User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 9

Archiving
You know that archiving a user page does naught to solve the concerns many users have raised with you...you might be better off working with your fellow editors to come to a compromise...but that's never worked for you has it. Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 11:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does though make me feel a lot better. As I don't have to listen to pearls of wisdom, from a user who was banned for six months for posing as an administrator.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference between me and you is that I've learned from my mistakes, which you clearly haven't, and I'm respected by a large portion of the community, which you aren't. Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No offence is meant here but I am not particularly interested in how much of a reformed character you yourself are and I would appreciate if you would stop evangelising your pearls of superiority towards me. I am finding your approach and tone mildly offensive as you are coming across high and mighty and as if I am an inferior user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This will be my last post here, but I think you've irritated a lot of people on Wiki, myself included, for many years, and I'm sorry if I come off as rude, but my patience is exhausted. Feel free to archive. Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I only archived this page after you went off-line as I had assumed you had finish commenting. I personally am irked by a few high and mighty user who apply double standards towards certain users and towards otter users. I am not including you in this group. I think that double standards a regularly applied and simply common scene and courtesy toward other users is ignored such as running to the WP:ANI and simply attacking users during mediation and having procedure gamed against users. --Lucy-marie (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved threads
As you know, your most recently archived talk page included an issue which remains unresolved. The upcoming G8 summit in Italy presents us with a timely opportunity to resolve the perceived anomaly in European Union participation. You can refresh your memory in a review of your talk page edit history which records my disputing your characterization of the participation of European Union's chief official in April 2009. At that time, I suggested diff that this subject might generate broader participation at Talk:G8, where permanent links for unresolved threads include the following:


 * Explicitly on-topic threads


 * G8+?
 * G9 sentence in Structure and Activities
 * Original research
 * G8+1? members? participants? leaders


 * Relevant corollaries
 * WP:MOS (flags)
 * new french position

Should I construe your non-response to indicate that you now recognize that the EU president needs to be listed amongst the permanent participants in the 35th G8 summit and 36th G8 summit? --Tenmei (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest I had forgotten that those threads even existed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall get back to you in a couple of days.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Lincolnshire Assessment
I am unaware of whether you know this but unless you are a member of the WikiProject who has assessed an article, you are not permitted to change it, however at 18:09 today you ammended the GA assessment given to the Soham murders article by me for WikiProject Lincolnshire. According to our policies I have reverted it. If you contest an assessment decision then you may go to the talk page of the WikiProject involved or to the talkpage of the person who decided on the said decision. As I have said, unless you are a member you do not have a right to do this.

