User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 10

Rome

We've been over this. I do not believe I have ownership over an article. What I believe is that your edits to the 2012 page are constructed in such a way that undermines the entire point of them. Listing the race as startsing in "2012 or 2013" negates the need for it to be included on the 2012 page, and you've long held the view that the 2012 page is unneccessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, remember the episode over the USGP? You refused to have it included in the table on the basis that it "might not happen" despite a contract existing and dozens of sources to support it. In the end, I had to go to WP:F1 and get a consensus from the community just to convince you to include it, when anybody else would have simply added it in without argument. You gave me some crap about having "higher standards of quality" or some such, and it didn't stick with anyone. So what the hell am I supposed to think when you've got a history of undermining pages like that simply because they don't adhere to your standards? We play by Wikipedia's rules, not yours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not assume good faith because I believe I have an historical precedent. That does not mean I automatically assume that you're up to something every time I see your edits, but that I question the need for them. I compare what existed and what it has been changed to before reverting edits and the reasons for making those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I disliked edits that you made because they removed valid information from an article simply because you felt it was unworthy of inclusion and that you clearly felt that your standards were the ones we should adhere to, as opposed to the standards that the rest of Wikipedia follows as if you are somehow an authority on the subject. Add to that the fact that I needed to get consensus for what should have been a non-issue just to get important information edited into an article that on any other page and with any other editor would have been included as a matter of due course. I don't like your edits because you clearly subvert the entire article; you have made your dislike of it clear in the past and because your removal of this information subverts and undermines the page. You remove pertinent information with the end result being that the article is little more than a skeleton of itself, serving no purpose and therefore being a candidate for deletion. If you have an issue with the 2012 page existing, then put it to consensus like everybody else would do instead of being sneaky about it and trying to exorcise enough information to justify AfD simply because you don't think it's worthy. That's why I don't like you - because you think you're a law unto yourself and that you should have your way even when consensus disagrees with you. So go ahead, get a moderator involved. I've got at least three examples from that page where your actions have subverted and undermined a page. That's why I think you have an agenda: because you ignore consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My belief of the way the article should be reflects the way I believe Wikipedia should be: as whole and complete a resource of information as possible. Provided information is properly referenced and is noteworthy, then it should be included in some way shape or form. It is the way I have written every article, and the way I have seen every article written. When you removed that information about the USGP from the 2012 page, you violated my belief about what Wikipedia is - but when I went to WP:F1 and argued for its inclusion, I got a consensus that said I was right. I improve Wikipedia by including all relevant information. You do not - as I have said, you have a history of removing information because you do not like the edits made because they do not align with your self-confessed beliefs about what is worthy of inclusion. It's called Wikipedia and not Lucypedia for a reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point of view. I have for a long time. And I cannot say that I have ever agreed with it once. Now, you'll no doubt assume that I simply jump to conclusions, but I have already told you that I do not. I look at what was written, what was changed and what it means for the article before I revert any edits. And I have not seen any from you that I can genuinely say were for the better. They only ever seem to peddle an agenda. You seem to have constructed this into being a one-man conspiracy against you. I will continue to judge the respective strengths of an edit regardless of who made it in the first place. For ome reason, you seem to think this is all about you. It's not. You just happen to be the most visible member out there. If you were to look at some of the edits I make - particularly outside the Formula 1 section (try the NCIS articles; the list of characters page in particular demonstrates this) - you'll see that this is the way I work on Wikipedia: assess the page, examine the edits made and follow through with neccessary changes for the benefit of the article. I have no further interest in discussing the matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Response:

Please clarify in what way is my recommendation for you to read wp:Civil, wp:own and wp:consensus any different from your repeated insistence that we all read wp:mos?

Throughout the Top gear discussions you have:

• refused to listen to other opinions - continually reverted to your own prefered format - wp:own & wp:consensus
• Insisted on using the terms "must" in your arguments, rather than the more friendly "should", or even better "in my opinion should" - wp:civil
• dodged answering questions about other formats suggested, or what you actually find either confusing or wrong about suggested formats - wp:civil
• suggested to other editors that they should read wp:mos when it could equally apply to you - except that it doesn't because MOS is about the style of an article, not the content - or even the potential cruftiness of the content.

I also see that your editing style & insistence is not recent with regard to Top Gear - several times in the past [1][2][3] you have removed the alternate descriptions, only for them to have been re-inserted by multiple editors. Note the important difference here - there are more editors re-inserting the details than there are removing them. a_man_alone (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. You are quite clearly unwilling to accept or listen to others, so indeed any more conversation is pointless. I will however leave you with the following that cannot be refuted:

• All my above comments are perfectly valid, in fact they relate only to Top Gear. what else could they relate to?
• You continously use the term "must", and although you did indeed start the topic, you did so as an an instruction[4], not as an invitation for discussion.
• Using a history is not only a perfect way, but the only way to prove a point. They're real diffs, so are neither bogus, nor tripe. I might add that suggesting my opinions are is also borderline incivility.
• Sorry, but two anon IP addresses and myself equals three contributors, and therefore counts as "multiple". Just because the editors either prefer to remain anonymous, are drive-by, or simply don't want to register does not lessen their value.
• You have refused to answer questions regarding what is or isn't confusing with regards to the suggested alternatives. (Should you break your silence, and just for old times sake, will you explain to me what is confusing about James Hewitt (credited as "Well spoken Man"))

And finally, your own attitude is far from ideal - I see I'm not the only brouhaha you're currently involved in[5]. Keep calm, and go for a cup of coffee. a_man_alone (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried talking to you, with little success.
• I do judge individual edits on their merits - and I used edit history to show them.
• The Queen is Gay? That's so close to Godwins Law that I feel obliged to claim my five pounds.
• Wikipedia is not democracy - it is not a Dictatorship either.
• Mob rule is what you call it when consensus goes against you.

a_man_alone (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison of editors claiming the Queen is gay is so far removed from reality that it bears no relevance to the actual topic. That is my comparison to Godwins Law - you are choosing something outrageous to prove your own point.

Consider this discussion over as neither of us is getting anything useful from the other: you think you're getting farce, and I believe I'm confronted with obstinance - let's reconvene in a month or so, and we'll compare talk page warnings or something equally productive.

