Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miss Mondegreen (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 16 January 2007 (restoring warning and new one for removing warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Lucy-marie, Your tireless contributions, removal of vandalism and keeping a NPOV at all times improve the sense of community and enhance the helpfulness of wikipedia. I hereby grant you this barnstar in recognition of your dedication and hard work Fethroesforia03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
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. MadMax22:52, 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. MadMax09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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!
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. :) Seraphimblade01:16, 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. Seraphimblade01:26, 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. -- WGee02:05, 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'? --Robdurbar17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I seriously resent your accusations. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages: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. --Robdurbar19:34, 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 :) Fethroesforia15:17, 9 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 introcution as well. MadMax15:10, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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 Bastian20:51, 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 vanU14:25, 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 vanU13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Warning
You have regularly edited Person, Natural person and Nonperson, removing instances of "persons" and changing them to "people" despite being provided the correct definition of person pl. and an Rfc devoted to the subject.
You went so far as to split the article in dispute, and create two copies of it, "Person (British English)", and "Person (American English)" one article each for each grammar usage, although you had been provided with definitions of person pl. from both American and English dictionaries and they did not differ.
You also changed every instance of "personhood" to "being a person" in the Person article, even changing quotes and references.
If you continue to edit articles to use grammar that you prefer even though it is not correct, if you continue to change quotes and references in your pursuit of your POV, if you again blatantly violate Misplaced Pages policy and common sense and persist in forcing edits when there is obvious dispute, it will be considered vandalism and you may be blocked. TStein10:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove warnings placed on your user or user talk pages. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. As you have already replied to the validity of the warning on my talk page, I will reply to you there. TStein11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
