User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Lucy-marie, Your tireless contributions, removal of vandalism and keeping a NPOV at all times improve the sense of community and enhance the helpfulness of wikipedia. I hereby grant you this barnstar in recognition of your dedication and hard work Fethroesforia 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I know that in a lot of these disputes I've disagreed with you, but no good faith contributor should have to take the sheer volume of abuse you get. Things that normally would barely get noticed from anyone else get blown into major disputes when people see your name involved — and that's not how things ought to work around here. — iridescent 11:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Member state[1]	Date	Result[2]	Deposition with Italian Government[3]
Lithuania	11 November 2004	Yes. Seimas: 84 to 4 in favour, 3 abstentions.[4]	17 December 2004
Hungary		Yes. Országgyűlés: 323 to 12 in favour, 8 abstention.[5]	30 December 2004
Slovenia		Yes. Državni zbor: 79 to 4 in favour, 0 abstentions.[6]	9 May 2005
Italy		Yes. Senato della Repubblica: abstentions.[8]
Spain	18 May 2005	Yes. Senado: 225 to 6 in favour, 1 abstention.[12]	15 June 2005
Austria	25 May 2005	Yes. Bundesrat: Approved by show of hands with three against.[14]	17 June, 2005
Greece	19 April 2005	Yes. Βουλή των Ελλήνων: 268 to 17 in favour, 15 abstentions.[15]	28 July, 2005
Malta	6 July 2005	Yes. division.[16]	2 August, 2005
Cyprus	30 June 2005	Yes. Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων: 30 to 19 in favour, one abstention.[17]	6 October, 2005
Latvia	2 June 2005	Yes. Saeima: 71 to 5 in favour, six abstentions.[18]	3 January, 2006
Luxembourg	25 October 2005	Yes. Châmber: 57 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[21]	30 January, 2006
Belgium	8 February 2006	Yes. Parlement de la Communauté française: 79 to 0 in favour, no abstentions.[27]  Yes. Vlaams Parlement: 84 to 29 in favour, one abstention.[28]	13 June, 2006
Estonia	9 May 2006	Yes. Riigikogu: 73 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[29]	26 September, 2006
Bulgaria	1 January, 2007	Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005	Not required
Romania	1 January, 2007	Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005	Not required
Slovakia	11 May, 2005	Yes. Národná rada: 116 to 27 in favour, four abstentions.[30]	Pending. President of the republic has not yet signed the law.
Germany	27 May 2005	Yes. Bundesrat: 66 to 0 in favour, three abstentions.[32]	Pending. President of the republic has not yet signed the law (due to pending decisions of the Constitutional Court).[33]
Finland incl. Åland[34]	5 December 2006 Cancelled	Yes. Eduskunta/Riksdag: 125 to 39 in favour, four abstentions.[35] Lagting[36]	Pending
France	29 May 2005 Cancelled Cancelled	No. Sénat :
Netherlands	1 June 2005 Cancelled Cancelled	No. Senate :
Czech Republic	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Senát: Poslanecká sněmovna :
Denmark	Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Folketing :
Ireland	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Dáil Éireann: Seanad Éireann :
Poland	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Sejm: Senat :
Portugal	Cancelled Cancelled	Referendum: Assembleia da Republica :
Sweden	Cancelled	Riksdag :
United Kingdom	Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled	House of Commons: House of Lords :