I'm off now for that coffee. a_man_alone (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles

As an uninvolved administrator I have moved your RFC to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles, because the current location of the RFC had degenerated into questions about where the RFC should be placed rather than addressing the issue. You will get far more interest in this specific issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) than you will on the policy page.

I have asked an additional question which you lead into the RFC does not make clear: Where is the current "discussion going on over the titles for the people in the UK who have been given a peerage"? -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

Lucy, you have forcefully interfered in the topic twice. Not that I'm very keen for the discussion to be restarted (at times, it is hopeless to have a meaningful discussion here), but I think you need to give a better justification than the one you gave. "Not a general forum"? The points raised by me were specifically related to how the article was emphasizing low priority concerns and neglecting the more serious ones. Secondly, who is arguing here "weather [sic] staging the games was right or wrong"? Did you even bother to read the points raised by me? Anyways, just forcefully deleting the comment and then closing it just even without bothering to read the concerns raised by me just shows how you can go around abusing your privileges as an administrator. I'm pretty sure that you'll delete this comment too. Enjoy! --King Zebu (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting. --King Zebu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To King Zebu. Per the discussion on the talk page in question, it is not up to any single editor to rank or prioritise any given point. Discussion is fine, but putting down other editors just because they do not see eye to eye with you (King Zebu) is not constructive. Lucy marie's attempt at archiving that particular discussion was meant as a cooldown measure was not appreciated, so lets all monotor the situation for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI Courtesey notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion. Thank you. —Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrichello

I'm going to assume you aren't being difficult on purpose. Yes, Barrichello's article has been stable but the consensus already existed, and the sample table showed it, that the tables are multi-row. Why you now think that never happened, I don't know. It's not the first time, is it? OK, after a few days and your idea receives no support, I'll change it back. I'll even overlook your edit-warring, how does that sound? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Edit warring - you don't have to break 3RR to be edit-warring. I'm fully aware that I don't own the articles, despite the fact that I've worked on them, but you don't seem to be aware that a long-held policy is a consensus (Wikipedia:Silence and consensus) and that exists until a change is agreed upon. No change has been agreed upon as yet, so the multi-row format is consensus. Also I have no idea what you mean by an editing spree - all the tables are already done, as of a long time ago. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there aren't any articles to change, as far as I know. Unless, of course, you are talking about changing to a single-row format. They were already all finished, as per the WPF1 policy. You have your own rules on consensus, and you won't allow anyone else to break them, so we'll leave it for a few days, because I can't be bothered to go through the rigmarole of getting an admin involved or to keep on trying to help you understand the guidelines. The civilised thing to do would have been to actually go and read the guidelines and follow them, but we can all dream, I suppose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that because those editors helped formulate the existing consensus and drew up the tables, then their opinions don't count? A pre-determined opinion (currently four of them) is as valid as any other.

I never told you that you didn't have a clue, and don't forget I find your manner every bit as insulting and disruptive as you find mine. It would be worth keeping your cool, rather than ranting about admins and their opinions on your policy interpretation. Whether we like it or not, they can decide whether we continue as editors or get blocked. In that respect, they are a lot more powerful than us, and their opinions do count more than ours. Without referring to you specifically, an editor who continually acts upon their own interpretation of the guidelines is going to end up dealing with admins a lot, and have many other editors objecting to their work. Does every editor's talk page have as many arguments on it as yours does? It's not really your interpretation of the guidelines that holds any sway, it's the precedent set by the guidelines and the way in which everyone else works to them. We are indeed small players, and if you're constantly working against the grain, life gets really difficult. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oldham East and Saddleworth re-run election, 2010

Have you seem the comments on the talk page suggesting it will be a by-election rather than a re-run? Adambro (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point about Facebook reliability. However Saddleworth News stating that Greens will run (http://www.saddleworthnews.com/?p=4634) and if it counts so has the Green Cllr via Oldham Green Party on Twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/OldhamGreens Thanks RedCyberElf (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statements on talk page

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Lucy-marie. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref/statement

Lucy, despite the name the <ref> is used to create footnotes. Having miscellaneous notes in footnotes, as with Mebyon Kernow is SA&N, is entirely acceptable. What is not acceptable is including such information in the lead of the article, particularly as you don't make it clear you're talking about the GE of this year. Wereon (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM talkpage

To PrBeacon, at the user's talkpage [6]

Please do not remove the talkpage section again. It is not a forum debate about gays, as you stated in your edit summary, and I do not believe it violates WP:TPG. Perhaps the title is borderline appropriate, but TPM's various factions are a legitimate point of discussion. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can you explain how the current subject and discussion relates to directly improvement of the Tea Party article as opposed to just debating the factions within the Tea Party.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe I've already given sufficient reason for its restoration [7]. The burden is on you to explain why it should be removed, especially after two editors have restored the section -- the reasons you gave in two edit summaries [8] [9] are not accurate. Perhaps you can state your objection at the talkpage and let others weigh in. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason it is not relevant is because it refers to talking about the Tea Party in general and does not relate to discussing how the article can be improved. Talking about who controls entry to the TPM and about Factions in the TPM are not relevant to the improvement of the article. The whole discussion started with an article on a "turf war" and not any portion of the article. This talk is all unrelated to improving the article and is therefore a forum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying something isn't relevant because it doesn't already exist in the article is rather nonsensical, isn't it? Nothing is in an article before it gets added to an article. Duh. The talk page pointer to the news articles was a request for further input on its appropriateness as content for the article. Your repeated attempts to hide that discussion indicate something other than concern about WP:FORUM violations (which this clearly is not). Xenophrenic (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That above comments by Xenophrenic are not what I have said and even a cursory reading of what i have said is nothing like the comments made by Xenophrenic. I have said it is not relevant because it doesn't discuss improvements to the article it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party. Wikipedia discussion pages are not for talking generally about the article subject, they are there to discuss improvements to the article. If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand. Also assume good faith and do not think that just because someone opposes something you are doing means they are trying to hide something or subvert things, this is the reason why nonsense discussions escalate in to edit wars when editors take it personally. Do not take it personally and actually discuss improvements to the article. See WP:Ownershipand WP: AGF. The discussion being talked about is not constructive and does not relate to improvements to the article. Also please state how this does not violate WP:Forum as the discussion is just a general talk about who is and is not a member of the TEA Party and does not talk about improvements to the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to strike the above as nonconstructive and overly repetitive, but I'll let it stand for now. You don't need to be lecturing other regular editors about what talk pages are for. What or what doesn't relate to improving the article is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you don't get to moderate the talkpage according to what you think is appropriate. You're misinterpreting policy and yes it does appear like you just don't want that sort of talk on the Tea Party page. I mentioned that the term "faction" does not appear in the article. I await other editor's input before I proceed to recommend changes to the article in this regard. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Threatening to strike another users’ constructive and well-reasoned comment is unconstructive and does not assume good faith. Simply stating comments are repetitive is not a reason to dismiss them. When comments clearly devolve in to forum posts then it is right to redact the posts and not encourage discussions which are off topic. As for lecturing other users that is not what I did I simply stated Wikipedia policy which should be followed. Stating I am misinterpreting policy is nonsense as it clearly seems that the header of the talk page warns against forum posts which may be redacted without warning. Simply stating you posted the word forum in a context demonstrates the talk had devolved into discussing generalities of the TPM and not the article at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party.

