User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Top Gear

Why have you moved the articles to Top Gear (Original-format) and Top Gear (Current-format) with hyphens? I don't want to get involved in the war about renaming, but the hyphens just seems wrong. Stephenb (Talk) 08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, but see Help:Moving a page - you can move a page where the target exists and is just a redirection. So, you could probably have moved the page without the need for a hyphenated title. Hope that helps. Stephenb (Talk) 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Baker and others

Hi. I saw that you suggested at Talk:Tom Baker (24 character) that he be merged with Minor characters in 24, but you met with opposition. I have revived the argument, for many other 24 characters as well, and would appreciate you input on their being merged, as well as merging Tom Baker. Thanks asyndeton 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Final

The name for that match is the Bronze Final, not Third place playoff, according to www.rugbyworldcup.com. Please stop changing it. - PeeJay 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

24 Template

Hey Lucy-marie. I just thought I'd ask for you to put in your two cents on the new 24 template here. We seem to be of the same mind on the deletions issue, so I hope you'll feel just as outraged at the template as I do. I've listed my concerns on the talk page and I'de be grateful if you could give your opinion. Thanks. asyndeton 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Ipswich murder investigation

Hello, we seem at odds over a few edits made at the 2006 Ipswich murder investigation article. Please be assured that I'm not trying to own the article, simply trying my best to adhere to good prose, good grammar and a more readable article. Should you disagree with my reversions of some of your edits, please feel free to get in touch with me personally so we can come to an agreement on the way forward. I'm positive that we're both trying to achieve the same thing, an article of high quality. All the best, and looking forward to working together with you, The Rambling Man 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you have to bear in mind that good prose would allow the use of "she". Besides that, you've started a few sentences with "Disappeared..." which is more like a crime report and less like the kind of decent prose Wikipedia articles should aim for. Hope you're okay with my changes. Let me know if there's more I can explain. The Rambling Man 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Well I think we could compromise by allowing the odd "she" and mixing it with the surname e.g. "Alderton's...". The one thing we must get right though is the grammar, so we've got to make sure apostrophes etc are correct. Hope that makes sense? The Rambling Man 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Her and she

The rule that "she" should be avoided at the beginning of a sentence is a new one on me. Is this a Wikipedia preference or is there another convention? My only consideration is readable prose in English sentences, as opposed to ones lacking verbs etc! Cheers! Bluewave 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"24" Merge-a-Palooza

This massive character merge-fest you and Asyndeton will wind up placing most of the articles in a single, massive artilce that will have to be split. Besides, you claim that every single villain, sans Nina, has made no impact in the show. They are the main antagonists, just cause they are dead it doesn't mean they've made no impact.--Gonzalo84 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

24 merger

OK, I'll give it a go, but I've never merged anything before. Do I just blank the page, add in the redirect to the Minor Characters Page and add in an appropriate amount of prose over there? asyndeton 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done three or so. Everything seems to be going alright. Just thought, are I supposed to blank talk pages, or are they needed for some bureaucratic reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asyndeton (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NOT resolved

The issue is still not resolved and what is the rational behind the opinion of it being reesolved. The Issue still standas ONIH is stalking me and unecessarily causing stress to another user. If I had provoked the user in this case then I would accept the reasining but this time it was just because ONIH wanted to be nasty. Also the case is not about The cool wall.--Lucy-marie 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is resolved as far as ANI goes. You might just manage to find someone interested at WP:DR, but this is not something that requires administrator attention. If you have accidentally edited with an IP and wish those edits to be removed for privacy reasons, then you need WP:OVERSIGHT, but you're not going to get any action based on your complaint as stated at ANI. And I say this as one of the individuals active in removing harassment and stalking. What you have is a dispute between editors: if ONIH is wrong about the IP, then it belongs at WP:DR, if he's right and you want it removed, go to WP:OVERSIGHT, and if you want to recruit supporters to join your fight, go to WP:RECRUIT. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I would like to thank you for a point in the riught direction and would liek to have hackney removed form continuosly being abusive and continuosly stalking me on everysingle page he dislike my edits on.--Lucy-marie 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • ONIH is usually a good person, so I find it hard to believe he is harassing you. You would need to cite some evidence of that. If you look at WP:DR you will find links to the mediation committee, who are probably the best people to handle this issue at this stage. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

THis can be found mainly in the BNP archives the G8and EU archives and in the history of his talk page and mine. He is not some nioce person to all user he is a nasty and vindictive user to people who espouse a diffrent opinion he dislikes.--Lucy-marie 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that a checkuser confirmed that those edits were yours to a very high degree of probability. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo on CTU

Whoops, sorry about the mistake. Will watch closer next time. Thanks. Mbisanz 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

