User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 1

Semi-protect
Stop adding semi-protection notices to articles which aren't semi-protected. If you want to request semi-protection for an article, go to WP:RPP. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) If you don't mind, I'd like to keep the discussion here rather than fragmenting it across our separate talk pages. This talk page is on my watchlist, so I'll see when you reply.
 * i am semi protecting articles to prevent vandalism before it happens not after it has happened i personally thin prevention is better than cure so if we can discourage vandalism and protect vulnerable pages from vandalism i think we should protect them from vandalism also can you delete the broken picture on the lancing college page please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs).
 * Semi-protection can only done by admins. When you added the semi-protection notices it didn't semi-protect the article. If you want to ask an admin to semi-protect a page, you have to go to WP:RPP. Also, articles are only semi-protected when a large amount of vandalism comes from several different users in a single day, and glancing at some of the pages you tried to semi-protect, not all of them qualified. We don't want to discourage anyone from editing unless absolutely necessary. See Protection policy for the full explanation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

i thank you for this so. i request that gordon brown and john prescott be protected from vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs).
 * Sorry, both articles have only been vandalised once today. That isn't close to the amount of vandalism necessary to justify semi-protection.
 * But I did remove that broken link for you. Image code looks like this: [[Image:Teme_House.jpg|thumb|300px| Teme House, Lancing College]], so if you want to remove a picture in future, just find that code and delete it. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~ , which produces the name and the date, like this: --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statute
Whilst it is not a copyright violation, the entire text of an act of parliament, such as Appropriation Act 2000, is simply not encyclopedic. I have created an external link to it. -- RHaworth 07:23, 17 May 2006 (GMT)

Did you do this edit? If so, please note that it is a cowardly thing to edit anonymously - always log in before editing. Why did you do the edit, given my message above? Why this act out of huindreds?

If you want something useful to do in this area, why not answer the following questions: What is the difference between Consolidated Fund Act 2000 (Ch. 3) and Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Act 2000 (Ch. 9. They seem to come in matched pairs every year. -- RHaworth 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I'm taking our dispute over the Robot Wars articles to arbitration. I see no other option. Lenin &amp; McCarthy 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Gymslip.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Gymslip.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dbratton 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucy-marie,
 * Thanks for removing the image from the Gymslip article. Since I'm not an administrator I can't delete the image myself; we'll have to wait until someone with admin rights comes to it on the copyright violations page. Once that happens, the image should be deleted. Dbratton 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there - the caption with the image describes it as late Victorian but judging by the hairstyles I'd say 1930s or maybe 1920s. What do you think? BTLizard 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing template messages
There is a reason someone placed the disputed tag in the article Tiger Woods. You removed it without discussion or consensus. I've reverted it, and want to warn you that simply removing tags like this without any dicussion at all can be considered vandalism. Try reading the new contributors' help page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - CobaltBlueTony 15:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please be more polite when you talk to someone i am not an idiot but how can common consencus be deemed a non netural point of view.Lucy-marie 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism
It's the name of the program that I am using. I reverted your edit since it was on someone else's userpage. If any issues arise please contact me. Yanksox 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is vandalism because it's my talk page, not yours. No harm, no foul, no one was hurt, and a user page is not an encyclopedia article. - CobaltBlueTony 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair doos well let you have your page and ill have mine its been claased not be vandalism. Its just a disliked edit not vandalism.Lucy-marie 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edit to Tiger Woods is vandalism, because the Wikipedia policy on vandalism (linked above) states:"Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled."Likewise, your edit to my talk page was in bad form and impolite within the Wikipedia community. - CobaltBlueTony 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

template
which template? And if you want to leave a message, please leave it on my talk page, not the userbox area!

Micoolio101 (talk)

Copy the above and place it in your userbox area.

Micoolio101 (talk)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-30 Razer (Robot)
You don't seem to have added this case to the front page of Mediation Cabal, so the reason no-one has offered to mediate this case so far is that no-one knew it existed. I've added it to Mediation Cabal/Cases and Mediation Cabal/Opentask (so it appears in Community Portal/Opentask) for you. (I also replied to your question on my talkpage.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that. I see User:Kcordina offered to mediate on User talk:Lenin & McCarthy. I'll revert my edits. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Lucy
I see you left me a very thoughtful message. However, since (A) Your British and (B) A teenager I will refrain from responding in kind. I would appreciate if you would do the same and refrain from vandalism.

Re: Redirect
I am monitoring the recent changes, that's how I found your page. I reverted your edits because your page was just a copy-and-paste of the real page. If you want to make a redirect, just type in #REDIRECT Pagename. Hope that helps. Mr. Le fty Talk to me! 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Clockwise and counterclockwise
Your recent edit to Clockwise and counterclockwise was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting
On the Clockwise and counterclockwise talk page, it has been established that the current name is the one to keep. Your page should serve as a redirect. If you keep reverting against consensus, you may be blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Mr. Le fty Talk to me! 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandal proof why bother using it?

