Stop adding semi-protection notices to articles which aren't semi-protected. If you want to request semi-protection for an article, go to WP:RPP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd like to keep the discussion here rather than fragmenting it across our separate talk pages. This talk page is on my watchlist, so I'll see when you reply.

i am semi protecting articles to prevent vandalism before it happens not after it has happened i personally thin prevention is better than cure so if we can discourage vandalism and protect vulnerable pages from vandalism i think we should protect them from vandalism also can you delete the broken picture on the lancing college page please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) .

Semi-protection can only done by admins. When you added the semi-protection notices it didn't semi-protect the article. If you want to ask an admin to semi-protect a page, you have to go to WP:RPP. Also, articles are only semi-protected when a large amount of vandalism comes from several different users in a single day, and glancing at some of the pages you tried to semi-protect, not all of them qualified. We don't want to discourage anyone from editing unless absolutely necessary. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for the full explanation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i thank you for this so. i request that gordon brown and john prescott be protected from vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, both articles have only been vandalised once today. That isn't close to the amount of vandalism necessary to justify semi-protection.

But I did remove that broken link for you. Image code looks like this: [[Image:Teme_House.jpg|thumb|300px| Teme House, Lancing College]], so if you want to remove a picture in future, just find that code and delete it. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~, which produces the name and the date, like this: --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is not a copyright violation, the entire text of an act of parliament, such as Appropriation Act 2000, is simply not encyclopedic. I have created an external link to it. -- RHaworth 07:23, 17 May 2006 (GMT)

Did you do this edit? If so, please note that it is a cowardly thing to edit anonymously - always log in before editing. Why did you do the edit, given my message above? Why this act out of huindreds?

If you want something useful to do in this area, why not answer the following questions: What is the difference between Consolidated Fund Act 2000 (Ch. 3) and Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Act 2000 (Ch. 9. They seem to come in matched pairs every year. -- RHaworth 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking our dispute over the Robot Wars articles to arbitration. I see no other option. Lenin & McCarthy 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratton 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucy-marie,

Thanks for removing the image from the Gymslip article. Since I'm not an administrator I can't delete the image myself; we'll have to wait until someone with admin rights comes to it on the copyright violations page. Once that happens, the image should be deleted. Dbratton 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason someone placed the disputed tag in the article Tiger Woods. You removed it without discussion or consensus. I've reverted it, and want to warn you that simply removing tags like this without any dicussion at all can be considered vandalism. Try reading the new contributors' help page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - CobaltBlueTony 15:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please be more polite when you talk to someone i am not an idiot but how can common consencus be deemed a non netural point of view.Lucy-marie 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name of the program that I am using. I reverted your edit since it was on someone else's userpage. If any issues arise please contact me. Yanksox 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism because it's my talk page, not yours. No harm, no foul, no one was hurt, and a user page is not an encyclopedia article. - CobaltBlueTony 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair doos well let you have your page and ill have mine its been claased not be vandalism. Its just a disliked edit not vandalism.Lucy-marie 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Tiger Woods is vandalism, because the Wikipedia policy on vandalism (linked above) states:

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled.

Likewise, your edit to my talk page was in bad form and impolite within the Wikipedia community. - CobaltBlueTony 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which template? And if you want to leave a message, please leave it on my talk page, not the userbox area!

Micoolio101 (talk)

{{User dolphin}}

Copy the above and place it in your userbox area.

Micoolio101 (talk)

You don't seem to have added this case to the front page of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, so the reason no-one has offered to mediate this case so far is that no-one knew it existed. I've added it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Opentask (so it appears in Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask) for you. (I also replied to your question on my talkpage.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. I see User:Kcordina offered to mediate on User talk:Lenin & McCarthy. I'll revert my edits. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left me a very thoughtful message. However, since (A) Your British and (B) A teenager I will refrain from responding in kind. I would appreciate if you would do the same and refrain from vandalism.

I am monitoring the recent changes, that's how I found your page. I reverted your edits because your page was just a copy-and-paste of the real page. If you want to make a redirect, just type in #REDIRECT [[Pagename]]. Hope that helps. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Clockwise and counterclockwise was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

== Stop reverting ==

On the Clockwise and counterclockwise talk page, it has been established that the current name is the one to keep. Your page should serve as a redirect. If you keep reverting against consensus, you may be blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]