User talk:Rachel Pearce

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Snottygobble 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Joseph Farquharson
Hello, It's me guys! This is Beth. I wrote this OK and did the research? Why do you talk like I can't read this. How about someone talking to me directly? My name is on my webpage right at the top besides the copyright! -Beth Maxwell Boyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Maxwell Boyle (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Beth who put the information in may be the copyright holder of the material, because the bottom of http://www.ramshornstudio.com/joseph_farquharson.htm says "copyright 2007, Jim & Beth Boyle, All Rights Reserved", so she might be the Beth Boyle from there. If so, she can post the material, but she needs to follow the proper process to prove that she has the copyright. In general, unless the material is specifically released to GFDL, or Public domain or some such, then it must be assumed that it is copyrighted, and can't be copied without the copyright holder's explicit approval to release it to GFDL. See Copyrights and Copyright problems. And welcome to Wikipedia! Corvus cornix 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Well spotted. I had found that article but not noticed the copyright owner. In the light of that I hope my comment on the talk page was not too strongly worded.

I have long been a user of Wikipedia and occasional corrector of annoying typos etc., but having confidently typed his name in and being astonished to find no page, I decided to dip my toe into the page creation waters.

Rachel Pearce 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Beth

The conversation above between me and Corvus Cornix happened, as you can see, over a month ago, long before you revealed yourself as the author of the article.

Please sign your comments and please put new comments at the bottom, this makes it easier to see when there are new comments.

Rachel Pearce 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rachel this is the second go round for me with this piece it was ripped down as soon as I put it up last time. Everything I do can be traced as I sign on with my real name. Why is it so hard to look at the history of the article and match it with the name on my website. Its getting so hard here to do anything. What happened? I have used Wiki for years and all of a sudden everyone is so unkind. Beth Maxwell Boyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Maxwell Boyle (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Beth, I did not mean to be unkind. As you can see from the above comments, and from Talk:Joseph Farquharson I was just trying to protect copyrighted material. It was by no mean obvious that you held the copyright! Remember that at that stage you had not put any references in either. Please don't be discouraged.

Also please try and remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs at the end.

Rachel Pearce 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rachel, Corvus cornix should have known he went to my website and should have seen the names are the same on the entry here and my website. He knew before he pulled it. I would only ask people be polite; I am tying to donate my time and knowlege not rip someone off. It's painful to come back in here and see my work distroyed because someone is lazy or legalistic. I happen to really like Farquharson and would like to help people who like Scottish painters and culture. It's hard enough to write and to learn how to use Wiki someone please cut me some slack here? I have allot to offer even if I am not the best with the format.

Beth Maxwell Boyle (talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

East Hagbourne
No problem at all! Glad to have helped!... If you intend to expand on East Hagbourne's existing entry, WP:UKCITIES is an excellent guide on how to write and set-out articles about places in Britain effectively. Hope it helps and best of luck! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR
helpme

I am in danger of falling foul of 3RR, and I want to know what I should do instead. A user Bill edmond has been repeatedly deleting large sections of Igbo people. He seems to have an argument with whole categories. However he does not engage in debate or respond to requests on his Talk page. What should I do next? Sorry for my ignorance and for wasting valuable time - I have tried to RTFM but have not really found a solution in the help pages since this is not quite obvious vandalism. Indeed the user may have a point, but it doesn't seem to me that he is making it. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No you're not. Vandalism is contextual. User:Bill edmond may have a perfectly valid and proper reason for removing large chunks of text from the article but his blanking is opaque, as you've noted, and thus could easily be destructive. Once asked to explain, and the conduct continued, in my book that changes the edits to vandalism even if his intent is pure as driven snow; 3RR no longer applies. I have reverted back to you and left a note on his talk page. If he keeps removing the material without explanation, each time leave an esclating warning in the uw-blank series (uw-blank2, uw-blank3, uw-blank4) and then, if it continues after a final warning, report at WP:AIV:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching my typo, I moved the page to the right place to fix it. Triona (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my typo's
Just wondering if you'd be interested in joining out little group