95jb14 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Lincolnshire

I was unaware of the specific procedure with in the wikiproject, but I am sceptical of the level of importance one man who only grew up in Grimsby deserves within the entire project of Lincolnshire. I primarily downgraded the article rating to B as the article has not passed the WP:GA assessment criteria and to give an article that rating could be misleading.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fair enough and I understand your point so will probably rate it as a B now. I apologise for being so abrupt but it is the rules and I was angry at the situation. Any way, thank you for replying, you wouldn't believe how many people just don't bother. 95jb14 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The articles on Bernard O'Mahoney's website were not created by O'Mahoney but they are articles from newspapers which were sourced to his website. These such articles qualify as reliable sources - certainly more reliable than net memorials and similar sites. Sir Stanley (User talk:Sir Stanley) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke Mitchell/Jodi Jones
You moved the page on Luke Mitchell to a new page, Murder of Jodi Jones; effectively you changed the title. Would you care to explain why? I notice you didn't discuss this change on the Luke Mitchell talk page before acting. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags
How does that mean there's no consensus? Why do you keep referring to "disinterested users"? You make very little sense, if I'm being honest. There was a discussion, initiated by you - one of many initiated by you - which took place with the same result. Then you stopped discussing. Do you believe this means that your point of view holds sway? It does not. Continue the discussion or I will consider the consensus to hold firm. If you continue to revert against consesnsus we will take it to an admin again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? Yet again you start talking about rudeness before anyone's even said a word, and you want to start ANOTHER discussion? Go ahead then - you must know where it takes place by now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that you stopped the last discussion, by ignoring my last post / question to you. You now want to start another discussion. What was wrong with the last one? I suspect that no discussion at any time will result in you stopping your drive-by reverts. 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Bretonbanquet (talk)
 * Your manner of "discussion" is infuriating, as you revert to your POV, start a discussion no-one wants, then you just wander off in the middle of it when it's not going your way, only to start another identical one a week or two later. It's like a stuck record. Disinterested parties are irrelevant. Drive-by reversions are what you do to F1 articles. You don't edit any F1 articles except to revert the flags to your favoured revision, against the favoured revision of several other editors. All you can come up with to back you up is some "disinterested party" who hasn't contributed one iota to any of the discussions. Why don't you front up, accept that no-one agrees with you and let it drop? You can surely see the situation. If you want to persist with this business, start another discussion in the approproate place and see what happens. Since my presence offends you, then I will stay out of it. But it will go the same way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you leave a discussion when it's clear that you're losing. You think I'm rude, I think you're a thoroughly disruptive editor, with a pointless obsession with this flag issue. You make assuming good faith very difficult, and I'm getting out for a while before I get too irritated. Let's agree to disagree. Start a new discussion and I will stay out of it. Don't use my talk page, and I won't use yours, because we clearly rub each other up the wrong way. But I will take it to dispute resolution if there is no further discussion and you insist on forcing your POV. There will be discussion or I will move to enforce the consensus (the one you refuse to acknowledge) via the proper channels. And that should not be taken as an unfriendly threat, it's just what I am going to do in those circumstances. You'll note I've also left your revision on the race article as a gesture of good will. I look forward to reading the new, improved discussion on the WPF1 page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to break my silence here, I'm afraid. I have now seen the admin board discussion - the one where you told me here that "When this was brought to the admin noticeboard comments from disinterested parties stated that it was "madness" and "misleading" to proceed with the flags of the host nation idea." That's not actually true, is it? In fact, it's a complete crock. Nobody said that at all, and there was only one "disinterested" voice in the whole discussion, and he disagreed with you. No wonder you didn't want to find the link. Why did you tell me that when it wasn't true? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, it might be in your interests to find it and post it so that people get the full picture. It can't be that hard to find - the other one was found very quickly. I hope you'll post your views in the discussion along with everyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, You changed Polish flag to UE flag in European SGP... but You not-changed Scandinavian and Nordic SGP. Whay? This is unfair ;] My suggest is: flag in table means host country, becouse You don't find flag for all Grands Prix. Radziński (t) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are You thinking about this suggestion. Radziński (t) 11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be better if you had your say in the discussion that you started on this topic. Obviously if you choose not to contribute beyond your intital posts, it'll be difficult for you to object if everyone else comes to a consensus without you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
I am not sure how this specific account is directly blocked by a random Sock puppet user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The blocking admin is MastCell, based on your apparent non-responsiveness to the evidence presented here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note the date was two years ago in 2007 and that whole issue has been fully resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Lucy. Are you still suffering from an autoblock? I noticed this thread this morning. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It has only just been lifted but it was highly inconveniant to be blocked based on no current evidence and only based on a previous case that was resolved two years ago. I am considering a serious complaint as I have been punished twice for something, which is in my opinion out of order.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no real action that can be taken as this was an autoblock, which wasn't placed on you directly, and I apologise for any inconvenience. I suggest you take this issue up with the declining admin,.

Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  09:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From reading the above reply from Daniel Case he has declined to lift the block based on a 2007 case which is resolved. He also calims I was directly blocked. Do I have a case to complain? --Lucy-marie (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Administrators have a large workload (getting larger every day) and limited time to review unblock requests. I believe it was an honest mistake. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was in a situation where I had to review in haste and saw only the month and day of the block without looking at the year.