• No, it is not, despite the intentionally provocative header. In fact, the cited sources say absolutely nothing about gays in the tea party. The discussion is about whether social issues are a concern of the tea party, along with fiscal issues. The present Wikipedia article needs to explain that aspect of the TPm in clearer detail. This is obvious from the cited sources, but perhaps they were deleted before you got a chance to review them.

If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand.

• Incorrect. Your personal opinion on what defines a "discussion on article improvement" precludes numerous other legitimate examples, such as presenting new source material that can be used to refine existing article content if consensus exists to do so — a popular method with editors of articles prone to edit warring.

See WP:Ownershipand WP: AGF.

• No, thank you. If there is a particular part of those lengthy essays that you wish to bring to my attention here, you can quote it here. Allow me to demonstrate:

Hi, Lucy-marie! I noticed you have repeatedly deleted discussions from an article talk page, despite being reverted by at least 4 other editors, and you cited WP:FORUM. Regarding deleting discussions like that, WP:FORUM instructs us: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines", which further advises us: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection".

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

LM now you're just deflecting everything and it's clear that this attempt to reason with you is in vain. I see there is a pattern in the way you interact with other editors and topics you don't like. Don't post here about this again. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have provided valid reasoning and have made no threats to remove other users’ comments in this discussion. I have engaged in discussion with you and have answered you points with valid and well-reasoned responses. This is a user created and user edited encyclopaedia. It is not a case of trying to "win" or have every single editor agree with your POV. This is healthy for the encyclopaedia and is good that this discussion can occur. If you believe that you are wasting your time then that is a poor interpretation that you are placing on actually having the discussion in the first place. it appears as if you want to win rather than hear all sides which is a shame and bad for Wikipedia. Remember to always assume good faith regardless of what your first instinct or thought it. Also remember that there is no owner ship of any article and this extends to talk pages. Also do not redact comments made by another user simply because you don’t like what they are saying, you do though have the right to remove what you like from you talk page as it is your talk page, but only redacting one users comments because you disagree with them is petty and shows a shallow ability in discussing issues.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, you have not. As a result, I have removed the "do not edit" block around that section. It is entirely on topic to discuss whether we should call the Tea Party movement "populist", and your efforts have done nothing to stop this topic from being discussed. I politely suggest you just back away and let us do our jobs. Dylan Flaherty 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"You" do "Your" jobs that smells suspiciously like WP:ownership be very careful about taking things personally. I suggest you consider whether you believe the articles are "yours" and weather it is right to make statements that you are "doing your job" on the article. All users are entitled to edit any article and statements claim that it is "your Job" and "just back away and let us do our jobs" shows a distinct disregard for other users or a total ignorance of how Wikipedia works. The comments shows a high degree of arrogance and self -importance which goes against the workings of Wikipedia as a user edited encyclopaedia, available for all and owned by no body.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your remark is not at all civil, as it violates the requirement to assume good faith. I suggest that you correct your behavior before making suggestions. Dylan Flaherty 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have simply commented on statements you have made which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. No personal attack has been made it is purely commenting on the content of the above comments and not directly on your character. If you wish to withdraw your comments stating you are "doing your job" and that "i should let you get on with your job" then I will remove my comments until you remove your comments implying you are the bastion of the TPM article and the owner of the article i stand wholly by the comments that i have made.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. And in the same theme, it is wildly inappropriate for you to revert the talk page. You are not even a participant, and the actual participants do not agree with you, to take a hint. Dylan Flaherty 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments that I have made and still view your as obstinant, in not seeing you belive you are the owner of the article in question. All wikipedia users are potential participants and this is not the TPM current active editors clique of who is and is not permitted to edit teh TPM article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have in no way addressed the point, so there is nothing to respond to. In particular, I will not be baited by your continued incivility. Dylan Flaherty 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read my latest comment at Talk:Tea Party movement#Populist. Be more careful in the future.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Male Lactation

Hi, there were some lengthy discussions about this article, also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. As a result it is near-stubbed now. So what exactly is the problem? What is POV? What is unattributed? The cases of breastfeeding are referenced further down in the article body. I would prefer not to shorten it even more. Richiez (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Its seems to be much more important to you than it is to me and this edit very much reminds me of of some behaviour I have seen before and do not want to repeat. So have fun fixing it if you feel like it. Richiez (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde

Could you explain to me why you think Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960) is a better title for this article than Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde? Tryde (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate page moves

I have submitted a move request for Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960), which explains that this is an incorrect page title, given that it goes against two different naming conventions. You have made a number of these page moves without discussion. Please remember that you need to discuss potentially controversial page moves before going ahead with them.