 * Vandal proof is only used by people who are too small to conformt people or talk to people about diffrent points of views. I think the using pof vandal proof should be banned as it is a stifle of free speech and expression. So i think there should be a friendlier way of dealing with vandalism you treat vandalism like murder and any way why are there so many page written in a butchered version. if you didnt get it im refering to american english. the articles should be written in the 'real' version of english British english.


 * I use Vandal Proof because it is an effective way of dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia. I see that you disagree with this and say that its use is a "stifle of free speech and expression". Well let me tell you something. Wikipedia is not the ground for freedom of expression. It's the ground for a proffessional encyclopedia. I don't see how you could seriously and sensibly argue that Vandal Proof is a stifle of freedom of expression, because let me tell you something I find every time I go onto Vandal Proof. I find articles where the entire text has been deleted and something to the effect of what is below has been added to replace it:

gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay"''


 * Now are you seriously telling me that this belongs in an encyclopedia? If all you seriously see Wikipedia as is a ground for freedom of expression regardless of what that "expression" is, I suggest you find another site where the aim *IS* freedom of expression. Vandal Proof is a very uselful tool to Wikipedia, and helps effectively combat vandalism and see no reason to ban its use. Beno1000 16:57, 22 June 2006 (GMT)


 * And I just checked this page to see if you'd responded yet, and might I ask why you put strikethrough over the section where I quoted the way people vandalise articles and make homophobic comments in articles by replacing the entire text with the word "gay"? Beno1000 16:32, 23 June 2006 (GMT)

I dont li"ke homophobia but when someone changes individual words vandal-proof should not be usedLucy-marie 19:35, 23 June 2006 (GMT)


 * Okay, so how about this scenario. An annonymous IP address edits an article from "The New York Yankees are a Major League Baseball team based in the borough of..." to read "The New York Yankees are a gay Major League Baseball team based in the borough of..." They've changed a single word in the article, according to your thesis, VandalProof should not be used in this case, despite the fact that it is blatantly homophobic vandalism.


 * And don't think this kind of editing doesn't happen on Wikipedia because it does. And if someone edits a single word in an article where the previous word was sufficient, and the new word is incoherent or breaks the flow of the article or is debatable, this can easily be corrected by rolling back the article to its previous revision using VandalProof without warning the user as well. Quite simply, VandalProof is a useful tool to Wikipedia and I think your proposition that it should be banned is proposterous.


 * I've also noticed that you've debated over whether Wikipedia should be written in English English or American English. You claim that Wikipedia should be written in "proper" English English. I disagree. It should be written in American English, or English English and rewritten to American English at a later date. Why? American English is more recognised internationally. Beno1000 19:31, 24 June 2006 (GMT)


 * You said:


 * "No it should be written in Mandarin then because it is more internationaly recoginsed, if you follow that tact. It should be wriiten in English English as that was the orginal version of English. Can you please explain why American English has done what It has done to English English If you can then I may be more understanding at the moment I am narrow minded."


 * Mandarin wouldn't work because this is the English Wikipedia, there is a seperate Wikipedia for each language and I was refferring to the most internationally recognised dialect of English, which is American English. Also, the English Wikipedia is hosted in the USA so it is understandable that it would be written in American English, and I'll finish by saying that while English English is the "original" form of the English language, it itself is an evolution from Middle English. There isn't a "correct" dialect of English, they're all correct, and it just so happens that this site uses the American dialect and spelling. Beno1000 14:37, 27 June 2006 (GMT)


 * I have never seen wikipedia policy on which version of english is used so to say that wikipedia uses American emgklish is too much of a generalisation. please either source this comment or remove it.


 * I'll redirect you to WP:STYLE - National varieties of English. Basically, it's fine to start an article in a regional dialect of English, but if an article has already been written in another dialect, don't add sections in a different dialect for consistency. Beno1000 15:20, 29 June 2006 (GMT)


 * I would like to draw your attention to the fact that i still have an unannswered question. please can you explain why American English has modified English English the way it has?


 * I fail to see how this has anything to do with how Wikipedia should be edited. Beno1000 12:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I can answer the question about why we "modified" English English. The same reason you did. Since we left the Empire, both of our countries have modified the language that we shared at that time. We have, among other things, dropped what we considered "useless" letters (the "u" in colour for example) and we decided on different words for things that were not in common useage then (i.e. hood for bonnet on an automobile) among other things. Languages evolve, both of our countries are "guilty". So, the answer to the question is, the same reason the Brits have modified the language that we shared 225 years ago. Dipics 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Thomas comments
Lucy, it's very bad manners to keep striking through my (very amusing) comments, please stop doing that. They are just comments, if you don't like them, write something sensible as a rebuttal, don't just remove mine. Thanks! MarkThomas 15:40, 2 July 2006 (GMT)


 * Ha ha very funny, the strikethrough-babe strikes again! Next stop; the words strike and striker! MarkThomas 07:22, 4 July 2006 (GMT)

Gaelg
Hi! Why you don´t do articles in the manx wikipedia? I´m an user of the Galician Wikipedia, and I do articles also in hte English Wikipedia and in the Manx Wikipedia. Why you don´t help us? User: Norrin strange

Please adopt your state
I am trying to improve Girl Scout articles in the United States. Please help fill in some blanks for Girl Scouting in your state! Thanks, Yours in Scouting, Chris 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:German userbox solution
Howdy. As part of German userbox solution I have moved most of the userboxes I created to my userspace. If you would like to use the boxes now all you have to do is update the code on your userpage from to. Thanks.  theKeith  Talk!  13:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what the point Is of moving the user boxes In the first place Is?