You don't seem to be blocked at all at the moment, AFAICT. no autoblock, no rangeblock, nothing. Daniel Case (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, here's what's going on. I will give you an IPBE. Daniel Case (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon
Hello I am sorry for the bad formatting but my information is right as you can see here http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=fr&hl=en&q=treaty+of+lisbon+opt-out&cf=all&scoring=n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.131.237 (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Jeremy Clarkson/Archive1
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Taelus (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:39534419 huntley pa203indx.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:39534419 huntley pa203indx.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Campos
Might want to have another go at it. The payments part reads funny.

Campos announced delays in the construction of their car and payments (what does this refer to its not clear at all, who is getting paid?) may result in the team being absent from the February testing season and release their car at the first race. --Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)
I'm afraid I didn't follow your edit summary, would you be able to run that past me again? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is good, but Bercow resigned as a member of the Conservative party the day he was elected Speaker, and from then on was not a Conservative MP - hence the seat not being a gain or loss, but (if we insist on such titles) a 'Speaker hold'. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because X is what happened in the past doesn't mean that X is right or should be repeated. Bercow was Speaker before the election, and he was returned as Speaker after the election. He didn't gain the seat from anyone, least of all himself! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the seat was indeed gained, from whom was it gained? I believe your interpretation to be erroneous (in absolutely good faith, but erroneous), and as the reliable source (the BBC) describes it as a 'Speaker hold', I cannot see that we have much choice in the matter. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the BBC, the Independent describes it as a 'Speaker hold'. I have explained why it is a hold, and have pointed to the reliable sources that support my position. If you continue to revert in the face of reliable sources, then your edits to the article cease to be constructive and become disruptive. I should also warn you that you are skirmishing the letter of the 3RR, if not breaking it in spirit. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I wasn't particularly able to follow your reply but noticed some rather uncivil language; if you are not able to discuss this in a mature manner then there is no point in discussing it at all. Unless you have any further comments to make on the talk page, I will shortly change 'gain' to 'hold' and cite the sources. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

USGP
I'm sorry, but what, exactly, is your defintion of a "contract"? Evey single media outlet is reporting that the USGP is going ahead - because the following is an exact quote from the race organiser: "We are extremely honoured and proud to reach an agreement with the F1 Commercial Rights Holder" (from here: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/5/10824.html). The deal has been confirmed for ten years - and that means that a contract has been signed. While there is a possibility that the eevent won't happen because the circuit is ont construced in time or whatever, that doesn't mean there is no contract. So I'm not entirely sure what you're holding out for here, but all the criteria have been met. Please don't revert the edits because we have enough fr the entry to be credible. In the meantime, I'm going to start up a discussion over at WP:F1 (unless you've already done so). It's clear neither of us are going to agree, so we'll get others' input. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Senate oath
Stop changing the text of the oath. The language is a direct quotation of the statute, which you can read here. You do not change the text of quoted material because you think it should read differently. -Rrius (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you didn't respond here, but I've responded to your note at my talk page. -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