In addition, Talk:Philip Hunt, Baron Hunt is incorrect. His title is Baron Hunt of Kings Heath. Truncating it is as inappropriate as calling him Phil Hunt on the grounds that Philip is not required for disambiguation. Please read the relevant articles in Wikipedia on peerage titles for an understanding of the difference between the title and the terrotirial designation. JRawle (Talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:In addition it was incorrect to move Michael Dobbs, Baron Dobbs to Michael Dobbs (UK author) and to remove his title, which makes him a member of the Upper house from the lede. If you want to make mass-moves against consensus, raise them first together on one talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC) ::Why do you strike me out? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

::You also used an inappropriate edit summary when striking out the comment above. Please avoid this sort of behaviour. Someone whose contributions are all correct and follows the guidelines, or who has a good case and is willing to contribute constructively to discussions, has no need for such actions. JRawle (Talk) 13:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:User pages it is my prerogative as to what is kept on this talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

<insert> But it is not your prerogative to describe valid questions as "abusive trash", see Help:Edit_summary#How_to_summarise point 7 - Avoid inappropriate summaries. There is irony in me commenting on this, in that the reason I watchlisted your talkpage in the first place was because you previously complained about my use of inappropriate edit summaries. a_man_alone (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The nonsense I was referring to which I struck out was this

If you want to make mass-moves against consensus,

--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

<comment> Not sure how that qualifies as "Abusive trash" though, or even "nonsense" really. It's a valid question, albeit one you don't like. Could you clarify for myself, just out of curiosity, and for KittyBrewster so she knows what she did that caused you such offence? Given your worry over double standards below, it would seem appropriate for you to explain your "abusive trash" comment after you got so fired up over my edit summaries with regard to the Top Gear pages. a_man_alone (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was maybe a bit colourful with my language but I reject the premise of what is being asked a a valid complaint. The problem I have with the above quote is it is an assertion I am intentionally acting in bad faith and being deliberately obstructive. It is also an implication that the other user is right in the claim that I am acting against some "consensus". That is why I refereed to the comments as trash, because they are without merit or foundation. As for the abusive but it is an attack on my personal integrity and character as it says I am a bad faith editor. I may though have been a bit colourful with the use of language.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

<comment> So you assume bad faith on KittyBrewster's part? Interesting. Ok, I'm done here. The original article dispute is not one that interests me so I'll not stick around to inflame opinions any longer. a_man_alone (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith on behalf of any user, but if they are implying bad faith on my behalf I am not particularly interested in entertaining their comments. That is not the same as assuming bad faith it avoiding a negative and unnecessary situation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but please stop moving pages again and again. The history of Michael Dobbs, Baron Dobbs shows that you couldn't decide whether he was just "Michael Dobbs"or "Michael Dobbs (UK author)" all within 15 minutes. The same was true of "Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde" whose page you moved twice in three minutes. This is disruptive to Wikipedia. I assume you fix all double redirects but there's a real clue here that you're making decisions that the rest of the community don't agree with. Would suggest you talk to them before moving pages a couple of times in 15/3 minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It would e nice if they weren't moved away from their common name by other users first under spurious auspices of the naming convention with no discussion. There should be talks initiated before all moves by all users as these are not uncontroversial moves as they are moves which are violation the common name policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of moving the Michael Dobbs page again but I think it should be (UK author) as that distinguishes him more easily from the US author.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you're not sure means you need to discuss it. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Shall we have a discussion about this on a request for a page move?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a centralised discussion to work out if your moves (in general) are acceptable. You're borderline edit-warring, albeit "move-warring". And actually, move-warring is worse because of the knock-on effects you create, not cleaning up after yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that all moves on these articles must be discussed before being carried out by all users. As to weather one is more acceptable or not depends on how the naming convention and common name are interpreted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

But you've moved a couple of pages a couple of times (within minutes) without discussion (unless I've not seen it). Why? Oh, and in the meantime, while this discussion is ongoing, stop moving pages. Please. If you continue to do so I'll have to slow you down. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This was only after Kittybrewster moved them away from their original commonly used names before they were given a peerage. I am simply restoring the titles back to their original titles which is their common name. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You moved Galbraith twice in 3 minutes. That's really not acceptable. And I don't see you fixing all the redirects. Talk to people, get an agreement, then make the move, fix the back links and carry on. Don't knee-jerk and change the name of a page to something for just two minutes. Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, as you're already aware, I've advocated that the community start a request for comment on your recent edits. I won't start it myself because I'm not intimately familiar with all of your recent activity but lately it's become clear to me that some of your edits need to be discussed more globally. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please express the same sentiments to Kittybrewster.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I could if I saw a similarly disruptive edit pattern there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

::::::Would you like to tell me how I have been abusive to you or when I have posted trash on your page? You need to read WP:NCPEER and WP:NOTTHEM. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster was the person who originally moved the pages and then reverted the pages. The moving guidelines say that moves without discussion must be uncontroversial. As they have been reverted to the original form before they were moved clearly the move is potentially controversial and should be discussed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated before UK Peers and the titles of their articles depends on how the naming convention and the common name guidelines are interpreted and if either supersedes the other, or, if both need to find a common ground.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

:When have I been abusive to you? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, you've moved at least two pages twice within a short period of time. This is not reverting moves of others, it's clear that you're moving pages because you want to. Making so many moves to an individual page is both counter-consensus and disruptive. Please stop doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have said I have no intention of moving the Michael Dobbs page again and have made clear which version of the title I prefer. I simply corrected an error I had made in the original move I made.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And I hope you won't make any more moves until they've gained consensus, right? And any subsequent move you make, you'll fix all double redirects, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as all of the rules apply to all of the users and there are no double standards whatsoever, I feel a lot of double standards from users who are complaining on this topic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you to stop moving pages until we understand there's a consensus to do so. I'm an outside observer to this dispute, so I hope you can understand all I want to do is to reduce the amount of disruption currently being caused by continual page moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking is the users who are protesting that I do not initiate discussion before moving start practising what they preach before the kettle calls the pot black. They complain I don't initiate discussion when I have not seen one of them initiate a discussion before they moved one of the articles in question. If they were holier than thou it would be a fair complaint, but this feels like its just double standards. We want you to do something we have no intention of doing ourselves and so on. That is my biggest gripe with these other users. It is also with noting Wikipedia is not a mob rule society, which these "consensus upholders" are beaning to act like in my opinion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So please stop moving pages until there's a clear consensus to do so. As I said before, this is an independent view. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Lucie-marie, I am now the fifthfourth editor to post here to oppose your page moves and/or ask you to use the requested moves process to move pages; AFAICS, nobody has posted to support you. The moves you have been doing breach the relevant guideline WP:NCPEER, and the fact that you appear to disagree with this guideline is not sufficient grounds to continue moves which are repeatedly contested.