It seams to me to be an inconveniance as people now have to update there codes. This seams ludicrous to move the user boxes at all It seams like things are trying to be fixed that aren't broken. IF you can answer my questions I would be most apreciative.
 * If you read WP:TGS, a link I have provided every time I move the boxes, and above, you would find out. It's a way of sorting out the recent issues with have dogged Userboxes. Basically it says that Userboxes should be moved from Template space to User space. Thanks for reading.   theKeith   Talk!  13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a problem with the template you are putting the userboxes into. Try this type of code, and you userpage will look great! Any other problems give me a shout.   theKeith  <font ="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Talk!  14:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With your premission I will add it on your userpage when I finish adding in your Userboxes? (It could take a little while!  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  <font ="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Talk!  14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me Ignorant but i=Idon't quite understand what you want me to do with the try this page you have supplied me with. Please help--Lucy-marie 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With your premission I will add it on your userpage when I finish adding in your Userboxes? (It could take a little while!  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  <font ="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Talk!  14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All sorted now, is you have any problems in the future please leave me a message. Bye for now,  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  <font ="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Talk!  14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a T.V review site?
If we follow you line of thinking then some of the following articles should also be deleted along with robot wars. the west wing, Law & Order, 24, The Simpsons, Futurama, BBC news 24, etc etc. So please can we have rational discussion on the merits of the pages and not sweeping statements.--Lucy-marie 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is disingenuous. I have not suggested that Robot Wars be deleted, merely that a number of articles on robots from the series be merged. I would not be opposed to merging all episodes of most other TV shows into one article. Please do not twist my words. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD Bundle
I put the pages up at AfD because I believe that their presence on Wikipedia is in contravention of the official deletion policy and the policy saying what Wikipedia is not. I unerstand that some people have put a lot fo time and effort into those pages, and it is a shame that that effort may end up being in vain. I am sorry for this, but the policies are fairly clear, and I feel that if Wikipedia is to be as good as it can be, we must only write about topics that are encyclopaedic. If you disagree, you may continue to contribute to the AfD, and even if the pages end up being deleted or merged, I hope that you continue editing in a positive way here at Wikipedia. Batmanand | Talk 08:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply to my talk page, and I am sorry it has taken me a few days to reply (I have been on holiday). It looks like the AfD is going to end up as a "no consensus" anyway; and even if it does not, you can of course edit the articles whilst they are on AfD. Best of luck! Batmanand | Talk 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

leo
Please add your voice to the discussion on leo first before removing him from the page. Leo deserves to at least be on that page as a labour secretary.--Lucy-marie 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did and have... Please go and read the talk page - Jc37 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Permission
I have moved the comment that you improperly placed on the front page of User:Shayl/Changing user pages to my talk page and responded there. —<font color="Purple">Mi <font color="Blue">ra  21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rude
It is not rude to state that a page that should be deleted should be deleted just because people put a lot of work into a page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminat collection of information. Nor is it a crystal ball. Nor is it a free web-host service. Articles offering nothing but the results of a game show are not encyclopedic in the least. I will not apologize for your inability to handle criticism of your articles. Afterall, it says at the bottom of every page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." This includes deletion. Resolute 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

At worst, I was being over-critical, however I stand by my comment. Listing the results of a gameshow is nothing more than trivial fancruft, which is not encyclopedic in the least and of virtually no value. Resolute 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hal Gardner mediation
Hello, Lucy-Marie, I am Shadow1. Thank you for taking the time to open a case in the Mediation Cabal. I hope that we can work together to resolve this issue as soon as possible. In order to do that, I have asked all members of this dispute to insert a brief explaination of their reasoning in the Hal Gardner talk page so that I, and the members of this issue, can all be informed of the problems in a quick and nonbiased way. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to put them on my talk page. Thanks! Shadow1 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear Fridge
Hey, regarding your edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Top_Gear&diff=65645067&oldid=65644809

I am wondering the reason for removing the "Fridge Section" header from the Cool Wall listings. Was this after a vote on the discussion page or did you deem it unnecessary? I'd greatly appreciate your response on this as i think the Fridge section deserves to keep its mention on the Top Gear Article. Thanks -Benbread 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I can see where you're coming from, and it'd probably the best approach, though i can't help thinking the whole novelty factor of the Fridge which seems to sum up pretty well how insane Top Gear means it should at least get a mention, even if away from the rest of the cool board listings, as the DB9 and V8 Vanquish have been deemed even cooler than Sub Zero. What's your opinion? -Benbread 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Absolute zero?

