User talk:Rachel Pearce - Knowledge (XXG)

875:(which is their purpose) without actually linking directly to the texts. My thinking was that the hall is used as a Christian conference centre for visits by young people: natural curiosity will lead visitors to the page, and to the reference. That's fine: but there is no reason why the centre should be saddled with the permanent association with the actual verbal content of those articles, especially as Professor Cunningham's (slightly lurid) proposition is clearly disputed, and also the supposed prurient content (as opposed to the source of the verse) is not in itself directly relevant to the Hall. That seemed to me to be unfair on the centre and placing unnecessarily prurient matter actually and directly in the way of young people who could, at least, be required to make slightly more effort to find it if they really want to. I originally put the link in, then thought better of it, and now regret it! Do you think we might ditch the link (but keep the reference) as an act not of censorship, but of responsible limitation? I do not represent the centre in any way - never been there - but was acting on the same motives as would apply to 'living persons' pages etc. I'd value your response 1051:

Since then I've had all sorts of experiences, including edit wars, and learned to recognise the various sorts of people out there: the vandals (no problem really), the well-intentioned idiots (more trouble), the well-informed bigots (really hard work); the people who actually know what they are talking about (yes, there are quite a lot of them). In the process I've learnt a lot about all sorts of subjects, and also I'm getting better at negotiation, and learnt the value of

1404: 446: 321:. He seems to have an argument with whole categories. However he does not engage in debate or respond to requests on his Talk page. What should I do next? Sorry for my ignorance and for wasting valuable time - I have tried to RTFM but have not really found a solution in the help pages since this is not quite obvious vandalism. Indeed the user may have a point, but it doesn't seem to me that he is making it. 2132: 1995: 1907: 1819: 1731: 1656: 1583: 1510: 1440: 1334: 242:

back in here and see my work distroyed because someone is lazy or legalistic. I happen to really like Farquharson and would like to help people who like Scottish painters and culture. It's hard enough to write and to learn how to use Wiki someone please cut me some slack here? I have allot to offer even if I am not the best with the format.

1128:

The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable source. Their reporting on the Knox/Kercher case was pure sensationalism and several news sources have actually reported on the poor job they did of fact checking their stories. I'll find the other citation and replace it if possible, though if I recall it's

902:

article to provide the links. I know its all a bit big brother to limit information, but then if people want to know about this debate this isn't really where they will be looking for it. And there is a sort of cat in or out of the bag principle with Knowledge (XXG) whereby it is not always necessary

730:

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.

193:

Rachel this is the second go round for me with this piece it was ripped down as soon as I put it up last time. Everything I do can be traced as I sign on with my real name. Why is it so hard to look at the history of the article and match it with the name on my website. Its getting so hard here to

1129:

being used to demonstrate the media coverage given to the incident immediately after it happened, which would be the only place a Daily Mail source would be acceptable, since that section is about their coverage. Thanks for you work in the article by the way, I didn't mean to diminish it in any way.

812:

Has your user page been accidentally used as a talk page. It would be good if you could say something about yourself (not to much) on your user page. Perhaps, look at the sort of things other editors put on their talk pages first. It is not a home page, but it is part of the wiki for users to know a

1102:

The other possibility is that it is governed by ISO 8601 (which is mentioned here and there on Knowledge (XXG)). If that is the case, it is required to be in the Gregorian calendar, and dates before 1583 are invalid except through mutual agreement. So all the autoformatted dates in the main part of

1096:

One of the two possibilities I had in mind is that it is just an informal rearrangement of the usual date elements in the hopes that an international audience will get the idea that the biggest unit, the year, goes on the left, the smallest unit, the day, goes on the right, and the middle unit, the

1080:

Your recent edit to the Julius Caesar article suggests you take an interest in dates, so I would lkike to ask a question. What, if any, standard do you think applies to dates in Knowledge (XXG) articles where the format resembles 2008-09-08? I have two possibliities in mind, but I just am not sure

975:

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

1050:

I started editing wikipedia just under a year ago because I came across an article that was so wrong that it angered me. So I corrected it. The correction is still there. I encountered another ditto, on a rather controversial topic. I corrected that too, and to my surprise got away with it again.