George Mason and Chase Edmunds

I think you've gone too far in merging these two. At the very least, characters who were part of the regular cast should be exempt. I've been busy these past few weeks but I'm going to be looking at merge proposals with greater scrutiny and doing more to oppose them. --T smitts 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for trying to merge people like Edgar Stiles and Sherry Palmer. Stop, please. --T smitts 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

24 AfD's

Good morning. I undid your move of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Government in 24 (TV) to another, similar Afd. Though I agree that the nominations could be combined, it's not really possible to do that once there have been recommendations made, especially if the recommendations are not unanimous (e.g. there's a delete and a keep). I plan to !vote on both, and will indicate that they are similar - but, unless I'm missing something, it's probably too late to combine them. Sorry for the confusion. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles can be nominated at the same time, and articles can be added to the nomination right after it's made, before any !votes are cast. Now that there are comments... I don't know. I'll look into it. In the meantime, I'll note that there is another AfD on each of them, and that should tie the two together well enough. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Payne

Murder victim Sarah Payne went missing in Littlehampton and died somewhere between there and Pulborough, but Littlehampton was where her grandparents lived. She was visiting them at the time and she and her parents/siblings lived in the Walton-on-Thames area, which is also where Amanda Dowler lived. 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, noticed you were having trouble with where Sarah Payne lived. She definitely lived in Hersham, Surrey. This BBC article mentions the proximity of her family home, the middle school she attended (Bell Farm, Hersham), and the Hersham church where her funeral was held. This from the Independent mentions her infant school (Burhill, Hersham). However, neither these nor the citation in the infobox (which I've removed) actually reference her birthplace. hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony Almeida & others

This is ridiculous. When I first told you that I was keen on merging some of the 24 related articles, I did not mean every single article. This has got completely out of hand. Tony is obviously a very important part of 24 and we need an article on him. You have provided no reasoning for this suggested merger and I will await your logic. You have gone far beyond merging the nobodies that only appear in one episode. asyndeton 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the merger tags you added. To be honest I think you have shown pretty poor judgement in adding the tags, you appear to have added tags to characters that even you do not think should be merged (correct me if I am wrong about this). Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (1994) good article review

Hi, I noticed that you began this review a while ago. I was wondering how the review is going. I don't mean to rush you, so if you need more time, I can totally understand. I just noticed that it had been a long time and was wondering if you are working on it or if you plan to complete it. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tower 42

The building is known as Tower 42. Nobody I know anywhere calls it by the street address of 25 Old Broad Street. Please remove the redirect and change it back. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

London skyscrapers

Thanks for pissing all over the London skyscraper articles. Well done on totally fucking up every single one of them. Nice of you to discuss these changes before implementing them by the way. /sarcasm. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is going to call London Bridge Tower by its street address. Nobody calls Tower 42 by its street address. Ditto for all the others. As for 201 Bishopsgate, it's a completely separate development to the Broadgate Tower so you've managed to ruin that article as well. Please restore these articles to their original state and remove all these stupid redirects. I can assure you I won't rest until you've done this. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Building renaming

Why have you changed the names of numerous skyscrapers from well known names such as Tower 42 and The Shard to non entity street names. Do you want to rename say the Chrysler Building to 405 Lexington Avenue or Empire State Building to 350 Fifth Avenue after their street address and not after their actual names which everyone in the world knows. Why have you done this? Do you want to change other buildings such as Buckingham Palace or the White House after their street addresses as opposed to their actual correct names as well. Surely in my opinion they should be referred to their commonly referred to name and not changed without any form of consultation to a generic and confusing street name. --Wrh1973 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by this. You appear to be renaming articles with no discussion to names which the building's official websites and news articles do not use. Please explain the reasoning. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. An explanation would be greatly appreciated, Lucy-marie. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I refuse to respond to rude comments left on my talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To try and avoid an edit war, I've listed a requested move back to Tower 42. Please feel free to add your views to Talk:25 Old Broad Street. Paulbrock (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:UK names of skyscrapers