Signatory	Final vote date	Chamber			AB	Deposition[41]	Ref.
Austria	9 April 2008	National Council	151	27	0		[42]
	24 April 2008	Federal Council	58	4	0		[43]
Belgium	6 March 2008	Senate	48	8	1		[44][45]
	10 April 2008	Chamber of Representatives	116	18	7		[46]
	Mid-July 2008	Brussels Regional Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	Flemish Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	Walloon Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	French Community Parliament					[45]
	Mid-July 2008	German-speaking Community Parliament					[45]
Bulgaria	21 March 2008	National Assembly	195	15	30	28 April 2008	[47] [48]
Cyprus	Summer 2008	House of Representatives
Czech Republic	TBD	Chamber of Deputies				! [49]
	TBD	Senate
Denmark	24 April 2008	Diet	90	25	0		[50]
Estonia	May 2008	Diet					[51]
Finland incl.  Åland Islands	Autumn 2008	Parliament					[52]
	TBD	Åland Parliament					[53]
France [54]	7 February 2008	National Assembly	336	52	22	14 February 2008	[55]
	7 February 2008	Senate	265	42	13		[56]
Germany	24 April 2008	Federal Diet	515	58	1		[57] [58]
	23 May 2008	Federal Council					[59]
Greece	Summer 2008	Assembly of the Greeks
Hungary	20 December 2004	National Assembly	323	12	8	6 February 2008	[60]
Ireland	12 June 2008	Referendum					[61]
	TBD	House of Representatives
	TBD	Senate
Italy	25 January 2005	Chamber of Deputies	436	28	5
	25 May 2005	Senate of the Republic	217	16	0
Latvia	8 May 2008	Diet	70	3	1		[62]
Lithuania	11 November 2004	Diet	84	4	3		[63]
Luxembourg	29 May 2008	Chamber of Deputies					[64]
Malta	29 January 2008	House of Representatives	65	0	0	6 February 2008	[65]
Netherlands	June 2008	House of Representatives					[66]
	Autumn 2008	Senate
Poland	1 April 2008	House of Representatives	384	56	12		[67]
	2 April 2008	Senate	74	17	6
Portugal	23 April2008	Assembly of the Republic	208	21	0		[68]
Romania	4 February 2008	Parliament	387	1	1		[69] [70]
Slovakia	10 April 2008	National Council	103	5	1		[71] [72]
Slovenia	1 February 2005	National Assembly	79	4	0	24 April 2008	[73]
Spain	20 February 2005	Consultative referendum	76.73%	17.24%	57.68%
	28 April 2005	Congress of Deputies	311	19	0
	18 May 2005	Senate	225	6	1
Sweden	November 2008	Diet
United Kingdom incl. Gibraltar	No Date	House of Commons
	No Date	House of Lords
	TBD	Gibraltar Parliament					[74]
European Union	12 January 2005	European Parliament	500	137	36	N/A	[75] [76]

Just to see who watches this page. I spose we're all curious as to who's watching our page (therefor having no real life at all). Well, you know how this works, If you watch this page, please, (~~~~) .--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Occasionally – 
   iridescent
    21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Emeraude (talk) <<< This is a forgery - I didn't sign there! Emeraude (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
3. (occasionally!) Paulbrock (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucy-Marie, please accept a nice refreshing glass of ice water as my way of going someway towards an apology for anything I may have said or done over in the past which has upset you. I'm certain we're both editing with the best interests of the Wikipedia at heart and neither of us is infallible. I look forward to working in harmony with you in the future. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult but this reversion seems odd (especially with no edit summary) - Wikipedia's own article on Greathead seems to back this up, perhaps we need to remove the information from there too? I'm no expert in this area but I just wanted to understand why you removed this info. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It adds little to the article and is not backed up with a source.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the fact it adds something, albeit little, is perhaps useful, and then you could just source it yourself or add a {{

fact}} template and revisit in a few days to delete then. Either way, an edit summary would help enormously. The Rambling Man (talk

) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

L-m, just in case you haven't seen the conversation on my talk page – I'm sort of on your side on this one in that it was unsourced, but you need to explain why you're removing things, expecially since the IP who added it was probably a new editor who doesn't know how things work yet. – 

iridescent

 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant piece of trivia. The police used all manner of descriptive terms to try to help find the girls, height was just one (and your link is approx anyway "about 4ft 6in"). You could also add hair colour if you wanted to, but it's equally trivial. Just because the person infobox supports the parameter, it doesn't mean it should be used when it's irrelevant. If you want to discuss how the police issued descriptions, put it in the main body. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine but an easy solution would be to add more information in the main part of the article. For instance, you could have this in the Police investigation section: "The Police released photographs of the two girls in Manchester United replica shirts along with a physical description of each of them which described them as " white, about 4ft 6in tall and slim"."^[77] and since it's not in the infobox, the reference sits quite nicely with it too. What do you think of that for a compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

It will take me a few days, but I will take a look at the article. It may be better to ask for a

I have now read the article more closely - my peer review hat keeps getting in the way as I see MOS things that need ot be fixed. I have some ideas on other issues / POV. If you had to briefly summarize the concerns you had (such as is done for an RfC), what would you say? Sorry to have taken so long so far, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - I had noticed many of those, but not being as familiar with other political parties in the UK missed some. I am going to ask another admin who is better than I at dealing with controversial topics about all this - where to go from here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I will make some comments on the peer review, but it will take me a few days (several others in the queue already). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on it - sorry to be so slow. I should finish my PR comments in the nexdt 12 to 14 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am done - I did not go into as much detail on the POV, does it seem OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Any feedback on the peer review? Where do we go from here? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read the comments and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and am not sure I see how this is a personal attack. Could you please point out what part(s) of the comment you see as personal attack(s)? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lucy-marie. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on

