing to assume, or at least hope, that One Night in Hackney had the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.

This is one of the most sensitive issues on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored from pornography, but experience has taught that we must censor ourselves when the reputation of other living people hangs on our words. However, Wikitruth has criticized this form of censorship, and it maintains copies of articles that Wikipedia has deleted for BLP. Also, BLP is one of the main issues being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, one of the nastier disputes I have seen in a long time. So unless you are willing to do battle with giants, you may be better off accepting the fact that Wikipedia has problems. YechielMan 13:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Neilson (again)

What on earth has happened to the Donald Neilson page? Bentley Banana

And what does BLP mean? And why has this editing decision been taken? Bentley Banana 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

F1 driver results tables

I have adjusted the date in the driver results tables template - I think when the "2007" was added, there had been talk of Friday testing being stopped altogether. Since it is continuing, albeit at a much reduced level, the "2007" part is misleading. The concensus was to have the date present though - Friday testing did not exist for 53 years, so is mostly irrelevant throughout the hundreds of tables - it is just to clarify the designation of the "TD" label. The feel of the template is irrelevant, it's there to inform, not to look good. Bretonbanquet 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Join WikiProject Crime

Would you like to upgrade from an honorary member to a full member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography? I know you have contributed a great deal to the British Crime Project. Either way keep up the good work. Jmm6f488 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kim kidnapped on day one.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kim kidnapped on day one.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

British Law concerning mugshots?

Hi, I'm over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography and had a question on copyright law regarding mugshots in the UK. I know under US law mugshots are considered part of the public record. I was wondering if this applies to UK law and if so what are the proper photo tags? Also I was wondering if all EU members have similar laws? Thanks, Jmm6f488 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe so, in fact I am 95% certain that isnt the case, SqueakBox 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force

Hi, I set up the Serial Killer Task Force and was wondering if you could check it out and possibly offer suggestions. I know you set up the WikiProject British crime so your input would be greatly appreciated. You are free to join by the way. Thanks, Jmm6f488 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Dowler and Danielle Jones articles

I replaced the victims' surnames with their first names on the articles, as I felt that it is unnatural to refer to murdered children by their surnames. It is an almost universal practice to refer to murdered children by their first names (and murdered adults as Mr, Mrs or Miss - though perhaps less frequently than it is when the victim is a child) and this is why I changed "Dowler" to "Amanda" and "Jones" to "Danielle". Tripod86 10.48, 22 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Copyright problems with Image:Hockey field.svg

While you may have strong feeling towards this issue please do not be unconstructive if you can prove that site ripped of wiki and the image is truly a free image then the image will stay if not then wiki ripped off that website. --Lucy-marie 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Right-click the image at [3] and save it to your computer. You'll notice that its file name is "420px-Hockey_field_large.png", which is almost identical to the name generated by the Mediawiki software when it made a raster rendering of the image for the image description page, "420px-Hockey_field.svg.png". Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that someone went through all the trouble to vectorize a raster image in a manner identical to the raster image. Usually vectorized copies of images have small differences from the original raster copy.

In short, the image we have is a vector image. The automatically generated rasterization of the image was copied and used on another web site without proper attribution.

You are claiming that Robert Merkel took the raster image off the other web site, created a vector copy identical to it, and then claimed that it was his own work. This is extraordinarily unlikely. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) — The company didn't steal the image. It can't steal it because the image was released into the public domain. Technically, no attribution at all is required to reuse the image, and so the company has not bothered to give any attribution. Based on the name of the file, the extreme unlikelihood and difficulty of creating a vector image identical to a raster one, and the assertion of long-time contributing editor Robert Merkel that he did in fact create the image, the image is clearly not a copyright violation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) – Your allegations are preposterous. Check Robert Merkel's logs and you will see that not only is he an administrator, but all his uploads made after the logging feature was implemented have been good. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) – The log is correct; the user has not made any logged actions since February 9, and has not contributed since August 21. It is unknown when he will return to respond to your question.

Think about this another way: if Robert Merkel were bent on slipping a copyright violation into Wikipedia, why would he have gone through the difficult, tedious, and time-consuming task of creating a vector copy of the file identical to the raster copy? Wouldn't he have wanted to leave in the small variations that vectorization would have created?