I am not asking you change your mind; I am asking you to seek consensus before making page moves which you know will be contested. Do remember, too, that another admin has already warned that "if you continue to do so I'll have to slow you down". Please don't let it come to that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting in a threatening tone. Also please remember admins are not superior editors and are just the same as every other editor on Wikipeida. Also the argument above is a bogus argument as it comes back to the mob rule style argument, by saying I have found more and more people who agree with me and not with you. The naming convention and the common name policy are what need discussion and not "I can get more people to say the same thing as me". Please see the long discussion which was had reading how to go about naming of peers here which shows I am not a single user holding similar views to my own. The discussion died for some reason and must be revived in order to sort out his mess.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are of course free to seek a change in the guideline, but unless and until you get a consensus to change the guideline, the guideline still stands. Since the discussion to which you pointed fizzled out without a conclusion, the current situation is that no such consensus has been formed.

I'm sorry that you found my tone threatening. For the avoidance of misunderstanding, let me spell it out:

1. The page moves you have been making have been contested by a number of editors, and the overwhelming majority of them have been reverted
2. This is clear evidence that the moves are controversial, and per WP:MOVE you should seek consensus before performing controversial moves, because repeated page moves are disruptive
3. You have been asked several times to this, but refuse
4. If you continue, I will ask other admins to intervene and block you. Please understand that this is not a threat, it's a promise.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the comments above are civil. Stating that something "is not a threat it's promise", clearly shows a lack of respect to the other user, it is threatening towards the other user, and it is not civil.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been asked to seek consensus before moving, but you refuse. That propels us down a path to seeking enforcement, and as is good practice, you have been warned. If you regard the warning as uncivil, you are free to seek guidance at WP:WQA or enforcement action WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think I am attempting, other than putting forward my point of view and attempting to seek a consensus in my responding to your move requests?--20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that what you are doing is responding to two move request discussions, which is great. The problem is that you have repeatedly move-warred and repeatedly refused to request any of the moves you seek, and you protest heatedly against requests to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not protest against any user on the grounds of suggesting or initiating move requests or against the general principle of move requests.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that is not what we were discussing.

You may not have been protesting against "the general principle of move requests", but this page contains plenty of posts by you objecting bitterly to being asked to open a move request yourself.

What what you have been doing for many weeks is move-warring, and refusing requests to stop doing that, and protesting when you are asked to use the requested moves process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please pat yourself on the head as you have now got me away from move warring and to using move requests.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't resort to being patronising. As before, I think the behaviour of Lucy-marie needs scrutiny at a WP:RFC/U so let's head that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing to do is move on as constructive progress is being made.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Of course, you are aware that it is common courtesy to personally let people know when you launch a WQA against them (per the instructions on that page). I have, on your behalf, let BrownHairedGirl know that you have taken this course of action. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You posted as I was posting creating an edit conflict.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No edit conflict now though, is there? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why post two notifications of the same thing?--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is common courtesy for you, the instigator of the WQA, to personally make the subject of your WQA aware of the discussion. It's far too late now, but in future, please ensure you personally notify subjects per the instructions on WQA. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice but is it worth posting notifcation twice? In the future I will try to be speedier than yourself.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's common courtesy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl

Lucy-marie, it's now best if you disengage and consider a different approach. Please stop adding the same comment to her talkpage, it's borderline disruption and could lead to you being blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All i have done is post the honest answer wanted. If it is not believed to be honest, then i am sorry for her, becuase I have been nothing but honest throughout. I would like to continue this in a wider context so as to sort this out as opposed fo the tit-for-tat whcih this has devolved into. I believe naming callimg and calling someone dishonesty is uncalled for. I would like that comment witrhdrawn. Then i think both of us colling off would be much easier and much more helpful. I believe both of us have gone way to far here and we need to step off and step back.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, I haven't called you dishonest and I certainly don't want you to be sorry for me. There are many more deserving cases. Which comment was it that you particularly needed me to withdraw? "Tit-for-tat" is a straight-forward honest appraisal of what happens when two editors (note, not me) get deeply involved in discussion and things perhaps go a little off-track. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologse for the earlier fo par the title confused me and I have now ammended my original comments. The comments were posted as i believed it was BHG and not you who had posted and i have now corrected my error.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well the original part of the post still stands. Step away, chill out and hopefully we can resolve this without resorting to administrative actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have every intention of stepping away I am though now a little concerend as BHG has resorted to deleting my posts on my talk page and repeteadly calls for me to "get lost" in edit summaries.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well posting the same thing three times after it being deleted is too much, and disruptive. I would ordinarily have blocked other users for this kind of thing. I agree, the "get lost" isn't particularly appropriate, but perhaps you could directly answer BHG's question. As I said before, this would ideally be resolved without admin actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the answer it was a genuine error on my behalf. I also said in an edit summarry that any other answer would be a lie. If the answer i have provided is not "satisfactoy" then BHG will have to live with the question unanswred, as I have answred the question honestly and BHG rejects that answer which seems strange. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on civility - moved from WT:AT

To BrownHairedWikilawyer and Rrius (and others) I would like to suggest a re-reading of Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia Consensus can change Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. As these are all fully relevant to this discussion and a full realisation and appreciation of these will move the forward the policy based element of this discussion and not the entrenched personal nature currently being undertaken, by some.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A request for civility which starts out with name-calling? Not very persuasive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just goes to prove there is no willingness to move beyond personality and move on to content, i think BHGs comments should be ignored as BHG is more interested in personalities and "winning" than actually accepting that there isn't a broad based consensus and actually discussing the substance of the issue. I cannot accept a user who calls me "dishonest" without any foundation as taking any of the discussions seriously and objectively.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, you know perfectly well why I called you dishonest. It's because in several place you insist that COMMONNAME overrides other considerations, but when it suited you ignored COMMONNAME. You have refused to explain why you believe that common name of the Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde does not include his title. On top of that, you still refuse to even acknowledge that the policy of which COMMONNAME is a part explicitly permits that exceptions may be created in certain circumstances. The only explanation left is that you are being dishonest.

