Talk Page Archives

Any particular reason you undid Peter Symonds blanking of my talk page? rrcatto (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed It was vandalism as page blankings not done by the user usually are.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symonds is a WP admin. I reckon my talk page can be blanked since it consisted of personal attacks by someone whose articles I nominated for deletion. rrcatto (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read reference 3? It contains information about the ears and fingers. rrcatto (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refrenece may have given them in reference three, I however could not find the information. Anyway the information is irrelevant and unecessary, POV and no wider context is given for the information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the BBC news article which is reference 3, you will see that it contains these lines:

"Victims' groups have condemned £11,000 government compensation entitlements for the families of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells as "a pittance."

"The £11,000 figure Holly and Jessica's families will receive is the same as for a victim of crime who loses an ear or two fingers."

The sentence in the article that I edited was "The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the murder of their daughters". A citation was called for that line. I supplied the citation and gave additional information which allows the reader to understand the £11,000 in context. As it stands, the reader is unable to understand what £11,000 represents. rrcatto (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see - Soham_murders - where you will find the same information with the same reference. Quoted here:

The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the death of their daughters, which was widely criticised in the media. The director of the Victims of Crime Trust, Clive Elliott, described the compensation as a "pittance".

There's a lot of duplication of content across those two articles. rrcatto (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the articles should be merged if you agree with that assessment plaese contribute to the apropritae discussion. As for the fingers and toes they are not directly relevant to the payout recieved, where as the other comments are diretly commenting on the compensation recieved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the correct spot? Found it. rrcatto (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is explained in the edit summary. The merger section of the Sohma Murders talk page, to be precise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		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]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I know that in a lot of these disputes I've disagreed with you, but no good faith contributor should have to take the sheer volume of abuse you get. Things that normally would barely get noticed from anyone else get blown into major disputes when people see your name involved — and that's not how things ought to work around here. — iridescent 11:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Member state[1]	Date	Result[2]	Deposition with Italian Government[3]
Lithuania	11 November 2004	Yes. Seimas: 84 to 4 in favour, 3 abstentions.[4]	17 December 2004
Hungary		Yes. Országgyűlés: 323 to 12 in favour, 8 abstention.[5]	30 December 2004
Slovenia		Yes. Državni zbor: 79 to 4 in favour, 0 abstentions.[6]	9 May 2005
Italy		Yes. Camera dei Deputati: 436 to 28 in favour, 5 abstentions.[7] Yes. Senato della Repubblica: abstentions.[8]
Spain	28 April 2005 18 May 2005	Yes. Consultative referendum: 76.73% to 17.24% in favour, 6.03% blanks, 42.32% participation.[9][10] Yes. Congreso de los Diputados: 311 to 19 in favour, 0 abstentions.[11] Yes. Senado: 225 to 6 in favour, 1 abstention.[12]	15 June 2005
Austria	11 May 2005 25 May 2005	Yes. Nationalrat: Approved by show of hands with 1 against.[13] Yes. Bundesrat: Approved by show of hands with three against.[14]	17 June, 2005
Greece	19 April 2005	Yes. Βουλή των Ελλήνων: 268 to 17 in favour, 15 abstentions.[15]	28 July, 2005
Malta	6 July 2005	Yes. Il-Kamra: Agreed without a division.[16]	2 August, 2005
Cyprus	30 June 2005	Yes. Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων: 30 to 19 in favour, one abstention.[17]	6 October, 2005
Latvia	2 June 2005	Yes. Saeima: 71 to 5 in favour, six abstentions.[18]	3 January, 2006
Luxembourg	10 July 2005 25 October 2005	Yes. Consultative referendum: 56.52% to 43.48% in favour, 87.77% participation.[19][20] Yes. Châmber: 57 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[21]	30 January, 2006
Belgium	28 April 2005 19 May 2005 17 June 2005 20 June 2005 29 June 2005 19 July 2005 8 February 2006	Yes. Senaat/Sénat: 54 to 9 in favour, one abstention.[22] Yes. Kamer/Chambre: 118 to 18 in favour, one abstention.[23] Yes. Parlement Bruxellois/Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement: 70 to 10 in favour, 0 abstentions.[24] Yes. Parlament der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft: 21 to 2 in favour, no abstentions.[25] Yes. Parlement wallon: 55 to 2 in favour, 0 abstention.[26] Yes. Parlement de la Communauté française: 79 to 0 in favour, no abstentions.[27] Yes. Vlaams Parlement: 84 to 29 in favour, one abstention.[28]	13 June, 2006
Estonia	9 May 2006	Yes. Riigikogu: 73 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[29]	26 September, 2006
Bulgaria	1 January, 2007	Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005	Not required
Romania	1 January, 2007	Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005	Not required
Slovakia	11 May, 2005	Yes. Národná rada: 116 to 27 in favour, four abstentions.[30]	Pending. President of the republic has not yet signed the law.
Germany	12 May 2005 27 May 2005	Yes. Bundestag: 569 to 23 in favour, two abstentions.[31] Yes. Bundesrat: 66 to 0 in favour, three abstentions.[32]	Pending. President of the republic has not yet signed the law (due to pending decisions of the Constitutional Court).[33]
Finland incl. Åland[34]	5 December 2006 Cancelled	Yes. Eduskunta/Riksdag: 125 to 39 in favour, four abstentions.[35] Lagting[36]	Pending
France	29 May 2005 Cancelled Cancelled	No. Referendum: 54.68% to 45.32% against, 69.34% participation.[37][38] Assemblée Nationale: Sénat:
Netherlands	1 June 2005 Cancelled Cancelled	No. Consultative referendum: 61.54% to 38.46% against, 63.30% participation.[39][40] Tweede Kamer: Eerste Kamer:
Czech Republic	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Senát: Poslanecká sněmovna:
Denmark	Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Folketing:
Ireland	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Dáil Éireann: Seanad Éireann:
Poland	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Sejm: Senat:
Portugal	Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Assembleia da Republica:
Sweden	Cancelled	Riksdag:
United Kingdom	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: House of Commons: House of Lords:

Signatory	Final vote date	Chamber			AB	Deposition[41]	Ref.
Austria	9 April 2008	National Council	151	27	0		[42]
	24 April 2008	Federal Council	58	4	0		[43]
Belgium	6 March 2008	Senate	48	8	1		[44][45]
	10 April 2008	Chamber of Representatives	116	18	7		[46]
	Mid-July 2008	Brussels Regional Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	Flemish Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	Walloon Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	French Community Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	German-speaking Community Parliament					[45]
Bulgaria	21 March 2008	National Assembly	195	15	30	28 April 2008	[47] [48]
Cyprus	Summer 2008	House of Representatives
Czech Republic	TBD	Chamber of Deputies				! [49]
	TBD	Senate
Denmark	24 April 2008	Diet	90	25	0		[50]
Estonia	May 2008	Diet					[51]
Finland incl. Åland Islands	Autumn 2008	Parliament					[52]
	TBD	Åland Parliament					[53]
France [54]	7 February 2008	National Assembly	336	52	22	14 February 2008	[55]
	7 February 2008	Senate	265	42	13		[56]
Germany	24 April 2008	Federal Diet	515	58	1		[57] [58]
	23 May 2008	Federal Council					[59]
Greece	Summer 2008	Assembly of the Greeks
Hungary	20 December 2004	National Assembly	323	12	8	6 February 2008	[60]
Ireland	12 June 2008	Referendum					[61]
	TBD	House of Representatives
	TBD	Senate
Italy	25 January 2005	Chamber of Deputies	436	28	5
	25 May 2005	Senate of the Republic	217	16	0
Latvia	8 May 2008	Diet	70	3	1		[62]
Lithuania	11 November 2004	Diet	84	4	3		[63]
Luxembourg	29 May 2008	Chamber of Deputies					[64]
Malta	29 January 2008	House of Representatives	65	0	0	6 February 2008	[65]
Netherlands	June 2008	Second Chamber					[66]
	Autumn 2008	First Chamber
Poland	1 April 2008	House of Representatives	384	56	12		[67]
	2 April 2008	Senate	74	17	6
Portugal	23 April2008	Assembly of the Republic	208	21	0		[68]
Romania	4 February 2008	Parliament	387	1	1		[69] [70]
Slovakia	10 April 2008	National Council	103	5	1		[71] [72]
Slovenia	1 February 2005	National Assembly	79	4	0	24 April 2008	[73]
Spain	20 February 2005	Consultative referendum	76.73%	17.24%	57.68%
	28 April 2005	Congress of Deputies	311	19	0
	18 May 2005	Senate	225	6	1
Sweden	November 2008	Diet
United Kingdom incl. Gibraltar	No Date	House of Commons
	No Date	House of Lords
	TBD	Gibraltar Parliament					[74]
European Union	12 January 2005	European Parliament	500	137	36	N/A	[75] [76]