Robot Wars (again)
Lucy-marie, I simply don't understand why you keep doing this. I've Googled a number of the disputed points here, and in each case, all sites supporting you appear to only be mirrors of the Wikipedia articles. Do you have any sources for your claims?--Lenin &amp; McCarthy 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. Is there any source for you claims on the internet? Functioning? If not, I will revert.--Lenin &amp; McCarthy 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

MOS
Proper names. Took me all of three seconds to find it, not that hard for you to have done it yourself really? Specifically states that it is "Best to use a recognisable form", which means the versions that you keep attempting to excise with full names that the subjects do not use. --Kiand 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Proper names. Again, not particularly hard to find. --Kiand 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The recognisable form is the form that is recognised, rather logically. This is "Jordan", or at a push "Katie Price" not "Katrina Price"; its "Chis Evans" not "Christopher Evans" and its "Steve Coogan" not "Steven Coogan". Theres nothing, anywhere, suggesting full legal birth names should be used anywhere other than in the article on said person. Another major factor is that the article title uses the recognised and not a formal form. --Kiand 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Formalising" by removing any comprehension from half the names in the list is a serious disimprovement to an article and not anything that brings it close to 'quality'. --Kiand 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. As they aren't 'media created' names, they're the name by which the person in question calls themselves. --Kiand 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand much of that last comment, but yes, we can be sure these aren't "media creations" considering every single one of them uses that as their name. Check TV and film credits, newspaper/magazine columns, radio station billings, etc, etc, etc. --Kiand 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

BNP
I've taken the liberty of moving the image to a happy medium. May I suggest however, that you increase your screen resolution, as the infobox on the right will stay the same size regardless of the edits made to the picture, and thus it's most probably the userbox that's overwhelming your screen, and not the picture! HawkerTyphoon 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image
I'd be happy to take a look at it and see if a suitable fair use claim could be made (you could then see how I do it for your own use). Send me the link to the image and I'll get to that today. --Fastfission 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The one thing I'll definitely need (and is always required for images) though is a link to where the image originally came from — what web site it is from, or where it is scanned from. --Fastfission 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK—I wrote up a fair use rationale. You can see it at the image now. It could probably be used as a model for similar images. --Fastfission 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Award
About that award you gave me...I assume that was intended to be an insult? I really see no reason to bring the whole clockwise incident back up again. While I do admit that I did revert a lot, it was in good faith, and you weren't completely innocent yourself. :) Let's just put this whole thing behind us and try to be nice, 'kay? --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasps and Relatives
Hello Lucy! According to your great Babel do you speak Welsh (Cymraeg) very well. Can you say me please, what the term "Wasps and Relatives" is translated to Welsh? Thank you very much, DocTaxon 17:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your answer was: "cacynen a ceraint". Thank you! But can you translate the equivalent term "Wasps and Allies" into Welsh, too? And can you say me, what "genus bumblebees" is translated to Welsh? Thanks a lot, DocTaxon 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User pages
Hi Lucy!

The best advice I can give is for you to copy my existing code to your userspace - User:Lucy-marie/New user page for instance - and then experiment with editing it. Replace my text with your own; replace my userboxes with yours; replace my pictures with others you like, etc.

Because you only have userboxes and no text about you, it's hard for the people who do good userpage designs (User:Sango123 and User:Phaedriel for instance]]) to come up with anything without some good text about you! It might be better to create some content and then style it. Or create some content and then contact one of the people active at WP:ESP/U for one of them to style it!

Hope this helps. If, however, you'd just like a graphic of your name creating to use on your user page (not in your signature, it kills the servers) then I'd be happy to help ASAP. Just tell me what your favourite colours are. ➨  ЯEDVERS  23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Hi Lucy-marie! As requested, here is the image for your user page. To put it on your page, just put:



Hope you like it! ➨  ЯEDVERS  12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

page being deleted ?
Okay, I see what you mean. Though it seems a bit of a bad idea to me if the decision is to Delete, to then resurrect the content elsewhere? (If people want that to happen, the result will be Merge/Redirect instead of Delete.) I'm not quite sure what the policy is here. Maybe it could be put on a Talk page. Either way, it's saved now in the History page of Erotic humiliation anyway. Mdwh 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gymslip old.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gymslip old.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Many thanks, the article is on the main page under DYK now. Cheers --Samir धर्म 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardwenynen
Hello Lucy! Thank you for your answer - I need only one more translation for now: What do the Welsh mean with "Cardwenynen"? Please answer on this site - Thanx a lot, DocTaxon 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the is no link to a site to answer on--Lucy-marie 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant YOUR discussion site here. So that I can read your reply connected below my question. But it actually does not matter, on whose discussion site I can read your answer. I will be very happy, if you can translate this term. I need it for a zoological data bank. Thank you, DocTaxon 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

unblock

 * Can you let us know what IP address it lists when you're trying to edit? It'll help us track down what block you got caught in. Thanks. Shell babelfish 07:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the autoblocks the stemmed from yanksox's blocking have been taken care of, you should be able to edit now. In the future, if you get caught in an autoblock, if you can give us the information that you are shown about the block, it makes it easy for us to fix it. -- Nataly a 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GCSE results
10A*s 1A im brilliant im good im over the moon!--Lucy-marie 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! (This champagne is non-alcoholic, of course. Presumably you can have the proper stuff when you get your A-levels