As to "discussing the substance of the issue" ... well, I look at screenfuls of discussion here, and I see lots from me on evidence of usage, and none at all from you, just parroting of COMMONNAME, "urserping" and COMMONAME. So think whatever you want: the record is there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Its mostly filibustering and blindness to the fact that there is no overriding consensus. Also you have no right to make personal character attacks calling me "dishonest".The claims are without foundation and have no part on this discussion if you want to continue your personal comments please do so where i have directed you in the past here--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy, if you don't like your dishonesty being noted, explain the discrepancy here. Your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this conversation here. I dont quite understand your inability to refer personal comments to the appropriate place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no conversation to continue. There is just your continued complaints about your own refusal to explain an issue central to these discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh good you finally accept that personal comments have no place on this discussion. Also as I have said please refer any more unfounded, spurious, nonsensical and reckless comments you have about me to my personal user talk here. --Lucy-marie (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss anything of substance, there could be a conversation, but since you repeatedly refuse to discuss the blatant dishonesty at the heart of your stance, there is no discussion. If you want to dismiss as nonsense the incompatibility of your own renaming action and what you are demanding here, I can only hope you enjoy doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

None of them is relevant to anything I've said. From what you have said here and elsewhere, it is clear you do not have a full understanding of the peerage. Also, I mentioned consensus and in doing so made clear I understand its temporal fluidity. None of the rest is the least bit relevant to anything I've said here. What it comes down to is that if you wish to change consensus about NCROY/NCPEER, you need to do so there, not here. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Already started there a few months ago. Also claiming none are relevant shows a level of blindness to the conduct being undertaken. Even i realise some of those are relevant to me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On the off chance you are not being deliberately obtuse, "relevant here" means "relevant to this occasion", not "relevant to me". I have not violated or shown ignorance of any of those policies, so your pointing them out to me was just part of some ridiculous and dishonest attempt to place yourself on the high ground. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I reject wholly the above ludicrous, defamatory, obstructive and dishonest claimes made above, which are only there to divert from the constructive discussions being attempted. As I have said before pleae refer all comments of a personal nature here and do not clog up and fillibuster the discussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest the community consider a WP:RFC/U as this, once again, is deteriorating with no sign of resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps informal mediation rather, since the problem seems to be with the interaction between specific users (or can you do a multiple RFC/U?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is not technically with "specific users", but with anybody who dares to have an opinion different to that of Lucy Marie. The trouble with setting up an WP:RFC/U is that it will be difficult to find an uninvolved or neutral editor, as everybody who thinks an RFC might be an idea has only come to that conclusion after having had dealings with Lucy Marie, thus making them involved, and not neutral. a_man_alone (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The community has to be bigger than that. It is inevitable that there will be an rfc/u. Question is who will kick it off. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can see three editors exchanging unpleasantries in the thread above, not just one. And the other two were quite unpleasant to me too (in the original thread at WT:AT) when I dared to have an opinion different from them, so I don't think it can be claimed that they were doing it only because of L-M's provocation. --Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your RMs

Twinkle is not working correctly on step 2. Therefore your RMs are not listed. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not entirley sure what twinkle is so I do not understand you above post. I have though recently checked the RM page and they all appear listed at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#February_1.2C_2011.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your moves

Please take care when moving pages about. You left commas on three, Sue Nye,, Peter Hennessy, and Maurice Glasman,. I've fixed the errors but you really must take more care in future when doing this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And Richard Allan,. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And William McKenzie, Baron McKenzie.. Please check all your page moves and correct any other mistakes, including talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you moved William McKenzie, Baron McKenzie of Luton to William McKenzie, Baron McKenzie.. They are not synonymous. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've edited since I left this note. Please fix your errors otherwise this kind of sloppy page moving will be discouraged in future. Editing here is a privilege, not a right, and creating mistakes like this is unacceptable (five times). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be patronising I am currently fixing errors left behind by BHG so please do not make such silly comments about editing being a privelage etc. Just let people get on with what they are doing. Now please let me get on with editing. Also if you have specfiic errors please do one of two things; either be bold and fix it yourself or bring the spedific errors to my attention so i can fix it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not patronising you. I'm telling you that sloppy moves like this will result in limited editing privileges. You cannot just go around moving pages to incorrect titles, it's wrong. And yes, I've notified you of the five pages you moved earlier that you moved incorrectly. I moved the pages back but it's up to you to fix all the remnants, like double redirects and talk pages. Get on with it and stop complaining please. You've made a real mess of these pages and it's wholly unacceptable. You claim to be "fixing errors" but you're not. You're "introducing errors". Funnily enough, it looks like BHG is fixing your errors rather than you fixing hers. Fix the rest (as I have specifically mentioned above) immediately please, and do not do this sort of thing again. This is an encyclopedia and these kind of basic errors are embarrassing and avoidable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would firstly like to say that none of the editing was sloppy and if anyting it was just a minor error. Secondly if you keep going on about correct and incorrect titles then you are clearly missing the point of the RMs which have been initated as these are designed to establish what is the accepted title, in these cases there may be no "correct" or "incorrect" title. Thirdly if you move something and leave behind errors, due to your editing then surely it is just good practice to make sure the whole page is correct. As I have said if you notice errors either caused by my editing and not by your subsequent editing then, be sensible and correct it youself or bring it specifically to my attention with a link so I can fix it. Finally I have "not made a real mess" there is no mjess at all it is just a mountain being made out of a molehill by yourself and you are creating a mess where none existed before by claiming it all a mess. This is just rabblemongering and is inapproprate. I have no further intention of comyinuing this inaproprate discussion, so any subsequent comments left here on this subject will be left unanswered.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fix the mistakes. "Correct" titles certainly don't end in a comma or a full stop, and that's all I care about here. I have no idea what "rabblemongering" means, but you've moved pages incorrectly and that's embarrassing for this encyclopedia. A title with a comma at the end? Please. If you continue to edit in such a sloppy way, you'll be prevented from doing so. I've added five links already to pages which you moved incorrectly. Fix them. Fix the redirects. Fix the double redirects. Fix the talk pages. BHG has done you a favour by helping out. If I see you doing this kind of sloppy editing again, I'll move for RFC to stop you from doing this kind of thing ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed all the errors you introduced (including unlikely talk page redirects) but I didn't check the double redirects you introduced in the following articles. Per you request for specific links, could you check those and correct them for double redirects (as advised when you move pages) please?