I quick failed the GA nomination for British National Party due to the presence of maintenance templates ({{pov}} and {{citecheck}}). GA-class articles must not have maintenance templates on them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've made a second edit which hopefully will appease everyone. However, please look over WP:LEDE and featured articles. I'd really prefer discussing things or bringing them to WP:3O rather than engaging in silly edit warring.DanielEng (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the 24 WikiProject is having a discussion on whether to implement the new C-Class into our assessment scheme, is taking place on the assessment talk page. Feel free to add your input here. SteveBot (owner) 06:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note that Reed Pollock and Walid Al-Rezani are up for discussion to be merged.

Discussion is currently taking place as to how the project will use images, the quantity of images in our articles, and whether we are currently overusing images. Your input is requested on this page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Hi. I have started a discussion at Image talk:DafyddIwan.jpg about the application of Fair Use to a Crown Copyrighted image when a free equivalent exists. If possible, I would like to see your reasoning for your dispute of the deletion and links to relevant policies that support your view. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NationalRailRoundell.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as a veteran editor I wish your comments on the talk page for History of Plaid Cymru, and Plaid Cymru pages, as editor DrFrench is attempting to delete images without first posting any warning, images that we have understood to be properly sourced. Your assistance is very much requested. I fear DrFrench's motives may be political in nature, and do not want this to escalate out of hand. If the images are indeed worth deleting, then I wont stand in the way. But the sneaky way in which it has been done... usually I see warning boxes beforehand... leads me to be suspect.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your recent edits have been questionable. You can't justify using Copyrighted photos when there are alternative photos under free licenses. It's quite simple.

--Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DafyddIwan.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. 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, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I noticed that you have added the source to Image:DafyddIwan.jpg. Unfortunately, however, an image from the Plaid Cymru website is copyright Plaid Cymru, not Crown Copyright. Do you know what the licensing terms Plaid Cymru have designated for the image? Road Wizard (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said on the talk page Plaid has given a blanket copyright waiver for all of the images to be used under terms of crown copyright. I now advocate absolutely no images due to the ridiculous and petty nature that this has taken. I also question the reliability of the other images to have sought the consent of the subjects to have had their images taken in the first place where do i express these concerns?--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real requirement for consent in terms of copyright in the UK. If you take an image of a person then it is your image (even if the person objects). It may seem a little unfair to people who dislike being photographed, but that is what the current law allows. Road Wizard (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you sight legal precedent or legislation supporting this point of view.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to tie-up. If an image is Crown Copyright, then Plaid are in no position to offer any waivers. If the copyright is held by Plaid, then they should upload the image themselves using a GFDL-compatible license. In any event, Wikipedia does not accept limited waivers such as 'for educational use' or 'for use on Wikipedia' as free licences - any images released under restrictions like that are deemed as non-free images. And we're back at square one; non-free images require a fair-use rationale template to be completed for each and every article that the image is used in - and as images of living people are deemed by Wikipedia policy to be replaceable, it's not possible for to create a valid fair-use rationale. It's not ridiculous or petty, it's just protecting Wikipedia's credibility by complying with the policies created to protect Wikipedia. I tried previously to help, inform and guide you as to why the images were unacceptable, but you delete my comments. Have a look at WP:NONFREE and all will start to become clear. Thank you. DrFrench (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any user is entitled to retain any comments from any user on their talk page. Plaid are offering identical use of the images as allowed under crown copyright. That is why the tag is being used in this situation as the conditions being given by Plaid are identical to crown copyright.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't sound right. Either the image is Crown Copyright or it is not. If the image copyright is helpd by Plaid but released under conditions similar to Crown Copyright - then it's not Crown Copyright; just copyright released under a specific set of conditions. But in any event it's a moot point, as whichever is the case the conditions of the release are not acceptable to Wilkipedia. DrFrench (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there same way the Plaid Cymru article can be protected from Lucy Marie's attempts to delete photos ? By deleting photos which meet Wikipedia's licensing guidelines, Lucy Marie is dissuading other photographers to come forward and contribute material which enhances content. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask why it has been deemed necessary to go ahead with removal of all of the other images which are under dispute. The normal practice is that all images remain until the dispute is deleted. I am of the opinion that either all oiff the names should have images or none at all. I would personally like to bar any re-adding of any images to the page while this dispute is going on. Also please do not be so arrogant to refer to me in the third person on my talk page it is demeaning and insulting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]