That would be something to take up with the deleting/restoring admin. I see that there is already a thread opened about it at his talk page, and that a user objected to its removal there, which would further indicate that its deletion may not be uncontroversial. If consensus can't be reached, it may need to go through TfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I go and fix the error you mentioned at AN, can I ask you if you have consensus for the rest of the move? I'm sure the naming issues around football must have been discussed a lot at some time in the past. Are you sure you aren't editing unilaterally against some longstanding consensus with your moves? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you might have a view to express in the following context:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25#Category:G8 summit resorts

I have expressed an opinion, but I'm not certain that my views are necessarily more important than anyone else's. --

I have taken exception not to be being told that others have a different viewpoint, but to being told that I should leave England and move elsewhere for supporting mixed race relationships as well as having a mixed race child. Mr. 58 seems to have a long memory for someone who only logged on a few days ago, but he obviously uses different anonymous identities. I have not to my knowledge been referred to as a troll (except on Conservapedia, quite wrongly as it happens. Mr. or Ms. 58 etc. has claimed that the Australian government wants to force him/her to have sex with non-Europeans in order to have brown babies, which will dilute racia; purity, yet s/he objects to being called a "hardline racist". If thjese are his/her views, then why is that an insult. Were the BNP to take power in the UK I do believe there would be violence and I for one would resist, along with many others. If other contributors cannot stomach my put-downs after calling me a "multi-cult fascist", threatening me with being tried for treason, or calling me a "twit", then perhaps they should not make such personally abusive attacks. I have obviously been more effective by keeping within wiki guidelines than outside of them. I fail NPOV but I am not an article on wikipedia. So does MartinUK, who is also quite open in his sympathy towards the BNP and to racism, but I can respect that. --Streona (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ignorant here but I seem to have missed your point of the above statement. It appears to be a rant towards an annon user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have another issue that I would like an advice.

An anonymous IP 63.3.1.2., blocked many times in the past, and participating in the discussion above, keeps adding empty references sections to articles. For example [1], [2], and many more. Is this a subject of nonconstructive editing or not? Should the user be warned? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

24 tags are about to delete. Check

What does it say on your birth certificate, driver's license, passport? "Gender", or "Sex"? -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dosen't specify sex or gender just says female.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the explanation I have given on the Talk:Deed of change of name page. (By the way, your passport doesn't just say female. It says "Sex/Sexe" and underneath has the letter "F". Check and see. Emeraude (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Canterberry or Olana North should be unblocked has been raised at

Hi there. I undid some of your redirects recently, because they were not properly merged into the main list, and much information was lost because of it. If you want to reverse this, could you please discuss it here first? Also, in the future, could you lay out a merge proposal on the 24 Wikiproject instead of just fulfilling merge tags? Thanks :) - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have undone your edits as the level of talk which occurs on the 24 wikiproject page is usually just me proposing and nobody stating any point of views or comments at all. If you believe that these characters are notable please provide evidence to support this. The characters merged appeard in either one season or in less than twenty episodes. Also just because a character is listed in the "main cast" dosen't entitle a character to its own page there are characters who appeared in six or seven episodes listed as "main cast", who under no criteria genuinly deserve their own individual page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the default position in this case is notability. One season is generally enough for a character, especially a main one such as Chase. As for notability, he is a main character and receives billing. Though Chase might be part of only one season, that is generally considered notable enough (see

Monica Dawson from other TV shows - those aren't even main characters). Also, there is no harm in keeping the page and expanding the blurb on the list of characters page and adding a wikilink, is there? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work}

05:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you retarget your transclusion of User:Sceptre/phil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to User:Sceptre/userboxes/phil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Is a bit long, but can you comment at

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain that redirect to me? And could you also point me to where the discussion was held to redirect it? Thanks in advance.

No other FBI agent from the current series has their own page and external notability cannot be established for the character. If external notability can be established then the character can be classified as notable. If not then the character for the time being only warrants a mention on the minor and recurring characters page. The criteria for inclusion can be found on the minor and recurring characters talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bring it to the 24 project page, 3 sources is considered enough to be reliable. Done, and I have more sources to add to the article.--Lan Di (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beth Tweddle.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Not The Flesh (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ksenia Semenova.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Not The Flesh (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i saw the change you made to the parliament election 2007 article. I think including all that information in the info box about the other parties takes up alot of space but i do think its important to show other parties. I was wondering what you thought about maybe just including the lib dems / conservatives that way and just mentioning the greens and the independent seat underneath. That way it would be two parties per line with pics instead of trying to fit 3 in one row if you see what i mean. Also the Lib dem leadership changed in 2008 so they had a different leader during the 2007 election. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only included parties with representation in the parliament. No independents have been included in the infobox. The greens were a major party in the previous parliament and arguably still are. The SSP and SSCP and solidarity have not been included in the box and the previously had representation. As for the leader of the lib dems that is oversight on my part. --17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I saw your vote at
  Talk:Split_(ten_pin_bowling)#Move.3F
  . I don't know if you saw my comments, and was wondering if you would reconsider - the proposal has been relisted.

  Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please what is a split in green bowling? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the FA Cup, all of the rounds after the qualifying rounds (with the exception of the Semi-finals and Final), follow the form "[Ordinal] Round Proper", as you can see here. –

This may be the convention on the FA website, but this is not the standard convention for other types of competition which contain qualifying rounds on Wikipedia. see

This is not the FA and standardisation among articles on Wikipedia under the same subject matter: in this case national association football competitions should be achieved, otherwise confusions results when trying to compare different competitions. The word proper adds confusion as it may not be fully understood as to what is meant by the term.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding the word "Proper" differentiates the First Round Proper from the First Round Qualifying. How is that hard to understand? –

Jay

00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is unnecessary as the qualifying rounds identify themselves with the word qualifying, simply having first round after the qualifying rounds have been completed creates no confusion, whereas what does the word proper actually mean, is there an improper first round that also occurs? Also it is not in line with other association football articles on knock out competitions please see

I am more than willing to correct the lot. I have also not ever heard the widespread print media such as the News of the World using proper when reporting on the FA cup this appears to be isolated to just the FA website and nowhere else on the planet.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs correcting. I am about to start a discussion regarding this over at

Jay

01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop removing the word "Proper" from FA Cup articles. This is correct terminology for all proper rounds of the FA Cup as opposed to the qualifying rounds. Peanut4 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then that implies the qualifying rounds are not proper rounds and in some way improper rounds.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. That's merely your opinion. The qualifying rounds are qualifying rounds. The rounds in the main part of the competition are named proper rounds. Peanut4 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reasoning as to why this is so, Idon;t care where it comes from but his is inconsistent with other association football competitions dealing with knock-out competitions such as the UEFA Cup and other nations knock-out club competitions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's inconsistent because UEFA don't differentiate the rounds between qualifying and proper. The FA differentiate between the two sections of the competition. Peanut4 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The common naming though throughout Wikipedia is not to use proper, while it may be convention within the FA print media don't use it and nor is it used when the classified football results are read out on the T.V and Radio. Please see the BBC [|here] as an example.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
That's the boilerplate template. Just letting you know I've made some initial review comments on the assessment page (see article talkpg). Once they're addressed, I can look over the article again and move from there. Feel free to ask on the review page if anything's unclear. Merci. –Whitehorse1

• He was one of the main characters in the third series of 24 (like, the main, main characters. Like, this guy was almost the main character.)
• He was a playable character in 24: The Game, the official video gmae of the show, implying he has importance within the show's backbone.
• The references on the article are highly reliable and are of utmost relevence.

Basically, the article should be a standalone one. Unless you want

In my opinion monty burns should be in the recurring characters.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion does not matter. This character was a main character in season 3 of 24. They should not be placed on a list of "minor and recurring" characters. --Deskana (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To state a persons opinion "does not matter" just because it does not agree with yours is not the right way to go about consensus building and not a very civil way to conduct discussions. The issue regrading this character is not single season notability but wider notability within the show. The character does not have wider notability within the show. Teri Bauer on the other hand only appeared in one season, but is still mentioned in season 7 so has wider notaility, unlike Chase Edmunds, who has not appeared outside of season 3.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect Lucy, since you merged the page, you've been reverted six times, by four different people, including myself. I'm trying hard to edit civilly with you. It is clear that your merge is opposed. You need to convince those opposed as to why this character is not notable enough for their own article. I'd advise against edit warring. Please try to resolve this peacefully, or I may have to pursue other methods of solving this dispute.

24

04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You could do with stopping the double standards. You were quick to lecture me about civility, but striking out a warning someone has left you isn't very civil either. --Deskana (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy, you keep saying that the discussion is not a vote, however refuse to accept consensus. You are the only editor that has supported the merge. At present, there is no merger tag on the article page. There is a clear consensus against the merge.

24

23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a merger, the talk page is the appropriate place to do so. That said, it is becoming abundantly clear that you are in the vast minority in thinking that the particular article should be merged. Please stop adding {{

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added after a request was made on this page by Steve.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said, so I will clarify. Me noting the fact that there was no merger tag wasn't a request for you to add one, it was more a question of why a merger that has already failed long ago, is still being discussed.