1. Maurice Glasman
2. Sue Nye
3. Richard Allan
4. William McKenzie

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

I notice that you immediately deleted a warning msg from The Rambling Man about your series of botched page moves, and that you deleted it without replying. I agree with The Rambling Man's warining that there is an overwhelming message here, including the notification that a page you "created" via a sloppy redirect should be deleted (see above), that you need to take a lot more care and time over moving pages. You made five mistakes today alone. That's unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

TRM Comments

And if possible, please go and fix all the redirects and double redirects caused by your sloppy page moves today. Five erroneous moves creates a problem for Wikipedia, and you should really fix the issues created. I understand you don't think you've done anything wrong, but I think that's fallacious. Many of us would appreciate you fixing the issues created when you moved a bunch of pages to titles with added commas and full stops where they were not required. I've tried to help out by fixing several of your botched edits, but it would be best if you checked your own edit history to ensure all incorrect moves are fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More moves

In this edit you moved Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins to Sheila Hollins with the edit summary "When was this move discussed?" That move was reverted, but you moved it again, which you should not have done, so I have reverted it again

The article was created as Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins, so your question "When was this move discussed?" is misplaced -- the article was not moved by anybody until you moved it. Since your move has been contested, you may of course open a WP:RM discussion, but please stop move-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there was a lot more of this. For example, you moved Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam to Richard Allan, even tho it had been stable as Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam for six months. I have reverted this move, and will revet any other cases where you have moved an article from its stable name. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because something was unilaterally moved a few months ago does not make it the correct version of the page. All i did was revert the page to the original title and then started a discussion on the page as to weather the page should be moved from the original title to the ennobled title. If you disagree with the page being at the original title you are free to take part in the move request discussion. The move away from the original title should have been discussed through the RM proceduures before being moved in the first place so I am simply intiating stage one which should have been intiated in the first place. I would also like to thank you for confining personal comments and discussion where they belong on this talk page and not on RM discussions or other article discussions.-Lucy-marie (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also remeber to fix the RM templates which have been started if you insist on making your reversions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to open an RM for an uncontroversial move, and the fact that the Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam was stable at that title for 6 months shows that it was uncontroversial at the time. You acknowledged that your move was controversial, which is why you opened an RM ... but you should not have moved the page beforehand.

The situation with Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins is even more clearcut. The article had not been moved before, and since you acknowledged that your move was controversial you should have opened an RM rather than moving it before opening an RM. There are several other articles where you did this, and I have reverted all of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would firstly like to congratulate you BHG for being mature in going about this discussion. I would like to say that it may have been uncontroversial at the time but simply haivg the discussion when concensus appear to be shifting over NC:PEER in not a problem or at least it shouldn't be resisted. There was also no discussion about the titles in the first place. Having the RM is not a problem as the page title may now be a controversial title so settling the title with an RM will ensure longer term stability and prevent the previous problems which have occured and prevent move warring from occuring.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

LM, the situation is simple: an uncontroversial move does not have to be discussed. Allan was stable for six months after being moved, so that move was demonstrably uncontroversial. If you now want to dispute the title, then you are free to open an RM ... but not to move the page from its stable title before opening an RM.

What you did here was a) a long series of botched moves, which other editors had to spend time fixing; b) a series of moves of articles away from their stable titles, where you then sought an RM to move them back to their stable titles. That's mischief: if you believe that moving an article from its stable name is controversial, then open an RM without moving it first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please do not resist the RMs once they have been initated. I also believe thathave RMs will create much longer term stability and all pages shoudl go through an RM especially all peerage proposals regardless of if they are believed to be uncontroversial. RMs are better as they allow for wider discussion and longer term stability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of those RMs which are proposals to rename a page to its stable name. When the page has been restored to its stable name, those RMs are pointless, so they should be closed. Once they are closed, you are free open an RM to discuss moving the pages to your preferred title.

As to what you believe ... well, I would give that more credence if you didn't believe that moving pages to grammatically incorrect titles was OK, and that requests to stop doing that and to fix the mess should be immediately removed from your talk page. Having failed to achieve consensus to change or remove WP:NCPEER, you appear to be engaged in a campaign to disrupt wikipedia by systematically moving pages contrary to NCPEER, and gaming the RM process by demanding a consensus to revert your moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The User GTBacchus who closed the Dee doocey page move seemed to sum up quite accuratly the current concensus regarding NC:PEER.

The guideline in question does not appear to enjoy clear consensus support, and lack of consensus to rewrite it is not proof of consensus for it. This and similar concurrent move requests make it clear that consensus is yet to be determined, and this conversation is one part of that determination. - GTBacchus

I think that still claiming NCPEER as the reasoning shows that there is no acceptance of the evolving concensus on the issue. I think though this is something that will have to be agreed that we disagree on. I think the most sensible course forwards for all page moves regarding Peers is to request the move first regardless of how controversial or uncontrovesial the user believes the new title is or is not. That is though just my view on the evolving consensus regarding NC:PEER.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

LM, you have been moving pages from their stable titles ... and now you say that you think there should be an RM before doing so? Try practising what you preach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the last comment was uncalled for but I understand your sentiment but it deos cut all ways and there need to be RMs before all moves of pages realting to those who have been ennobled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hennessy,

A tag has been placed on Peter Hennessy,, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DBaK (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hennessy

Hello. I certainly don't want to get involved with your current arguments, and I feely admit that I approach this from quite a narrow viewpoint of which articles interest me rather than broader topics. Having said that, I wanted to say that I felt that your move of Peter Hennessy back to his real name was correct (notwithstanding the business of the comma!). I was a bit surprised when he was moved, without discussion as far as I recall, to his lordly title ... yes, perhaps you should have done an RM before bringing him back, but then he was initially moved without consultation anyway. Two wrongs don't make a right, sure, but if everyone involved had used an RM in the first place we might have had less of a mess to discuss now, and more good vibes, which is of course a Good Thing. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

David Gold page move

Why did you move this article? Nobody has heard of him and I created it when he was appointed to the House of Lords at which time he became notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An RM has now been started. Please contribute to the RM. You are free to give your reasons for moving the article unilaterally in the fisrt place at the RM.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Try answering my question. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not a question with any merit. An RM is the best way of going about the moving of any page. Unilaterally moving pages is not the way to go about things RMs are a far more open way of doing things. I wll not be dragged in to a "why did you oppose me argument?" with a user who is not going to accept any rational response i give.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Try giving one rather than dismissing the question. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have said I am not answering your deliberatly loaded and intentionally provocative question. All moves of pages should be discussed and should not just be unlaterally moved. The title of the article should not be changed without a discusion and an RM has now been initated after the unilateral and undiscussed page move was reverted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was that the article was created with the name including title, you then moved it with an RM and demanded an RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The page was not created with that ennobled title, it was created with (lawyer) suffix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucy, how about you start the RM discussion before moving another page? This becoming mildly disruptive now. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this the page isn't moved in the first place without an RM.--Lucy-marie (talk)

Lucy-marie, I have moved the article back to David Gold, Baron Gold, restoring the title to which the page was moved by its creator, within 5 days of creation, when nobody else had edited it. If another editor believes that this title is incorrect, they should open a WP:RM discussion from the existing title, rather than moving it first.