340:

may have a perfectly valid and proper reason for removing large chunks of text from the article but his blanking is opaque, as you've noted, and thus could easily be destructive. Once asked to explain, and the conduct continued, in my book that changes the edits to vandalism even if his intent is

241:

Thanks Rachel, Corvus cornix should have known he went to my website and should have seen the names are the same on the entry here and my website. He knew before he pulled it. I would only ask people be polite; I am tying to donate my time and knowlege not rip someone off. It's painful to come

1059:

even when sorely tempted to ignore them. But just as "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", as several people have observed, so eternal vigilance and attention to your watchlist are also the price of correctness in wikipedia. The reason I'm saying all this is to urge you not to give up.

1595:

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.

1668:

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.

1027:

is currently resting in the history; it hope it will re-emerge in some form before long. I'd welcome your comments on it. I'm very relaxed about the wording at the top of the dab page, but in any case what it's appropriate to put there may depend on the outcome of the

903:

to say everything that could be said, especially if it is so tangential. My preference would be to remove both links (but keeping the citations) here, but put them in (if not there already) to the Turn of the Screw (opera) article. Could we agree to that? Best,

127:

says "copyright 2007 , Jim & Beth Boyle, All Rights Reserved", so she might be the Beth Boyle from there. If so, she can post the material, but she needs to follow the proper process to prove that she has the copyright. In general, unless the material is

1522:

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.

898:. Without judging the debate itself, I question its relevance to the present article. For that reason my preference is to give the citations, simply to provide verification for the fact the BB got his text from a book from that source, but not in 92:

Hello, It's me guys! This is Beth. I wrote this OK and did the research? Why do you talk like I can't read this. How about someone talking to me directly? My name is on my webpage right at the top besides the copyright! -Beth Maxwell Boyle

1107:

article are wrong, because they could be autoformatted into the ISO 8601 format. The dates in the reference section would be ok, except for sources from antiquity. But the article is wrong only if you think the dates are governed by ISO 8601.

970:

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

839:

There was no way I could know you wrote the text on your page. Now you have put references in that is fine. I have added a load of links and things. It would be better to have this discussion on the discussion page for the Farquharson article

1060:

US-centrism is indeed a problem in many areas, though I have to say I don't think it's anywhere near the most serious issue. But if well-educated people walk away, it makes it harder for the rest. So, please, cheer up, but don't give up.

164:

I have long been a user of Knowledge (XXG) and occasional corrector of annoying typos etc., but having confidently typed his name in and being astonished to find no page, I decided to dip my toe into the page creation waters.

1097:

month, goes inbetween. This avoids the problem of formats like 1/2/2004, which could be January 2, 2004, or 1 February 2004. It also sorts easily on a computer. Any further meaning would have to be derived from the context.

1204:

No worries, I've also left a heads-up on the talk page of the anon editor's IP address, which they will just as easily miss seeing. For now, there's naught so badly broken there that needs a furious rush to fix. Thanks,

1023:. They were designed to go together in a fairly disjoint way. As well as the new structure, I did a bit of work on adding new material. After some vicissitudes the dab article seems to have been accepted, but my new 2177: 2040: 1950: 1862: 1774: 1696: 1623: 1550: 793:. As I see it, you reverted a vandalism revert. The free metal isn't unstable, it's reactive, which isn't at all the same thing. I'd've warned you for vandalism if it wasn't for your previous good history. 226:

I was just trying to protect copyrighted material. It was by no mean obvious that you held the copyright! Remember that at that stage you had not put any references in either. Please don't be discouraged.