) --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers Sam I will drink It with pride.--Lucy-marie 14:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Petty ireland
I've nominated the article Petty ireland for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Petty ireland satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Petty ireland. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Petty ireland during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that Image:Petty.gif has to be removed from any non-article pages (e.g. User talk:Mr. Lefty/Archive 3, User:Mr. Lefty/Awards, and User:Lucy-marie/petty admin) via WP:FUC #9. Just wanted to let you know before I go ahead and remove them. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The image would have to be removed from non-article pages regardless of the afd outcome. Sorry. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not allowed to use fair use images on user pages. See WP:FUC #9. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia and fair use images aren't free. Therefore, they should be used as little as possible. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Jeremy Kyle Show
Please do not modify other users' comments (such as striking them through) without a very good reason. Furthermore, please note that a few whimsical comments by users are acceptable and do not interfere too much with discussions. JoshuaZ 15:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Petty coat of arms
Note that that's not the correct coat-of-arms for the Marquess of Lansdowne. The first Marquess was born a Fitzmaurice, and only changed his name to Petty when he inherited the estates. He bore, quarterly, 1 & 4, Petty (Ermine a bend azure with a magnetic needle pointing to a polar star thereon), 2 & 3, Fitzmaurice (Argent a saltire gules a chief ermine). It would be OK, alone, for the 1st Baron Shelburne or the 1st Earl of Shelburne, but we don't have articles on either of those yet. Choess 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:DNCchairmen

 * Since I had just wikignomed through DNCchairmen, I noticed your edit. I poked around a bit and can't seem to come up with an answer to "Should red links be removed from templates or not?" I have always left them as it is a very visible way to see what articles need creating for a group, like USPartyConference, USJudiciaries and USTR. For new editors, it is less intimidating to create an article which is part of a series, rather than one which could end up in the WP:AFD pile.
 * The [[Wikipedia:Red link link page didn't say, and neither did the WikiProject Red Link Recovery or Navigational templates. I did see a note here about how one can change the color of red links. It also mentioned that without red links, Special:Wantedpages doesn't do much good. So, in short (too late, I know :), I can't tell if leaving them is good, bad or indifferent. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Polyamory
When using POV or bias templates, please leave a comment on the article's Talk page to explain why you are placing those templates, as requested on the relevant template pages. Unexplained templates of this type are likely to be deleted by other editors; after all, without explanation the rest of us have no way of knowing what the problem might be, much less how to fix it (something that has been a repeated problem for this article in particular). --Calair 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Calair 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Dowler
After reading the GA criteria I think it meets most of the requirements, but is a little weak on structure - I don't think I could quite pass it as is, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it there.

The 'Disappearance' section contains a lot of well-cited information, but as somebody unfamiliar with the case I found it a bit overwhelming (in particular, the first paragraph is a bit of an eyeful). I would suggest breaking this down a bit - perhaps something like 'Disappearance and search' (basic facts of the disappearance, police efforts, false alarm over Thomas' remains), 'Public appeals' (Crimewatch, Will Rogers, the Sun reward), and 'Discovery of remains'.

Other things that might help the article:
 * A little information about Dowler before she disappeared. It doesn't need a lot - obviously her disappearance will be the focus of the article, and there's no need to pad with hobbies etc - but something along the lines of "Amanda lived with her parents Sally and Bob in $LOCATION and attended Heathside School. She was the oldest of three children." (Or an only child, or whatever - I have no idea.) Some of this will duplicate material that appears below, but that's not a problem; if I know she went to Heathside, that's one less thing I have to absorb when I get to the information-dense 'Disappearance' section.
 * Her parents should be named when they're first mentioned, not on last mention as is currently the case.
 * Should probably name the police officer/s in charge of the investigation.
 * If the exact date of death hasn't been confirmed, it should say something like "March 21 2002?" (compare Jimmy Hoffa) rather than imply that the date is exactly known. Maybe "between March 21 and $DATE 2002" if that can be supported by verifiable forensics or some such.

If those are done, and the article remains stable afterwards, I'd be happy to pass it as a GA. This would probably require withdrawing it for now and renominating it in a couple of weeks once it's shown stability. --Calair 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You must have had one adventuresome life...
Judging by your userboxes, you've probably broken some sort of world record for living abroad, and are in quite the elite group as a deaf aircraft pilot as well. Why do we not have an article on you yet?

Or, maybe you just have a weird sense of humour, like I apparantly do for posting this message...--tjstrf 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's my way of experimenting with the boxes.--Lucy-marie 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I assumed as much. Well, nice to see my message got the point across without seeming rude. It's nice to be able to see people's accomplishments and skills clearly, thank you.