Again, you are claiming that a trusted administrator with a history of honest and valid image uploads in 2003 went through an enormous amount of trouble to vectorize an image identically to the original copy, which original copy just happens to be named in a format consistent with that automatically generated by the wiki software when rasterizing vector images, added whitespace around the edges of the image, and then pass off this image as his own work.

Please avoid copyright paranoia and acknowledge that Robert Merkel is innocent until proven guilty and you have no evidence to support your allegations. It is a thousand times more likely that hockeyfactoryshop.co.uk copied the image in an entirely legal manner, after I had removed the whitespace from around the edges, and declined to provide attribution to the source, which attribution is of course optional for public domain images. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) – By all means, contact Robert Merkel about this issue. But please remove the imagevio tag from the description page unless you have substantive evidence that the image is in fact a copyright violation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the creator of this image. I must admit I was moderately cranky about this. As Remember the dot has pointed out, there was a bunch of information available to you to suggest that the file was originally created by me - the licensing, the upload history, and (if you're technically inclined) the file types. Furthermore, you may not appreciate this fully, but in my line of work, being accused of not respecting intellectual property law and the moral rights of content creators is a big deal. If it were true and people found out by Googling me, it would seriously damage my chances of getting employment as a university lecturer, which is what I am currently seeking to become.

As a further aside, I spent a considerable amount of time getting that image right, and would have been quite annoyed if my efforts were wasted if I hadn't happened to log in and check to see what's going on.

I appreciate your efforts to keep illegal material off the Wikipedia, but in this particular case I don't believe you've gone about it in a particularly thoughtful way. --Robert Merkel 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Re: [4]

Heh. "The <link name> is dead! Long live the <other link>! Be one with..." or "The <link name> is dead! Be one with...." are my standard edit summaries when I'm fixing links to disambiguation pages and was by no means a commentary on the status of Britain vs. United Kingdom, et al. As an example, last night I did some clean up of Romance, so my edit summaries was "The Romance is dead! Long live the Romanticism! Be one with..." or "The Romance is dead! Be one with...". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Noel Edmonds

Just wondering how putting a piece of true trivia in the "trivia" list on the article above can count as vandalism?! Or am I missng something here? Dashwortley 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Noel Edmonds

Okey doke. I've added a source for the info. Can't blame you for being cautious with information on Wiki. Cheers. Dashwortley 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

G8 template

I see that you are in an edit war with an anon and as a an admin i don't think it is prudent for you to continue. I personally do not think the EU should be included as the G8+5 attend meetings and so do heads of other international organizations such as the WHO and the AU so unless we include all of them, which is in my opinion pointless. We cannot include just one. So shall we start this new debate or are there going to be a continued edit war between an anon and an admin.--Lucy-marie 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war. I am enforcing the consensus as discussed at the talk page of the G8. I could not personally give less of a damn either way. The only reaon I am involved is to enforce the previous reached consensus. I spent days and days and hours of reserach mediating the initial conversation and after pages and pages of discussion, that was the consenus reached. Leave it seperate from the real 8 however include it. There were plenty of reliable sources that handled thigns the exact same way. In this situation it is not about your personal preference, it is about what the references show. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a discussion. Until I feel the conesensus has changed, I will enforce it. Please note, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. If you show there is a consensus, backed by references and sound logic, then I will gladly enforce it the other way. This is obviously a controversial topic and previous discourse was led by one side who did the research, provided relaible sources showing the current version was the appropriate course of action and the other side just argued and said they did not want it there, but provided no reliable sources to support there argument. A new argument iwll require reliable sources tu support any new stance. You are welcome to start that up, and I would of had no proiblem if the anon had chose to do that as well. However, the anon chose to continue to edit war by reverting more than 3 times. I will gladly help facilitate any discusison. You are also welcome to read previous discourse either located at the G8 talk page or related archives. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that she edits without pushing her own POV, if she desn't like content either because she doesn't understand it, the significance of it or the rational for using it she deletes it; see this talk page, Talk:West Coastway Line#‎Distances between stations part two, for an example of her actions. (SouthernElectric 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Lucy-marie replied on my own talk page, the following is her message and my reply;

[Lucy-marie]
If you personally dislike the award given to me please take it up with the person who awarded the barnstar and not myself. thank you. I also hope this overblown thing can pass on without too much hassel. I have decided to apologies fro the edits whihc caused the instigation but it may just push people away from talking about their edits if they get such as hostile response to the "cosy concensus".--Lucy-marie 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[My Reply]

This discussion was started on your talk page, please reply on your talk page and not elsewhere, this is common decency as others might be following the debate there and not where ever - thus I will be copying your reply to me and this reply to your own talk page.

