|
Hi, Lachrie. I've just seen your improvements to English Armada - good job, and thanks for the references and notes. We're still not quite 'there', but you've covered most of the distance.-- Shtove ( talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That anonymous editor just moved the "Academic" area above "Uniform" area. I think that's appropriate. Message from XENU complaints? leave me a message! 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
On the 12th of March you reverted information on the Harold Macmillan page 4 times with 24 hours. Please don't do this - if you disagree with something take your opinion to the talk page as I asked. Thank you. Malick78 ( talk) 16:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see my points on the talk page. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Saw your redirect of the D&D region, understand your reasoning and I will not revert; but understand that reality does not take precedence over fiction just because it is reality. The fictional Nicholas Nickleby probably takes precedence over a real person of the same name. In the case of Lordship of the Isles, the number of people who have played D&D in the Greyhawk setting and know about that Lordship of the Isles--say conservatively 10 million in the US alone--might outnumber the people who know about an ancient Scottish kingdom of the same name. Just wanted to make the point that what I think is more important because it's important to me doesn't necessarily make it more important to the majority of people. Guinness323 ( talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lachrie, i've noted that you have been working in that article, but you are working things which was done in the past; the version of 22-May of Beeswaxcandle was good, then the work of months was totally destroyed. -- Bentaguayre ( talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, for your sources on Great and Middle powers, do you have any newer sources, hopefully from the 21st century. As I think it's better to use sources from 2000 + to refer to the powers of today (we might have old sources in the Middle power article which will need to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the great power article). Plus, there's no need to mention Canada and the other countries as small powers, as it's pretty insignificant, as that's the only article I've seen refer to them as that. Plus, there's no article on small power, nor is one needed, as they're usually refered to as regional power, middle power, great/major power, superpower, and hyperpower. Deavenger ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
from your edit...
"Controversially, the list included outspoken American talk radio host Michael Savage, who said that he would sue for defamation over his inclusion on the list"
He didn't sue did he. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Cool. That reads well. Ta.( Off2riorob ( talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Is a bit much in the lede, wouldn't you say? Actually the way that they were historic was the very low turnout, in what way do you see these results as historic? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)) In my opinion historic results was pov pushing by the press and you can't say that without explaining the situation surrounding the results and the very low turnout and the fact that the tory share of the vote fell by more than labours, in europe. And the surrounding exceptional conditions, eg, the expenses scandal, a major factor in the results..it is too complex to add historic..poor is enough in the lede. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
Ok then, please tell me...In what way exactly are they historic results? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 09:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
no comment eh..well here is your edit summary ..statistically-verifiable loss of seats of historic magnitude...what does that mean? that they lost more seats than ever before? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know how much thanks you deserve for your work on the Margaret Thatcher article. I began the process of reconstructing the article, adding citations, and expanding the Prime Minister section, resulting in the article's attaining GA status. Though not perfect, I am 100% convinced that the article was much more improved than where it stood prior to my overhaul.
Unfortunately, the article's misgivings have been highlighted in recent attempts to portray it as a complete trainwreck and the epitome of a POV article. Okay, so the article wasn't perfect and there is still work to be done, but your work over the last month, especially the last week, has been truly spectacular. And you're not receiving the thanks and gratification you deserve from others at the article. Some post snide comments which contain unspecific "suggestions" to make the article more "neutral", such as one recently posted below yours; they do not help the article. I'd rather not get too heavily involved in the recent POV discussions (to save my blood pressure from rising, among other things), but keep up the good work and if I can be of help, please do not hesitate to let me know.