if not just ignore me.  Dom ' mc ' cas  22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DM
What is DM, and why does my edit belong there? 155.84.57.253 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do this?
. As I see it, you reverted a vandalism revert. The free metal isn't unstable, it's reactive, which isn't at all the same thing. I'd've warned you for vandalism if it wasn't for your previous good history. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User page
Has your user page been accidentally used as a talk page. It would be good if you could say something about yourself (not to much) on your user page. Perhaps, look at the sort of things other editors put on their talk pages first. It is not a home page, but it is part of the wiki for users to know a little about you. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied from userpage
Rachel I wrote this piece. Change the style if you don't like it but don't delete it. I have it on my website that is where it was copied from because I wrote it!

Beth, I just found out it was you who wrote the above comment by looking at your history. Please sign your comments with four ~s.

There was no way I could know you wrote the text on your page. Now you have put references in that is fine. I have added a load of links and things. It would be better to have this discussion on the discussion page for the Farquharson article Talk:Joseph Farquharson Rachel Pearce 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Link for East Hagnbourne when I have time: www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=536669 Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed link
Dear Rachel, Re the 'inadvertently removed' link on the Britten theme, the removal was deliberate not inadvertent. It seemed to me that the references, being given in full, were quite sufficient for verification (which is their purpose) without actually linking directly to the texts. My thinking was that the hall is used as a Christian conference centre for visits by young people: natural curiosity will lead visitors to the page, and to the reference. That's fine: but there is no reason why the centre should be saddled with the permanent association with the actual verbal content of those articles, especially as Professor Cunningham's (slightly lurid) proposition is clearly disputed, and also the supposed prurient content (as opposed to the source of the verse) is not in itself directly relevant to the Hall. That seemed to me to be unfair on the centre and placing unnecessarily prurient matter actually and directly in the way of young people who could, at least, be required to make slightly more effort to find it if they really want to. I originally put the link in, then thought better of it, and now regret it! Do you think we might ditch the link (but keep the reference) as an act not of censorship, but of responsible limitation? I do not represent the centre in any way - never been there - but was acting on the same motives as would apply to 'living persons' pages etc. I'd value your response Eebahgum (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Rachel, Thanks for your reply. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the actual subject matter of the articles is not relevant to Sizewell Hall, though of course it IS relevant to (say) The Turn of the Screw (opera) and possibly also to Benjamin Hall Kennedy. Without judging the debate itself, I question its relevance to the present article. For that reason my preference is to give the citations, simply to provide verification for the fact the BB got his text from a book from that source, but not in this article to provide the links. I know its all a bit big brother to limit information, but then if people want to know about this debate this isn't really where they will be looking for it. And there is a sort of cat in or out of the bag principle with Wikipedia whereby it is not always necessary to say everything that could be said, especially if it is so tangential. My preference would be to remove both links (but keeping the citations) here, but put them in (if not there already) to the Turn of the Screw (opera) article. Could we agree to that? Best, Eebahgum (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi rachel
You blocked a user called 82.36.94.228 back in June because he was inserting abuse to the Russel T. Davies page. He has for the past month been inserting abuse into the Johann Hari page, calling him 'fat' etc. Despite reverts by several admins, he just keeps putting it back. Would it be possble to permenantly block him, given he is ignoring the warnings you gave?