Now to the questions you raise;

I have no need to complain to who ever placed the 'award' on your page as I'm not concerned with their action but your own, if the 'award' had not been present I would still have raised your edit style on you talk page, doing so is a way of informally pointing out to you (and others) that you might need to look at your action, rather than making any complaint official.

Now for the reason (in my opinion) you cause the decent you do: It's because of your style, not why you edit (or indeed what you edit), you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, even when the consensus or the facts shows otherwise - you might not like the "cozy consensus", as you put it, but in a democracy that is how it works, if you don't like that simple fact of life Wikipedia is probably not for you. Buy yourself some web space, learn some HTML/PHP, then you can publish "The facts according to Lucy-marie" to your harts content... (SouthernElectric 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

(SouthernElectric 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Does it really matter where a debate takes place? Also everybody has a right to hold a valid opinion here and each person does. I also loath your comments about "the facts according to Lucy-marie" bit as I could interprit that as you thinking you are allways right and I am allways wrong in your opionion. I shall take it that as you are an "older" editor you and your "life experience" as some may put it would entitle you to that opinion, I however disagree. I Think we should all move on and I hope never to have the displeasure of running in to you again. I shall stay well away from your beloved train articles and shall edit other parts of wikipedia and retain my opinions to myself, hated meeting you.--Lucy-marie 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Does it really matter where a debate takes place?" Of course it does, if for no other reason that it keeps all the comments in one place, it also means that people who might be monitoring what is being said (for what ever reason) knows that the discussion is continuing - if it goes quite on a talk page has the discussion finished or has it scooted off elsewhere... (SouthernElectric 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some fairly compelling evidence presented that User:Jjamesj was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of yours. Please comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie in the interest of offering an explanation. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Holiday

This user is currently away on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie, and you are therefore blocked for period of 72 hours. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Will take automaticly effect when she next logs-in or will this ban expire whilst she is away voluntarily? (SouthernElectric 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

No, the block is currently running; it will expire 72 hours from now, whether or not she logs in between now and then. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats an effective deterent then! By the time she returns from holiday the block will have expired, and she has effectively escaped punishment (aside from her actions being bought to the attention of Admins). Canterberry 07:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a lot better if such 'punishments' were to only take effect upon the users next login. (SouthernElectric 10:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Generally, blocks are intended to be preventive rather than punitive. In the case of sockpuppetry it's a bit of a gray area, but the idea was to prevent the creation of further sockpuppets in the immediate future and to mark the event. I considered not blocking at all, since the user is apparently on vacation, but we've had users caught sockpuppeting claim to be "leaving" (to avoid a preventive block), and then continue to edit, so I went ahead with the block. However, if you see more unaccpetable behavior when this user returns, then please report it and it will be dealt with. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Archiving

I have reverted you recent archive due to the fact that it contained a recent Sock-puppet warning and block, if you look at the code you will see that it contains the wording {{do not delete}}, perhaps we should check if it's acceptable to remove such warnings immediatly (or within hours of) your block is lifted (SouthernElectric 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes; she's within her rights to remove this. The only time these can't be removed is when the case is still outstanding and has been for less than 10 days; other than that, she can archive it (or delete it altogether, although that's frowned on). — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Slapped wrists then, but it does seem strange. (SouthernElectric 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia... The block's meant to be a slap on the wrist to stop her doing it again, rather than an outright condemnation & ban; plenty of people do try to game the system, and go on to be fine once someone pulls them up on it. Since I dare say there will be plenty of people watching her edits from now on (the train crowd weren't the only people who've raised concerns about her), I very much doubt there'll be any trouble. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)