Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 10 December 2011

Talk Page Archives

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy Whititng.jpg

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Maxine Carr

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)

I should also draw your attention to this 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)

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)

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)

Please note that I have now raised our discussions of this and related issues here: Misplaced Pages: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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Millyinuniformsmall.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Millyinuniformsmall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

Merge discussion for Murder of Laci Peterson

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)

Discussion moved from Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler

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)

No struggling to understand, just simply pointing out an error was made, which for soem reason has caused wild, out of proportion and nonsensical reactions from my stalker.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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", Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages as you won’t be being disruptive as stalking is a disruptive activity on Misplaced Pages.--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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Survey

Hi Lucy-marie!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Misplaced Pages (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Misplaced Pages! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Crawley Council election, 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crawley Council election, 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crawley Council election, 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Template:Z81 Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Per the discussion at ANI, I have blocked this account indefinitely. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A life ban is unreasonable as no formal hearing has been undertaken and no way of attoning has been given, an effective life ban is over the top and goes against the principles of natural justice as this user has made large volumes construcitve edits and banning constrictive users permenantly is wholly unreasonable especially considering the other account belongs to my brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Oh, OK, your brother did it. And yes, you do seem to be a constrictive user. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lucy-marie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The above stated "You are welcome to edit constructively when the block expires". The edits made once the range block expired were wholly constructive and the edits were nothing but constructive. I feel it unreasonable to just go around and block every attempt at editing when the edits are nothing but constructive edits. While unconstructive edits have been made in the past blocking all editing from a user who is largely constructive is unreasonable. Can a way of the block being removed please be given. I would also like to appeal against the block being raised from one month to a life ban is unreasonable as it is retrospective justice and not a reasonable ban. I would not have appealed the one month ban and I have no intention of unconstructive editing again. If you do not think this to be genuine then please set out how this can be monitored.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You know full well that when you receive a block, it is YOU, the person who are blocked. Just because the underlying IP becomes unblocked, does not permit YOU to edit because YOU are blocked. Creating accounts while blocked - or even editing anonymously - is evading a valid block, and it makes zero difference as to the quality of the blocks from those accounts. Editing while blocked is "unconstructive", so to claim that you intend to no longer be "unconstructive" is absurd. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lucy-marie, you were primarily indefinitely blocked because you used multiple accounts to edit, i.e. you ran sockpuppets. You know this to be true. This overshadows your "constructive edits", you defied the policies of Misplaced Pages, what more would you expect? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked back in 2007 for socking with Jjamesj (talk · contribs)

You were then blocked on November 27 for socking with Somali123 (talk · contribs). Disruptive edits on that account include, but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (which I find hypocritical that you tell others to AGF yet fail to do on your part),

Blatant edit warring on European Grand Prix articles: , , , , ,

Blatant edit warring on Chase Edmunds: , , , ,

Blatant edit warring on Premier League articles: , ,

Blatant vandalism: , , , ,

You then evaded the block again with 95.147.55.213, which eventually led to your indefinite block. Disruptive edits with this IP include and .

On December 5, you created New User Twothousand (talk · contribs), which was also blocked. On that account, you proceeded to edit war on Rockall before that was blocked.

Everything above presents a rather convincing case that the community is unable to trust you to edit here any longer. –MuZemike 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that Rocakll is an edit war if i had been goven the opportunity before being blocked i would have spoken with the individual on the talk page of the article. An edit war is more than two edits.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On the premier league pages there was constructive and resoaned discussion on those pages and it wasnot a one sided as you are implying with your selective diffs.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, none of this "content discussion" is important. What's important is that you once again used sock puppets to avoid scrutiny. This is not welcome in this community, as you very well know. I suggest you find another project into which you can channel you energy from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TRM you are someone who has a serious dislike of me for reasons passing understanding and now you are crowing. You have failed to see reason and see that I am willing to allow for peole to decide what is reasonable, to allow me back editing. All I want is a time limit on this ban and a way back in.--Lucy-marie (talk)

L-M, why not explain User:Twothousand rather than accuse other editors? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That account wa to be used as a demonstartion that all I was doing on Misplaced Pages was constructive editing it was though cut off before that could be demonstrated. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Five years. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think any figure should be decided by those univolved with me in the past and not those with axes to grind.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who's ever been involved with you in the past has an axe to grind. I don't think a time limit should be imposed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Not crowing, just giving positive advice on how to direct your energy elsewhere, your continual use of sock puppets is bound to leave you indefinitely blocked I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I just find it unreasonable that a finite block was imposed to start with and was then raised without any attempt being made to contact me in anyway, to reply to what was being said. I was just simply blocked with no right of reply being given and the ban was raised to being a permenant ban with no way of "refroming" and no right to reply to any of the discussions being had. All I ask is for natural justice to be taken as opposed to this summary justice being imposed. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)