You have been warned before about moves-before-opening-an-RM. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It does cut all ways an RM should be started before any move so by warning me you need to warn Kittybrewster aswlell for not starting an RM and just unilaterally moving pages with no discussion. Also the original title was David Gold ( lawyer) not David Gold, Baron Gold. A page move is needed before any move and not just on moves back to the original title after a user has unilaterally moved the page without discussion. What next keeping vandalism on pages while there are discussions on removing it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucy Marie, in what way is the question "Why did you move this article?" one that is "not a question with any merit..." "...deliberatly [sic] loaded and intentionally provocative?" a_man_alone (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Due to the person who is asking it already knowing full well the answer and only wanting to start an unecessarry and antasgonistic argument.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No I don't know the answer. Nor do I know when David Gold was born; it is hard to research him. WP:AGFKittybrewster ☎ 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Lucy-marie. You have new messages at Amakuru's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RMs

Lucie-Marie, you are wrong to say that "an RM should be started before any move". An RM should be started before any move which might be controversial, and in this case (David Gold) we had article which required disambiguation, and which was disambiguated by its creator in accordance with the naming convention WP:NCPEER.

Moving it away from that title was clearly going to be controversial, and you should have opened an RM rather than moving it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In these cases the moves should be listed as uncontroversial on the RM page and if they are uncontroversial then they should be just moved otherwise particularly with all NC:PEER based moves an RM is required as the extensive discussions which have been had by multiple users, have shown a great deal of contention regarding the unilateral implementation of the NC:PEER guideline as a cast iron LAW trumping all other policies of Wikipedia. It has also shown a degree of re-writing is required for NC:PEER.

Dmpuk sums up the situation quite eloquently on the Tanni Grey-Thompson RM

“ Blindly applying WP:NCPEER to a person who has wide spread notability outside of their peerage is wrong as that means that only editors that work in the peerage area and have contributed to that guideline have any say over the naming of an article after a person becomes a peer and the views of anyone who works in the area of their other reason(s) for notability is then effectively ignored. ”

I think that NC:PEER needs a substantial re-write or the above will keep on happening and the clique pushing NC:PEER in its current form will continue to steamroller through absurd moves with no regard for any common sense. RMs establish two primary things firstly if the move is controversial and if there is a consensus to move the page. It also establishes what the best disambiguation should be if disambiguation is required.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to David Gold? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Move on, the discussion has moved on.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it relevant? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is to this portion of the discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the premature closing of WP:RM discussion about David Gold. The thread is Premature close of RM proposal.The discussion is about the topic David Gold, Baron Gold. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, I hav reviewed some of the history behind these moves that have been going on. I would like to ask you to stop opening requested move discussions which you oppose. Several editors have said that this is confusing and after some consideration, I agree. You are permitted to revert any undiscussed move which you do not agree with, but then it is confusing to start a discussion after the move. Either start the discussion before you move it, or not at all. Do you agree? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the original mover should srart the discussion after a revert which appears to be happening now. What do I do though if I revert a move and ask for an RM but the other editor is stubborn and refuses to initate an RM?--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Before you start getting too Wikilawyerish about these moves, note that you've moved a few articles away from an established title and then insisted on a RM debate to move it back. A good example is Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins - I know it was at that title, as I actually started it after User:Jimbo Wales created Talk:Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins to request article creation (he's got a thing about British peers) and I thought "hey, why not?". Despite this I've got no dog in this fight - I'd be perfectly happy with it being under Sheila Hollins, and I'm sure I've argued for simpler titles before - but your approach to this issue isn't helping. Continual skirmishes across article talk pages and AN/I is just going to cause strife. If you must oppose a move then do it using RM, not by revert warring. Please don't revert and then go to RM: that's weighting the move in your favour (as no consensus favours the status quo) and is really pretty deceptive. Please stick to centralised discussions. Fences&Windows 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

David Gold

At Talk:David_Gold,_Baron_Gold#Requested_move_2011Feb02 you indicate Oppose to the proposal, but your comment indicates opposition to the current title and presumably support of the proposal. Did you mean to say Support? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

British National Party election results

You tagged the lead of British National Party election results as needing updating - quite right since it has been unchanged since well before the last general election. However, since most of the lead is repeats of what can be read lower down (and updating would only add to this) is there any point? Might it not be better to reduce the lead to "This article lists the British National Party's election results in the UK parliamentary, Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. The party is not represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom." or even just to "This article lists the British National Party's election results in the UK parliamentary, Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections." Emeraude (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Just because you don't agree with an edit, [10] that doesn't make it vandalism. Please try to assume good faith a little more. a_man_alone (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:I always assume good faith can you please provide the diff for the specific edit you are referring to as I may be able to explain the reasoning behind the edit I made. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The addition of the names of the Stigs has persistently been added by various users and it has continually been reverted. Continued addition of this information is vandalism as it not considered relevant on uncontroversial information. If you believe that their names should be added please initiate a discussion on the matter.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, please put that in the edit summary, instead of a carte blanche "vandalism" tag. It is not vandalism. Please assume good faith. a_man_alone (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Far from it. It's a content dispute. If you have a problem with the addition of Stig's names, take it to the talk page and gain a consensus. Don't accuse editors of vandalism. You have no idea if they're doing this because (according to you) "it not considered relevant on uncontroversial information" (whatever that means). The original point (I believe) was to not undo edits with "vandalism" as the edit summary when it is abundantly clear that this addition of factually correct information isn't vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The main Top Gear article which the test track is a spin-off of is not irrelevant. Demonstration for inclusion is required as opposed to demonstration for exclusion. If you genuinely believe that the people who have been identified as the Stig should be included please can you initiate a discussion on the main Top Gear article on the test track article, as to whether the identities of the Stig should be included on the test track page and other Top Gear pages. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but do not revert the inclusion of factually correct information as "vandalism". That's unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)