Talk Page Archives

Thanks for uploading File:Roy Whititng.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you recently attempted to insert a photo of Maxine Carr into the Soham murders article. Please do not attempt to do this. As the article states, Carr has been given a new identity, due to the risk to her from personal attack. In addition, there have been several attacks on women mistakenly identified as Carr. Given that any photo is unlikely to be an accurate representation of Carr, and given the risks to others entailed, any image of her is likely to be removed immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also draw your attention to this [1] from the BLP/N archives:

Soham murders

The "Soham Murders" article notes that Maxine Carr "won an injunction on 24 February, 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs." Yet the article publishes a photograph of Maxine Carr. I believe the article is (1) endangering Maxine Carr and other women of similar appearance, and (2) in contempt of the court injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodnala (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the photo and watchlisted the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are editing from the UK, I'd suggest you consider the legal implications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this may need to be looked in a greater level of detail. Simply having a photograph of her during the trial is acceptable under fair usage. A recent photo and details of where she is living and her new name etc would be covered by the injunction, archive photos though may or may not be covered, but are highly unlikely to be as it would make previous publications illegeal after being legally published and sold etc. Could you please elaborate on your legal cliam above. This may also be a legal threat which is precluded under Wiki rules but so far i simply believe this needs more looking into this may need to go all the wat to an arbitration committee and may require a solicitor or lawyer to look in to this. By what you are saying is that the BBC and other news outlets they would have to remove all the photos of Carr from previously released news articles written on her which is not what has happened. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that another editor has suggested that including a picture of Carr might be in contempt of court is not in any way a legal threat - perhaps you should ask the editor about this. For now, I don't see any reason to either involve an arbitration committee or lawyers. Instead, you should raise the matter on the article talk page, explaining why you think an image of Carr is necessary. Personally, I think there are ample reasons not to, the most obvious one being the risks this might entail. Given Carr's peripheral role in the murders it seems difficult to understand what an image would add in any case. Unless you can gain consensus that an image is necessary, the question of whether it might be illegal is moot AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have now raised our discussions of this and related issues here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Soham_murders.2FMaxine_Carr. There seemed little point in discussing this on the talk page with only the two of us involved, and there seem to be significant issues involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Millyinuniformsmall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BelovedFreak 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Laci Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  pablo 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion here because it is not about the article, but about your struggle to understand the proposal and how it was closed. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the instructions, it should not be modified. The closing admin has nearly 160k edits to his/her name, there is no benefit AT ALL in changing the result, striking out the closing admin's closure comments, it's purely disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the number of edits a user has made. The closing user has still made a mistake. It is time to stop being demeaning and realise that errors happen from all users and not just users whom you stalk TRM. You can make millions of edits and that doesn't mean you are mistake free. No consensus is where neither side can reach an agreement in an outcome. This was blatantly and blindingly obviously a No Move and not no consensus as every single user except the nominator was opposed to the idea. No consensus would have been an even split both for and against moving of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying. The experienced editor who closed the discussion found no consensus to move. Where's the argument here? This is NOT a vote, remember? The proposal was "to move the page", Wikipedia is "not a democracy" and we don't "vote" because voting is evil, remember? So, concluding with "no consensus in favour to make the move" is 100% accurate. 100% accurate. 100% accurate. You should need no more explanation than that. No mistake was made by the closing admin. The mistake was made by you editing closed discussions. The mistake was to push your own POV. Stop your disruptive editing. Check your current editing, you'll see that a number of your edits (on other articles) have been reverted (not by me). I'm not stalking anyone, I'm just checking that disruptive editors aren't allowed to disrupt Wikipedia. If they do, they get blocked. Once again, if you keep accusing me here and there (and mainly in your pithy edit summaries), I suggest you take me to an RFC or some other body who may deal with your ongoing arguments with many editors. My interest is in keeping the integrity of Wikipedia articles intact; your approach (and perhaps I don't understand what you try to achieve here, but...) seems, well, .... different .... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the consensus of the above discussion; and that was not to move. A no consensus would be where there were no overwhelming arguments on one side or the other for or against the proposal. Stop claiming disruption where none exists, stop claiming bad editing where none exists and recognise that others make mistakes (as opposed to your obsession with only me making mistakes) and that you are not perfect. Finally stop making baseless threats to block me as you have an obsession with my editing and love stalking me, you have no interest in Wiki integrity you are just obsessed with me and the edits that I make. You stalk me by starting editing pages you have never taken an interest in on a subject you have never taken an interest in, simply for one reason i have made an edit to the page. You need to stop stalking me and then maybe you can uphold the integrity of Wikipedia as you won’t be being disruptive as stalking is a disruptive activity on Wikipedia.--22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere if you can be bothered. This is a baseless, pointless and wasteful diatribe. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a sensible suggestion from you.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I look forward to hearing your arguments elsewhere. And I also look forward to you reducing your disruptive edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to an end to your obsessive diruptive stalking.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Take it elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, "No consensus..." is the usual phrase for announcing the result of a Move discussion, and does not imply anything like the counting of votes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no consensus to move seems usual and correct for this closure. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a missing of the point of the meaning of the phrase no consensus. There was a clear consensus here and that was not to move the page. There was not no consensus to move the page. The clear consensus was against moving the page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the motion was to "move the page". The result was "no consensus to move the page". Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again, the result was a clear consensus not to move the page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!!!!! EXACTLY what the closing admin said. No consensus to move the page! Sorry, are you looking at something different from me? Or are you arguing that "consensus not to move the page" is different from "no consensus to move the page"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between those two phrases. No consensus implies there were evenly balanced arguments on both sides for and against. in this case there was a clear consensus not to move the page so in this case there was a consensus and not no consensus to move, there was clear consensus agianst moving.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of a consensus to move the page is what is at issue. Rothorpe (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance there was no absence of consensus. Consensus was clearly against the move.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the consensus that was at issue. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the motion was clear and that was "No Move" not no consensus to move. No consensus to move implies arguments on both sides for and against evenly split. Here the consensus was clear and that was no move of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it now, you have got me giggling - I am going to add this to the list of lame discussions if you carry on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hablo ingles?". ROFLMAO? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious discussion, with immature users who do not want to participate seriously. If you don't want to participate then sinmply don't comment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about, no consensus to move, default to do not move. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about that when there is genuinly no consensus. Where there is a consensus either way ther result should be either Move or No move. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm kind of with Lucy Marie on this one. I brought this up on the closers talk page, as I'm also of the opinion that "No consensus" was the wrong closing phrase. Whilst Yes, there was no consensus to move the page, there was quite clearly an overall opinion, and given the snowball strength of that opinion, I think the closing phrase could have been better worded. No consensus implies that it could have been a close run thing, or even an equally split opinion. a_man_alone (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]