My best, Happyme22 ( talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mythbuster2010 ( talk) 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's start with three objections from you. Please list them and some cogent reasons as to why you object. Provide an alternative edit if you would like. Also feel free to list any sources of mine that you find sub-par. Can we start with this, for now, and for a start? Mythbuster2010 ( talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Lachrie, you will see that I have withdrawn my vote for deletion of the 'Music of the United Kingdom' project, and propose the abandonment of the Mfd: I am persuaded by your point that its deletion would be prejudicial, or create a negative nationalist bias. Clearly that is the spectre which my misgivings have raised, and I much regret it. I hope the Project will find a way forward that is useful. Thankyou for helping me to see the matter in another light. Eebahgum ( talk) 10:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You removed a section from Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby saying that the rumor had been refuted, but that doesn't mean the rumor never existed. Better to say that he was long-rumored to be her father, but that your source denies it based on [whatever the evidence is]. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. See you there! Nandt1 ( talk) 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through the recent history for that article to get a better understanding of what had been deleted etc, and noticed you'd reverted his edits before I got around to it myself. I must say nice work on the fast editing, and I agree that something radical like that should best be brought up on the talk page. Comics ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I notice you're involved in the conversation over at Great Powers with Aban. I've been trying to talk with Aban on his talk page to try and defuse things there/find out what he's up to and he doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of any editors on the Great Powers page. If he is Chanakya then it's more than likely a moot point, but do you think perhaps we could try and offer a compromise deal for the short term? I think we're arguably in the majority here and should be able to contain Aban if he gets a little radical as long as we work constructively to better the article. I know it's been a short time, but things have changed a bit in the 10 years since Britain, the US, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and China were the only Great Powers. Comics ( talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried talking to our anon IP editor on their talk page and, be it they don't know how to use talk pages or what, they haven't replied. I'm not sure exactly how cooperative the IP wants to be exactly, so just coming to you because you seem to be the other somewhat party involved in this. One of their edit summaries seemed to single out your edits specifically (their summary was - "but the former version had a long term consensus and the edit is a compromise because it included some of lachrie edits") - do you know if you can shed any light on why the IP would say something like that? I'd just like to try and settle things ASAP - the IP's been trying to get their preferred version across for a while now. Comics ( talk) 12:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can you please tell me who do you think is anonymous sockpuppetring behind IP 217.209.168.136? [2] I also have some doubts about it. Thanks. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please compose a suitable replacement for the text that IP 92.7.x.x has been putting into the Harold Macmillan article. I am not against having appropriate text, I am only against having this one editor insert skewed interpretations of the Williams book. I am receptive to seeing your version of what the article should be. Binksternet ( talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see resumed discussion. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
...yes brainiac, I am using sockpuppets and IP's from all over the world to try to manipulate the page... so why don't you open a SPI instead of accusing me? Otherwise, why don't you just f**k yourself! -- IIIraute ( talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English America ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RHS Captain.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi, Lachrie. I've just seen your improvements to English Armada - good job, and thanks for the references and notes. We're still not quite 'there', but you've covered most of the distance.-- Shtove ( talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That anonymous editor just moved the "Academic" area above "Uniform" area. I think that's appropriate. Message from XENU complaints? leave me a message! 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
On the 12th of March you reverted information on the Harold Macmillan page 4 times with 24 hours. Please don't do this - if you disagree with something take your opinion to the talk page as I asked. Thank you. Malick78 ( talk) 16:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see my points on the talk page. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Saw your redirect of the D&D region, understand your reasoning and I will not revert; but understand that reality does not take precedence over fiction just because it is reality. The fictional Nicholas Nickleby probably takes precedence over a real person of the same name. In the case of Lordship of the Isles, the number of people who have played D&D in the Greyhawk setting and know about that Lordship of the Isles--say conservatively 10 million in the US alone--might outnumber the people who know about an ancient Scottish kingdom of the same name. Just wanted to make the point that what I think is more important because it's important to me doesn't necessarily make it more important to the majority of people. Guinness323 ( talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lachrie, i've noted that you have been working in that article, but you are working things which was done in the past; the version of 22-May of Beeswaxcandle was good, then the work of months was totally destroyed. -- Bentaguayre ( talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, for your sources on Great and Middle powers, do you have any newer sources, hopefully from the 21st century. As I think it's better to use sources from 2000 + to refer to the powers of today (we might have old sources in the Middle power article which will need to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the great power article). Plus, there's no need to mention Canada and the other countries as small powers, as it's pretty insignificant, as that's the only article I've seen refer to them as that. Plus, there's no article on small power, nor is one needed, as they're usually refered to as regional power, middle power, great/major power, superpower, and hyperpower. Deavenger ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
from your edit...