 * I'd have to say that being a deaf scuba diver sounds impressive enough as is. How do you take the training? Do they have special instructors, or an interpetor, or do you just memorize a manual, or what? --tjstrf 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My mother took the course with me at the same time so she interprited what they were saying and the videos had subtitles and when you are underwater there are no ways of communicating with sound so being deaf while underwater is not an issue.--Lucy-marie 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like it would still be difficult, though less so than I was assuming, since my idiot self was not realizing one could't hear underwater to begin with... then again, I'm not deaf, so it might not be that hard after all. Well, nice talking with you, and happy editing! :) --tjstrf 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, one can hear fine underwater (assuming that you can hear at all). Water carries sound much better than air. It is speaking that is the problem. :) Dipics 00:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Referencing Noel Edmonds
Hello. I see you added a lot of the fact and tags to the Noel Edmonds article. Perhaps you'd might like to help further and reference it properly? A lot of the sentences you wanted citing shouldn't be too hard to find on the internet. You can also use a well-referenced article such as Jaws (film) as a guide to how they should be referenced (the templates that should be used). You added the tags without adding a references section (refs), making the URLs dissappear altogether from article view. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) On a similar note, I have left a message on the talk page for the Bruce Forsyth article. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hammond/Charity
The story is one of the lead stories of both BBC News and Sky News today. Also been mentioned in some of today's papers. I'm stunned that you believe a charity appeal that has lead to an air ambulance service announcing it would use the money for a second helicopter is not encyclopedic. Mark83 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I view it as a form of advetising for the charity. It may be a strict interpritation but I view the rules on wikipedia advertising strongly and enforce them strongly, sorry if you disagree. I agree that If a sperate page for the cahrity was set up, then that would be encyclopedic as long as It Is wrtten from a neutral and objective point of view.--Lucy-marie 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is advertising in a way, I agree. However it is certainly notable. It is one of those things that is hard to mention without it being advertising, yet is still worth at least a small mention, at least to me. - Blah3 23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point of view but any mention of donations or how to donate is advertising. It is a tough one but the current format is a form of advertising maybe you can help with this dilema?--Lucy-marie 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A few issues:
 * "reasons gien on my talk page and on talk page of person who reverted" &mdash; You didn't put your reasons on Peteb16's talk page and he/she is the one who reverted.
 * "pleas [sic] open a discussion up" – you're the one who removed a section with no discussion.
 * "removed section on the charity it is not notable.." – Here are respected news organisations' reports on it:
 * BBC News Hammond donations flood charity
 * Sky News Star Gives Charity Boost
 * The Times Hammond appeal will help to buy helicopter
 * Advertosing the charity? – The charity isn't even mentioned!
 * In summary, yes I do disagree. Mark83 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * <S>As you achknowlegde that you are advertising the charity it cannot go in wikipedia.</S> Please see the rest of the discussion here i have had with another user so a concensous can be reached--Lucy-marie 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I concede that it is advertising. Please read my comments more carefully. When the BBC, Sky News and News International believe it is a genuine news story, I believe it is a gross omission from the Hammond article. I don't understand your argument about "I agree that If a sperate page for the cahrity was set up" – using that logic, if someone tried to assasinate the Prime Minister, we could only put that in the Tony Blair article if the assassin had a Wikipedia bio? Mark83 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you are refering to the British media here who do not have the same standards against advertisng as wikipedia does and the way your answer is worded at first glance you do seam to achknowldge it as advertisng but on closer inspection you do not. I have now started a discussion on the talk page to avoid a messy revert war. please put foreward your point of view there and do not re add the comments about the charity until a concensous has been formed


 * I'm sorry, you have no right to claim authority. At the moment the consenus is 2:1 against your opinion. As such I suggest you leave it until a further consensus is formed. My comments above were clear. And perhaps you don't know that the BBC's charter prohibits advertising, and that is one of the references given. And I also object in the strongest terms to being called a troll (I refer to your edit summary). That is totally unacceptable. Mark83 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpriting the BBC charter it says they are not allowed to recieve commercial fnding not that they cannot advertise this was recently shown by the bbc advertising sport relief another chartiy they are however prohibited from comercalisation of products for example colgate toothpaste or barbie dolls. They are stil allowed to advertise.--Lucy-marie 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC can advertise its own products and services. The BBC cannot receive income from advertising external products and services. Sport Relief is an exception as it is organised in conjunction with BBC Sport, just as the National Lottery programming is an exception. It could be argued that the BBC is promoting the lottery, hence the editorial guidelines say they must:


 * "ensure the trails for programmes which carry National Lottery draws or games are promotions for our programmes and not the National Lottery."
 * "avoid the use of any elements of lottery advertising or promotions in programmes covering lottery draws, or in trails for National Lottery programmes."
 * "ensure the purchase of a lottery ticket is not a pre-requisite for someone to appear on, or be in the audience for, our lottery programmes." Mark83 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From my Talk page
1. I'm not an admin, just a regular editor.

2. I have no experience with setting up wikiprojects myself, but WikiProject looks like it might help you find what you're after.