Best wishes

David86.131.168.112 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Corn and Corn (disambiguation)‎;
Hi. Could I perhaps clarify what I've been up to. I boldly contributed new versions both of Corn and Corn (disambiguation)‎. They were designed to go together in a fairly disjoint way. As well as the new structure, I did a bit of work on adding new material. After some vicissitudes the dab article seems to have been accepted, but my new Corn is currently resting in the history; it hope it will re-emerge in some form before long. I'd welcome your comments on it. I'm very relaxed about the wording at the top of the dab page, but in any case what it's appropriate to put there may depend on the outcome of the Corn discussion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anyway I give up. The forces of US-centrism have defeated me and I will edit no more."
 * I started editing wikipedia just under a year ago because I came across an article that was so wrong that it angered me. So I corrected it. The correction is still there. I encountered another ditto, on a rather controversial topic. I corrected that too, and to my surprise got away with it again. Since then I've had all sorts of experiences, including edit wars, and learned to recognise the various sorts of people out there: the vandals (no problem really), the well-intentioned idiots (more trouble), the well-informed bigots (really hard work); the people who actually know what they are talking about (yes, there are quite a lot of them). In the process I've learnt a lot about all sorts of subjects, and also I'm getting better at negotiation, and learnt the value of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF even when sorely tempted to ignore them. But just as "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", as several people have observed, so eternal vigilance and attention to your watchlist are also the price of correctness in wikipedia. The reason I'm saying all this is to urge you not to give up. US-centrism is indeed a problem in many areas, though I have to say I don't think it's anywhere near the most serious issue. But if well-educated people walk away, it makes it harder for the rest. So, please, cheer up, but don't give up. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Date question
Your recent edit to the Julius Caesar article suggests you take an interest in dates, so I would lkike to ask a question. What, if any, standard do you think applies to dates in Wikipedia articles where the format resembles 2008-09-08? I have two possibliities in mind, but I just am not sure what the general perception is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the two possibilities I had in mind is that it is just an informal rearrangement of the usual date elements in the hopes that an international audience will get the idea that the biggest unit, the year, goes on the left, the smallest unit, the day, goes on the right, and the middle unit, the month, goes inbetween. This avoids the problem of formats like 1/2/2004, which could be January 2, 2004, or 1 February 2004. It also sorts easily on a computer. Any further meaning would have to be derived from the context.


 * The other possibility is that it is governed by ISO 8601 (which is mentioned here and there on Wikipedia). If that is the case, it is required to be in the Gregorian calendar, and dates before 1583 are invalid except through mutual agreement. So all the autoformatted dates in the main part of the Julius Caesar article are wrong, because they could be autoformatted into the ISO 8601 format. The dates in the reference section would be ok, except for sources from antiquity. But the article is wrong only if you think the dates are governed by ISO 8601. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher
The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable source. Their reporting on the Knox/Kercher case was pure sensationalism and several news sources have actually reported on the poor job they did of fact checking their stories. I'll find the other citation and replace it if possible, though if I recall it's being used to demonstrate the media coverage given to the incident immediately after it happened, which would be the only place a Daily Mail source would be acceptable, since that section is about their coverage. Thanks for you work in the article by the way, I didn't mean to diminish it in any way. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooden oboe reeds?
Rachel, I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive in regards to "wooden" (natural?) oboe reeds. I would like to re-emphasize that I don't play oboe nor any other wind instrument, and my knowledge of the oboe comes almost entirely from listening to music on the radio. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yan Tan Tethera
On Talk:Yan Tan Tethera you will find a table of the southern variations that recently got added, and that you valiantly tried to straighten up some. What do you think? Cheers! __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks right to me but I am not well informed enough to comment on the column titles. (Sorry for delayed response - was away from internet then busy.) Rachel Pearce (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've also left a heads-up on the talk page of the anon editor's IP address, which they will just as easily miss seeing. For now, there's naught so badly broken there that needs a furious rush to fix. Thanks, __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

BST/GMT
No problem; in such circumstances there's a pretty high threshold for me as well! Loganberry (Talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Novels that enjoy a tipple
Many thanks for dealing with my drunken register. :)  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stanford
Hi. Thanks for fixing my grammatical snafu. Must have happened when I was re-editing something I copied and pasted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Invite
Hi Rachel - do you know about this. Last chance for some time to record the history in the silk mill and the 95,000 items they don't show? Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras International - naming controversy
Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station. -- Alarics (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580875626 your edit] to Neurological disorder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * * Neuropsychiatric illnesses diseases &/or disorders with psychiatric features associated with known nervous system injury,

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=595282180 your edit] to Jack Monroe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Row Live clash | date=4 February 2014 | accessdate=13 February 2014 | last = Monroe | first = Jack

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Wilshaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JFS. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)