"Controversially, the list included outspoken American talk radio host Michael Savage, who said that he would sue for defamation over his inclusion on the list"
He didn't sue did he. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Cool. That reads well. Ta.( Off2riorob ( talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Is a bit much in the lede, wouldn't you say? Actually the way that they were historic was the very low turnout, in what way do you see these results as historic? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)) In my opinion historic results was pov pushing by the press and you can't say that without explaining the situation surrounding the results and the very low turnout and the fact that the tory share of the vote fell by more than labours, in europe. And the surrounding exceptional conditions, eg, the expenses scandal, a major factor in the results..it is too complex to add historic..poor is enough in the lede. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
Ok then, please tell me...In what way exactly are they historic results? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 09:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
no comment eh..well here is your edit summary ..statistically-verifiable loss of seats of historic magnitude...what does that mean? that they lost more seats than ever before? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know how much thanks you deserve for your work on the Margaret Thatcher article. I began the process of reconstructing the article, adding citations, and expanding the Prime Minister section, resulting in the article's attaining GA status. Though not perfect, I am 100% convinced that the article was much more improved than where it stood prior to my overhaul.
Unfortunately, the article's misgivings have been highlighted in recent attempts to portray it as a complete trainwreck and the epitome of a POV article. Okay, so the article wasn't perfect and there is still work to be done, but your work over the last month, especially the last week, has been truly spectacular. And you're not receiving the thanks and gratification you deserve from others at the article. Some post snide comments which contain unspecific "suggestions" to make the article more "neutral", such as one recently posted below yours; they do not help the article. I'd rather not get too heavily involved in the recent POV discussions (to save my blood pressure from rising, among other things), but keep up the good work and if I can be of help, please do not hesitate to let me know.
My best, Happyme22 ( talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mythbuster2010 ( talk) 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's start with three objections from you. Please list them and some cogent reasons as to why you object. Provide an alternative edit if you would like. Also feel free to list any sources of mine that you find sub-par. Can we start with this, for now, and for a start? Mythbuster2010 ( talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Lachrie, you will see that I have withdrawn my vote for deletion of the 'Music of the United Kingdom' project, and propose the abandonment of the Mfd: I am persuaded by your point that its deletion would be prejudicial, or create a negative nationalist bias. Clearly that is the spectre which my misgivings have raised, and I much regret it. I hope the Project will find a way forward that is useful. Thankyou for helping me to see the matter in another light. Eebahgum ( talk) 10:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You removed a section from Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby saying that the rumor had been refuted, but that doesn't mean the rumor never existed. Better to say that he was long-rumored to be her father, but that your source denies it based on [whatever the evidence is]. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. See you there! Nandt1 ( talk) 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through the recent history for that article to get a better understanding of what had been deleted etc, and noticed you'd reverted his edits before I got around to it myself. I must say nice work on the fast editing, and I agree that something radical like that should best be brought up on the talk page. Comics ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I notice you're involved in the conversation over at Great Powers with Aban. I've been trying to talk with Aban on his talk page to try and defuse things there/find out what he's up to and he doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of any editors on the Great Powers page. If he is Chanakya then it's more than likely a moot point, but do you think perhaps we could try and offer a compromise deal for the short term? I think we're arguably in the majority here and should be able to contain Aban if he gets a little radical as long as we work constructively to better the article. I know it's been a short time, but things have changed a bit in the 10 years since Britain, the US, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and China were the only Great Powers. Comics ( talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried talking to our anon IP editor on their talk page and, be it they don't know how to use talk pages or what, they haven't replied. I'm not sure exactly how cooperative the IP wants to be exactly, so just coming to you because you seem to be the other somewhat party involved in this. One of their edit summaries seemed to single out your edits specifically (their summary was - "but the former version had a long term consensus and the edit is a compromise because it included some of lachrie edits") - do you know if you can shed any light on why the IP would say something like that? I'd just like to try and settle things ASAP - the IP's been trying to get their preferred version across for a while now. Comics ( talk) 12:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can you please tell me who do you think is anonymous sockpuppetring behind IP 217.209.168.136? [2] I also have some doubts about it. Thanks. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please compose a suitable replacement for the text that IP 92.7.x.x has been putting into the Harold Macmillan article. I am not against having appropriate text, I am only against having this one editor insert skewed interpretations of the Williams book. I am receptive to seeing your version of what the article should be. Binksternet ( talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see resumed discussion. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
...yes brainiac, I am using sockpuppets and IP's from all over the world to try to manipulate the page... so why don't you open a SPI instead of accusing me? Otherwise, why don't you just f**k yourself! -- IIIraute ( talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English America ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RHS Captain.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lachrie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)