F1 2012
I know you're not the biggest fan of the page, but in future, could you please discuss any changes you wish to make on the discussion page first? You demanded the same of everyone else when you started editing it; I think the least you could do would be to extend us the same courtesy. Including a line abut how Tilke will design the circit is not advertising, since it's properly referenced and he's a notable person considering that he's the world's leading circuit architect. I know that you, like the rest of us, want that page to be as well-written as possible, but I think it would be better for everyone if we discussed any changes on the discussion page because tha's what it's there for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear "Blog" as source
Please can I point out that this is a blog written by the production team on the Top Gear website. It is to all intents and purposes their news website. It is NOT "self-published media" - See WP:NEWSBLOG. I made it very clear in my edited text the extent to which it had been confirmed. The material was wholly from the "blog" entry and not from any comments that had been left. The info that has now been reverted by you is both out of date and unreferenced. Halsteadk (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked for discussion and I have attempted discussion here on your talk page. You have ignored everything that I have written and reverted me again without responding to the above. Please can you point out why you think that this source is not acceptable and does not fulfil WP:NEWSBLOG. Frankly I'm thinking the best solution would be to just delete the section until Sunday as you seem to prefer a version of it that is out of date, unreferenced and tagged as self-contradictory. Halsteadk (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment on my talk page: Yes Lucy-marie, I am an "editor with flaws", as are you and every other editor on Wikipedia. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. However, I fail to see the mistake I made in the reversion of your edits. A source must be reliable and verifiable, and as Halsteadk's source has met both criteria, the edit is acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines. You have not provided any actual proof that I am wrong other than a comment made by another editor at the article that agrees with you. This does not prove anything whatsoever. Shannon!   talk  23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shannon!  talk  01:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith
I'm sorry, but what the hell am I supposed to think? You've made it publicly known that you disagree with the concepts of pages for future seasons, and your edits often remove important, sourced information for no reason at all. You demand that we discuss major changes on discussion pages, but then make those major changes yourself without a single word. I've had to get a wider consensus from WP:F1 twice just to keep content on a page that comes with full sources and direct quotes from individuals. You frequently ignore messages to your talk page, and you demand references for every single sentence when an entire paragraph can be covered by a single source. As it is, you come across as very aggressive and your extensive edits and revisions to pages appear to be an attempt to remove enough content from the page to make it unneccessary or lacking in notability or relevance. If you have an issue with a page existing, talk about it on the discussion page, or take it to WP:F1! Don't try and undermine it or get rid of it by subversive means, because I know I'm not the only one who thinks you've got a vendetta against those pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that you talk about page ownership like that, because that's exactly how you come across: as if you own the page and can do whatever the hell you want to it. Us other lesser mortals have to discuss changes at your demand, but you're free to go ahead and change whatever you want and expect us to be thankful for it. I'm also pretty certain that your stricter view of WP:POV contravenes something else within the guidelines for style. That time you tried to erase the USGP from the 2012 page "because it might not happen"? That's exactly what I'm talking about - everything was properly referenced and the references contained the appropriate material to be included, yet you saw fit to erase because it was speculative despite your justification being speculative. The British Grand Prix is this weekend, but it might not happen because a meterorite might hit Silverstone tomorrow. Does that mean we should scrap the 2010 British Grand Prix page until after the race? Of course not. I appreciate that you're trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be, and I totally get the need for someone who can come along and say "Hang on, do we really need this bit here?", but you're taking things too far. Your more-astringent views of Wikipedia policy like your interpretation of the POV rules mean that you're working against the common objective of Wikipedia. And while your intentions may be in good faith, the way you go through and trim articles without discussion or explanation before or after the fact, the way you demand people discuss changes before making them without doing so yourself, and your more-rigid following of the rules mean that you come across as tyrannical and detrimental to a page. For example, given your edits to the 2011 page, please explain to me how it is not notable that Ken Anderson was formerly team principal for USF1. Given USF1's failure to show and the sanctions imposed upon the team because of it, I'd say it's vitally important. It also gives people who are reading the page without folowing the sport as closely as we do - or people who are compelte strangers to the sport - some perspective. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I always have assumed good faith from all users and will continue to do so - except in the case of yourself. Your most-recent additions to my talk page speak of "some users" who have given you trouble over the referencing of televisision shows, and given that I have struggled with getting full references for said shows in the past, I can only assume you're referring to me. If you have a problem with my editing style, say it. Don't slink around the issue the way you sneak around everyone else trying to downsize pages simply because you think the information is specious when consensus says it isn't. You clearly seem to have issues with what I've aded to pages despite my full and complete referencing and the consensus that supports my additions, yet you seem to lack the courage to say it and seem to prefer more subversive means. Therefore, I will not assume your edits are in good faith until proven otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Leanne Tiernan
Thanks for the point about naming, but please note template on article =) I'll fix names next edit. Keristrasza (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Shoreham Beach Residents Association listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shoreham Beach Residents Association. Since you had some involvement with the Shoreham Beach Residents Association redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)