3. I don't think there are any specific rules applying to images of abducted people. However, you could probably make a good case for fair use for most such images, particularly if they have been issued by police/family/etc with the intent of having them widely seen, and more so if the person is still missing (since that makes it impossible to get another photo). You might be able to get better advice by asking on Wikipedia talk:Fair use.

4. It depends what sort of help you want. If you want somebody to create an article on a given topic, or you want to discuss or plan an article before creating it, see Requested articles. If you've started an article and want others to add to it, Requests for expansion is a good place to go. Adding an appropriate stub tag (see list here) may also attract attention from people looking for something to expand.

Hope this is of help to you! --Calair 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What sort of help are you looking for? I'm not familiar with the UK so I can't give much help with content. I've made a couple of edits to Hannah_Williams_(murder_victim) and Danielle Jones, mostly adding references and a bit of information found by Googling, but at this stage more info & references are probably what's needed most; it's hard to do much about structure without a bit more to work with.


 * (As for formatting and references, my usual approach is to find an article that already does those thing and then copy the fiddly bits across.)--Calair 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are those the links you intended? I'm seeing four copies of the same link (to results of a Google search on Hannah Williams).


 * What you need to do from here is go through those hits and see which of them are relevant and worth citing - in particular, which of them back up information contained in the article, or can be used to expand it. To add a citation, you can either just add it in as an external link at the appropriate spot like this: or use citation templates, which are a bit more work but provide more information. (If you're doing the latter, the article will need a References section - if it doesn't already have one, just copy the relevant code from an article that does.)


 * If you find a source that doesn't fit in as a cite for one specific part of the article, but still seems relevant, just add it in an 'External Links' section instead. --Calair 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lee Boxall, Ruth Wilson, Sarah Benford, Carmel Fenech page reminders to self.--Lucy-marie 22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A few queries
1. To start a WikiProject on a specific subject see WikiProject. 2. ... 3. ... Hyacinth 05:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : Daniel Nolan Deleted page
The article was deleted via. an AfD discussion. If you wish to recover its contents from userfication or to make an appeal, try deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Millys body location.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Millys body location.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned image
Umm, which image exactly? I appreciate the note, but its not very useful if I don't know what image...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

24 races etc
Can we thrash this one out on the Schumacher talk page? Ta. 4u1e 16:16, 25 October 2006

Amanda Dowler and WP:FN
You can see the changes in the diff. The "Appeal" and "Texting" refs were moved after the comma, and the space before the "Lamlugh" ref was removed. Gimmetrow 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British crime

 * Hello Ms. Marie,
 * I was curious if the British crime project was accepting additional members ? I'm not sure of how much help I might be, however I do have some knowledge on organized crime in Great Britain and have contributed several articles on the subject on behalf of the similarly proposed WikiProject Organized Crime. Also there is a discussion concerning the proper naming of the Adams brothers criminal syndicate at Talk:Clerkenwell crime syndicate and I was wondering if you could be some help on the subject ? MadMax 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

 * Lucy-Marie,
 * I've just completed two basic templates, Template:uk-crime and Template:User WikiProject British crime. I substituted a picture of the Kray twins for a user box template image as no official logo exists as yet. Please feel free to suggest any changes. Nothing fancy I know, however I hope I've been some help. :) MadMax 07:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lucy-Marie,
 * Just to let you know, I've corrected the internal links to the temporary project page until an official one is created. Also, was their an image, if any, which you had mind for a userbox image ? MadMax 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Crime/Wanted Articles
Hmm. Familiar format and nicely expanded as well, including sources I don't have. Keep up the good work. - Skysmith 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was mainly referring to this page, which has a similar structure to this one. The latter also represents my non-knowledge about these things - subjects I do not know enough to write an article about - as of yet anyway - Skysmith 13:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Amanda Dowler
I'm a bit busy at the moment with other commitments but I may be able to contribute some time in the future. In the meantime you may find BBC News and Surrey Police usefull sources for expanding the article <font style="background: black" color="red"> YDAM  TALK 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Heathside School
I have replied on my talk page. Thanks for your comments, and don't worry, you didn't appear rude. :) Bubba hotep 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start. Bubba hotep 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British crime update

 * Lucy-marie,
 * Just wanted to let you know I've listed a recent British crime related article I created on the project page. Also, I've been fooling around with different template designs for a future WikiProject page in case British crime becomes a much more large scale project. MadMax 00:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I've recently created a new template Template:WP British Crime Invitation although I'm still looking for a sample image or logo (possibly of Jack the Ripper or Jonathan Wild). MadMax 07:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Image-Hannah Williams.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Hannah Williams.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Humourous
You reverted my spelling change on Jeremy Clarkson, but in fact "humorous" is the correct spelling worldwide. --Guinnog 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