Hello, Lucy-marie, and thank you for contacting me. But, I would like to point out that it was you who moved each of the pages without any discussion to begin with, and moved pages against WP:NC. I simply "reverted" your undiscussed moves. Your proposal at User talk:Andrewa/systematic names is just that: a proposal. No action should have been taken by you until you had discussed on the talk pages to make sure that there was consensus to move the pages, which is clearly not the case from subsequent discussion. Next time, before undertaking drastic moves, please start discussions on the talk page. And please do not proceed to claim that my following of official Wikipedia policy per WP:NC is "American-centrism". What evidence do you have to support this besides the fact that I edit American articles? There is no different between "common names" of buildings in the U.S. and the U.K., and this has nothing to do with "commercialisation", as we are talking about common and not official names. I agree that the discussion on the Citigroup Centre page may have merit, but you need to discuss a move before, not after, you go through with it (If it were to move, it should be to 25 Canada Square, the actual address). I suggest you request a move now or in the future for this page, now that the page has moved back to its original name. Cheers, Rai-me 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am rapidly losing whatever patience I had with you and the fact that every topic you touch lately appears to descend into a ridiculous you-vs-everyone else edit war. You're within your rights to make changes as per WP:BOLD, but as you've received numerous complaints about this — and, as far as I can tell, not a single person agrees with you so far on this matter — if you continue to edit-war without discussion, I will re-block you for disruption. In light of your history, I'm no longer going to AGF from you; if I see any further sockpuppetry from you on this (or any other) matter, I will hardblock your IP address. — iridescent 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have waded into a civilised discussion between two user discussing their differences. Just because you dislike one of the editors doesn't mean you should blow it out of all proportion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've waded into a discussion between you and six other users, all of whom disagree with you. When you restored the page following Somali123's blanking, the previous discussion was (presumably inadvertently) lost. — iridescent 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to say move on now and have a nice day please let me get on with editing in peace or are you going to scrutinise every single edit i make until I die?--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be preparied for a number of users to be scrutinising your edits for a while. When you post to the AN and the AN/I you make yourself very visible. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply (Cntd.)

Not maybe; you should have. There was clearly no consensus to move all building names to addresses. But oh well, you're right, that is in the past. There was one ongoing discussion (if you can call last edits on the 23 of December "ongoing" ...), at the Citigroup Centre page. I now see the qualms you have about the Citigroup Centre, but I completely agree with other users that moving the page to an address would not be wise. The article is not about one building, or even two; it is about the commercial complex, which should be at the common name of the company (I would personally think that perhaps two separate articles about the buildings in the complex may be warranted - in this case, names of addresses would be appropriate to use). The article clearly discusses the entire center over the separate buildings, and that therefore an address would be inappropriate. And I did not at all violate WP:POINT; I moved back buildings to the original names, for which there was clearly consensus: [1], [2]. And you are wrong about all buildings "needing" individual discussions; several page can be moved at once based on one discussion. It was pretty clear what the consensus was for all UK building based on the discussions at the Tower 42 and Shard London Bridge pages. I am going to AGF and trust that you really felt that you were doing the right think per policy in moving the pages under WP:BOLD, but please discuss radical moves in the future.

I really don't think you can claim I am "American-centric" or biased based on the pages I work on. I live in the U.S., and know more about U.S. buildings, so I do tend to work on them. That does not make me biased, however; see List of tallest buildings in Dubai, on which I recently collaborated with several editors to bring to FL-status, and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. I do not appreciate your rude, accusatory comments. Some UK buildings use the address as the name; this is no way means that all buildings need to use it. Many U.S. buildings also use their address. The bottom line is, there is already a naming convention for all akyscrapers - the common name. I think that you are clearly not in the majority in stating that UK article names need to be standardized. Cheers, Rai-me 16:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Doyle (24 character)

Just to let you know my collapsing of this conversation and the subsequent comment isn't intended as a personal dig at you; while I've no strong opinion either way on the issue, I'm inclined to agree with you on this issue, as per my original comparisons. (Lily Potter has far more significance in popular culture, and gets on just fine as a subsection in a minor characters list.) — iridescent 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

24 Character Edits

The alias information you keep deleting is NOT cruft, Lucy. The use of the "Harris Barnes" alias explains how Marwan was able to gain access to his position at McClennan Forester as well as helping the agents to determine who Marwan actually was. Also, please note the following statement on the "cruft" page to which you directed me.

"....Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Angelriver (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of a name only used in the show and the name of a company only used in the show is not high prority information, which will significantly detrement the quality of the article if it is not there. WP:cruft also states "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question."