24

09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

George Mason

Hey I am new at Wikipedia,so my apologies in advance for any mistakes in my post or over my understanding of the Wikipedia's notability issues. It has been suggested that George Mason be separated out and have a separate article. I agree completely as:

At the time that those plot lines were airing, Mason did have a major impact.

He was the second character to die while being part of the main cast. George was honoured with the second silent clock in the history of 24 which makes his character important in the 24-universe.

You said: "While the character may have done something major in one season (season 2 nuke crash event) the character does not have continuing nobility throughout the rest of the seasons. The contrasts to Teri Bauer who only appeared in season 1 but is still mentioned in season 7."

I strongly disagree to this as, In season 5, Christopher Henderson claims that he was framed for wrongdoing at CTU, and listed George Mason as one of the people possibly responsible, along with Nina Myers.^[78]

There are many other examples of what makes Mason significant, but those are just a few out of the many more I could come up with.

Also i would like to bring to your attention that,as a result of the alleged edit war,while the article "George Mason" redirects to the minor and recurring character page,there is no mention of him in the page.Please look into the issue.Jonathan George[jonamonu2005] (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For the discussions surrounding George Mason please see

I disagree with your most recent edit to this article; and I would dispute similar edits in articles about the other G8 summits. Last year, I thought your views had merit, of course; but since that time, I've researched this subject more fully.

As I see it, our small dispute is limited to your questions about how best to characterize the participation of the European Union's chief official?

Perhaps we can find a way to work together to move beyond this temporary impasse? --

Lucy-marie -- Why don't we continue this at Talk:G8 ...?

Although I think your edits are unhelpful, I do recognized that the following citation would seem relevant in supporting what I take to be your point-of-view:

"The European Commission is a unique supranational organisation – not a sovereign Member State – hence the name G8 “Group of Eight Nations”, rather than G9. For the same reason, the European Commission does not assume the rotating G8 presidency. The European Commission is not a G8 member country but has all the privileges and obligations of membership except the right to host and chair a Summit. The Commission has all the responsibilities of membership, and what the President endorses at the Summit is politically binding on him too."<:ref>"EU and the G8," 8th paragraph</ref>

I'm not sure where we go from here. --

Could you address the reason for the re-application of the tags for the

The Plot tag seems unnecessary as the length seems reasonable given the amount of information actually known/available to the viewer/reader versus the number of seasons the character has appeared in.

Thanks for you help! Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to make clear this point. Italian football managers don't have their contract terminated, indeed the club has to pay monthly salary to them even if they'd been sacked (like as in Roberto Mancini's case, just to mention one of the most famous). By the way, it is quite usual in Italy to see football managers being sacked and then recalled: for instance, Francesco Guidolin was recalled twice and sacked three times under the same contract from 2006 to 2008. If you have a look at Serie B managerial changes, you can find several managers being sacked and then recalled, this can happen because their contract was not terminated. --Angelo (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just open up an Italian newspaper and read about all sackings, dismissals and whatevers, and you can understand I'm not saying stupidity. This is about Roberto Mancini: [3], it states explicitly he is still under contract with Inter. This is about Guidolin and his contract with Palermo, before he was recalled for a third time [4]. This mentions exactly what I am saying [5]: "Italian clubs often keep sacked managers under contract so they can recall them to the dugout for no extra cost if their successors also leave.". More? --Angelo (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lucy, can you please explain your recent move. I have seen any discussion with regards thatproposed move. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The move is uncontroversial and is a considerable improvement on the previous title which was ambiguous, POV and non-explicit of he content of the article.If ou would like to discuss how to improve the title further, I would be willing to discuss them with you. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with it, I just thought that I had missed something. I have opened a discussion on the talk page now. I would welcome your input. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to your suggestions for a third party opinion, it seems that

I think DRR s a little excessive as there is no real dispute as it all discussions at the moment if it stays in the talk page i see no need to escalate this further. I think 3O is fine for the moment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You know that archiving a user page does naught to solve the concerns many users have raised with you...you might be better off working with your fellow editors to come to a compromise...but that's never worked for you has it.

It does though make me feel a lot better. As I don't have to listen to pearls of wisdom, from a user who was banned for six months for posing as an administrator.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between me and you is that I've learned from my mistakes, which you clearly haven't, and I'm respected by a large portion of the community, which you aren't.

Help us mediate!

12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No offence is meant here but I am not particularly interested in how much of a reformed character you yourself are and I would appreciate if you would stop evangelising your pearls of superiority towards me. I am finding your approach and tone mildly offensive as you are coming across high and mighty and as if I am an inferior user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)