--Guinnog 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Thanks for caring enough about spelling to query my change! Best wishes, --Guinnog 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

k.d.lang images

 * Hi Lucy-marie. Thanks for your message regarding the k. d. lang images, but your suggestion is not practical. I'm not going to post a message to every talk page that I remove a copyright violation from. The onus is on the uploader and the people who work on those particular pages to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and act accordingly. I appreciate that you may not have been aware of Wikipedia's policy in this matter, but now that I've made you aware, I shouldn't have to keep telling you. I always put an explanation in my edit summary and that will have to suffice, but if you ever want me to clarify, you're welcome to message me. If you ever disagree with me, I'm also happy to hear from you, and we can talk about it on a case-by-case basis if you like. Thanks Rossrs 08:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Devonian Language
A tag has been placed on Devonian language, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Devonian language is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon, and also put a note on Talk:Devonian language saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Nick xylas 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good news
Lucy-Marie,
 * I thought you'd want to know, in case your weren't already aware of course, Marlinspike has just joined the WikiProject which of course makes an official project now. Congratulations! :) MadMax 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

British Crime project
I'm going ahead and moving your project page into main wikipedia space, and listing it in the new projects section of the community portal. If you want any further help, please check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for pointers from more knowledgable people than myself, and, if I can ever be of any assistance, please feel freel to contact me directly. I might be of some use if you want any help on userboxes or a project banner. Good luck with the project, and happy editing! Badbilltucker 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help with your new project. I created the Australian crime WikiProject, but of late have been focusing on work for the parent project, WP:AUS. Let me know how I can help out. -- Longhair\talk 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image for banner
Lucy-marie,
 * An image has been suggested by User:Badbilltucker for a possible future project banner at the project discussion page. I though the image was great for the project, as I've looked for a public domain Victorian-era image of Jack the Ripper, and used it as a temporary image for the Invitation template for the other members to take a look. MadMax 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Lucy-marie, I would like to thank you for putting a NPOV tag on the bnp page as it has long been overdue such (i never knew how to do so). God Bless:) (Fethroesforia 23:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

True true, I am underway on attempting to un-bias the page (though i admit..i am not best placed to try and have a non biased opinion, but i try my best) Much of the page is either, extracts from manifestos, biased opinions or pure speculation. Pretty much useless as you can get better information outside wikipedia for the subject matter. Thank you for the reply and have a great new year:) (Fethroesforia 00:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Beard Liberation Front website
In an edit summary you mentioned the "beard liberation front website". I've been looking for an official BLF website and couldn't find it - could you give me the link? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Persons v. People
I have seen a couple of pages where you have unilaterally altered 'persons' to 'people' on the grounds that persons is an incorrect grammar pluralisation it is people or a person. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple and in the examples I've seen, particularly Person you are, in fact, quite wrong.

Generally, 'people' is used to mean a mass (e.g. "People don't like this" or "There were so many people."). 'Person' is used to denote an individual, so when referring to several individuals who remain individuals and are not a mass, we should say 'persons'. Look in your dictionary. I even notice that 'personnel' is defined in my dictionary as 'the persons employed in a company...'.

In your edits of Person you also altered every use of 'personhood' to 'being a person'. This is not the same at all. A 'knighthood' is not the same as 'being a knight'; similarly 'sisterhood' and 'being a sister'; 'adulthood' and 'being an adult'; 'royalty' and 'being royal'. In each case, the first is a status, the second is what we do. More importantly, you even made this alteration within a quote from a book which is clearly the wrong thing to do. You may not like the word (neither do I as it happens, it sounds very clumsy) but neverthless it is a correct word, is well-understood within the topic and is properly explained in the article.

I have reverted through the article. If you have changed person to people elesewhere, you might want to check that you have done so correctly. Emeraude 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have more than one person eg two you have two people not two persons please give me a sentecne were the exclusive word the can be used is persons--Lucy-marie 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"All persons proceeding beyond this point must be in possession of a valid ticket." Or, if you prefer, just two uses from the Chambers Everyday Paperback Dictionary: "personnel(Fr.), the persons employed in any service, as distinguished from the materiel (equipment, supplies, &c.)" and "personal.... aimed offensively at a particular person or persons (e.g. abuse, remark)". Going further, when I look up people I find "...the mass of the nation: persons generally". Emeraude 10:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I posted at Talk:Person. Emeraude 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with new wikiproject
I saw your post on the Bibliography talk and thought I would try and point you in the right direction. I don't have much time now to assist in that project but the WikiProject Council Guide should get you moving. The WikiProject Council may be more helpful as well as their main goal is to help wikipedians set up wikiprojects. If you have a particular spot where your stuck, let me know and I'll try to help you through it. Good luck and congrats on the new WikiProject Morphh (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Week
The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

re: please refrain from personal attacks
My views are also just as valid as the next. Please read WP:NOR and WP:V. The only views that are valid are the views of reliable sources. Your personal views count for nothing in comparison. -- WGee 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not stopping you from expressing your thoughts on discussion pages; I am stopping you from altering articles based on your faulty original research. Also read WP:V, which states:
 * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
 * In the person article, you have failed to fulfill all of the critereon, particularly numbers two and three; therefore, your contributions will be removed. Would you like me to clarify anything? -- WGee 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)