That though is neither here nor there as the essay is not enforcable as it is neither policy nor guideline and as such no user is obliged to follow it. --Lucy-marie (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous argument. EVERYTHING used in the show is only used in that show. Where else would it be used, Lucy? Also, I'm sure it's a typo on your part, but are you sure that you didn't mean to say that the ADDITION of the information would be a detriment to the quality of the article and not it's removal? Also, if the "cruft" essay is of so little importance that no user is obliged to follow it, why even direct me to it? Or is it only unimportant as it applies to you? Angelriver (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil in discussions. The removal of the information is a trimming down of unecessary plot information which is not necessary, to the article in question.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am being civil, Lucy. I was merely pointing out that, according to the Wiki guidelines of which you are so fond, saying that a user's contribution is nothing but fancruft is uncivil. Angelriver (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of non-notable information is encouraged to prevent the article from becoming purley a plot summary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I don't see how the inclusion of a single name in a single line of text turns the entire article into a plot summary. The fact that you don't think it should be included, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included. Angelriver (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The same sentiment is true both ways. Information regarding characters should read as an impersonal encyclopedia account. The inculsion of the information creates a sence that prior information regarding the show is required.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How is including his alias making it "personal"? It's a simple fact that was documented in the show. Angelriver (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the phrase does not necessarily make it personal, but the inclusion changes the tone from being an impersonal review to an analysis of the plot. The tone of the article should be easily accessible to a lay person with little or no prior knowledge of any character. This means that easy to read and understand summaries are required. The summaries should not read with prior knowlegde of the show being required.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, the phrase "Marwan gains access to a high-security position at McClennen Forrester using the alias of Harris Barnes..." does not affect the tone any differently than "Marwan uses an alias to gain access to a high-security position at McClennen Forrester...." The former is just as easy to read and is just as accessible to any lay person. There is no prior knowledge required. Angelriver (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest and edit something other than 24 on Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a rest and stop trying to impose your will on everyone else? Oh, and that comment potentially violates the civil tone of the discussion that you tell everyone else not to violate, proving once again that you think the rules apply to everyone but you. Angelriver (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment has been revoked, the civility code applies to all users. As was said by another user a cooling of period is required and a step back may be needed, and also dispute resolution may be the place settle this. Could you also please provide evidence of the claims of double standards.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence other than your own uncivil comment that you just revoked after telling me to be civil? The talk pages are filled with your incivility where you have resorted to name calling and insults on numerous occasions. There have also been occasions where you have unilaterally merged articles WITHOUT consensus of the editors. Here's a thought for you to chew on: Instead of trying to nuke every single article involving "24" characters, why don't you actually try to improve the quality of the articles instead? Angelriver (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Minor characters in 24. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that dispute reolution is curently being undertaen on this subject regarding the vilage pump (assistance). Active discussions have been undertaken to engage with users, civility by certian users has not been maintianed. I have tried to stay on the content as far as possible and uphold the policies and guidelins of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good. The template I gave you actually turned out a little sterner than I meant it to - an information template would have been more appropriate. I gave the same warning to Angelriver, just to gently remind you both that you may soon violate 3RR whether you intend to or not. Also, can I make a request? You archived this comment before I had a chance to reply, and before you even knew whether I wanted to reply. Could you try to wait about two days after a comment is made before archiving it? You could get MiszaBot III to archive it automatically for you. It won't hurt to leave it for a short while, like 48 hours, then archive, will it? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

24 dispute

Have you considered filing a mediation cabal case over the 24 dispute? It might help you and Angelriver to sort this out.--Phoenix-wiki 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistant Referee and other football articles

Hi Lucy, I just wanted to mention a couple of things to you - firstly would you mind adding the reason for your proposed merge of Assistant Referee and Referee (football) to their talk pages? Just helps to clarify things!

Also, a couple of people (myself included) at Wikiproject Football have noticed you've edited a lot of football articles recently - I know your edits are generally constructive and well-meant, but it's started a small discussion on the Wikiproject Football talk page.

I don't intend this as a dig, as I've seen that a lot of what you do is very helpful (I'm very much with you on merging Penalty area and Football pitch), just thought that it might be good to discuss your ideas to avoid possible edit-warring. Thanks, Paul Paulbrock (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Yassir Merger

My previous argument for the merge of Nadia Yassir was that it seems unlikely that she will come back but you have pointed out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I changed by stance to neutral. I am not a new user and have read What Wikipedia is Not, which encourages consensus. The consensus already seems present at the article talk page. миражinred (speak, my child...) 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

voluble != valuble

hi lucy-marie -- i rolled you back on your "correction" of my cmt. i meant "voluble" which means "loud". --Lquilter (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New Development

There has been a major new development with regard to Nadia Yassir. I was able to do some research regarding a nomination for an award for the person who portrayed the character, during season 6, I believe only kiefer was the other person who was even nominated for that season. Now, the question is: does that cover notability, in my opinion, yes, as it was outside the 24 universe, and an award nomination is a major factor regarding a character's notability.--Lan Di (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately

I hope you aren't working with judge. We were working together, and as that article is under arbitration, it should be left alone. Judge doesn't have a very good reputation from his talk page archives, and going through them, I found that many have a bad history with him. Yet you re-merged Drazen even though he was under arbitration. I can't re-revert it, as that will violate the 3RR rule.--Lan Di (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)