User talk:Lucy-marie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Copyvio: comment
DrFrench (talk | contribs)
Copyvio: harsh words?
Line 46: Line 46:
The cool wall lost does not have to be on their website to be their intellectual property. The list is broadcast by the BBC and is the BBC's intellectual property, we cannot reproduce it in whole or in large part without violating copyright, unless an officer of the BBC is prepared to release the contents under [[GFDL]]. It would be OK to list a small subset, but not large numbers. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The cool wall lost does not have to be on their website to be their intellectual property. The list is broadcast by the BBC and is the BBC's intellectual property, we cannot reproduce it in whole or in large part without violating copyright, unless an officer of the BBC is prepared to release the contents under [[GFDL]]. It would be OK to list a small subset, but not large numbers. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
* Lucy-marie, when content is removed by an admin citing copyright, and the admin makes a comment on Talk, it's wise not to keep reverting. OK? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
* Lucy-marie, when content is removed by an admin citing copyright, and the admin makes a comment on Talk, it's wise not to keep reverting. OK? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
**(Adding comment here rather than [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]'s talk page as it's relevant to this page.) Please also see my comment on [[Talk:The Cool Wall]]. Guy your comments to Lucy-marie seem a bit 'heavy-handed'. Without a rationale for the copyvio assertion, I think the average Wikipedian would revert your changes (I certainly would). There sems to be an implicit threat in your words above, which is not really warranted. There's no evidence of bad faith here. [[User:DrFrench|DrFrench]] 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 1 April 2007

Archive 1
Archive 2

Barnstar


The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Lucy-marie,
Your tireless contributions, removal of vandalism and keeping a NPOV at all times improve the sense of community and enhance the helpfulness of wikipedia. I hereby grant you this barnstar in recognition of your dedication and hard work
Fethroesforia 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section

Lucy-marie,

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

Remain cool

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

Reported

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

If it is regarding the G8 template, you hvae only reverted 3 times. If you do it again, I will block you for violating the WP:3RR. Same goes for the other reverting party who is currently at 3 reverts as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They may be, but re-reverting it right now would be a bad idea. I am here to help other editors but also uphold policy. I get no joy from blocking any editors. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page, if there is already a discussion that you believe has acieved consensus and the edits are against it, point me towards the discussion and I will attempt to determine what the consensus is. Hope this helps, thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found your edits at the article on G8. I need your ssurance that you will not rever the G8 article of the {{G8}} template until this matter is resolved. It would be much easier if you were willing to cooperate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I won't revert again. Just tell Hackney not revert a concensus. --Lucy-marie 21:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok, calm down! I am working it out. Do you have any sources that show that the EU is not part of the G8? This to me appears a possible issue of facts. I have asked Hackney to provide me sources showing that the EU is technically part of the G8. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Merges

Lucy-marie,

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

Copyvio

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

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