341:

pure as driven snow; 3RR no longer applies. I have reverted back to you and left a note on his talk page. If he keeps removing the material without explanation, each time leave an esclating warning in the

2161:. 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 2024:. 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 1934:. 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 1846:. 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 1758:. 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 1680:. 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 1607:. 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 1534:. 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 871:

Dear Rachel, Re the 'inadvertently removed' link on the Britten theme, the removal was deliberate not inadvertent. It seemed to me that the references, being given in full, were quite sufficient

890:

Dear Rachel, Thanks for your reply. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the actual subject matter of the articles is not relevant to Sizewell Hall, though of course it IS relevant to (say)

2146: 2009: 1920: 1832: 1744: 931:

page, calling him 'fat' etc. Despite reverts by several admins, he just keeps putting it back. Would it be possble to permenantly block him, given he is ignoring the warnings you gave?

1152:

reeds. I would like to re-emphasize that I don't play oboe nor any other wind instrument, and my knowledge of the oboe comes almost entirely from listening to music on the radio.

536: 474: 832:

Rachel I wrote this piece. Change the style if you don't like it but don't delete it. I have it on my website that is where it was copied from because I wrote it!

161:

Ah! Well spotted. I had found that article but not noticed the copyright owner. In the light of that I hope my comment on the talk page was not too strongly worded.

1190:

Thanks, that looks right to me but I am not well informed enough to comment on the column titles. (Sorry for delayed response - was away from internet then busy.)

179:

The conversation above between me and Corvus Cornix happened, as you can see, over a month ago, long before you revealed yourself as the author of the article.

626: 2099: 1175:

you will find a table of the southern variations that recently got added, and that you valiantly tried to straighten up some. What do you think? Cheers! __

65: 49: 720: 596: 591: 212: 140:

or some such, then it must be assumed that it is copyrighted, and can't be copied without the copyright holder's explicit approval to release it to

108: 2095: 25:

to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

2200: 2063: 1973: 1884: 1796: 1710: 1637: 1564: 938: 773: 546: 470: 453: 836:

Beth, I just found out it was you who wrote the above comment by looking at your history. Please sign your comments with four ~s.

277:

is an excellent guide on how to write and set-out articles about places in Britain effectively. Hope it helps and best of luck!

2196: 2059: 1969: 1880: 1792: 1706: 1633: 1560: 1310: 2170: 2033: 1943: 1855: 1767: 1689: 1616: 1543: 182:

Please sign your comments and please put new comments at the bottom, this makes it easier to see when there are new comments.

149: 34: 22: 648: 576: 503: 68:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

1272: 891: 980: 964: 1309:

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at

249: 208: 104: 54: 2182: 2045: 1955: 1867: 1779: 1701: 1628: 1555: 990:

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

1268:

Hi. Thanks for fixing my grammatical snafu. Must have happened when I was re-editing something I copied and pasted.

1210: 1180: 692: 465:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to 390: 852:

Link for East Hagnbourne when I have time: www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=536669

29: 1269: 1134: 1065: 1037: 942: 798: 750: 2158: 2021: 1931: 1843: 1755: 1677: 1604: 1531: 976:

raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

960: 458: 61: 445: 1463:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1357:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

841: 777: 245: 223: 204: 100: 77: 2089: 254: 200: 145: 96: 1157: 1113: 1086: 967:

for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

818: 1290:. Last chance for some time to record the history in the silk mill and the 95,000 items they don't show? 1130: 410: 69: 1346: 1295: 1020: 983:

at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch

895: 606: 314: 123:

that Beth who put the information in may be the copyright holder of the material, because the bottom of

274: 44: 337: 2080:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1490: 1385: 1232: 1206: 1176: 1172: 758: 739: 710: 674: 656: 561: 386: 195: 2140: 2003: 1914: 1826: 1738: 1664: 1591: 1518: 1500: 194:

do anything. What happened? I have used Wiki for years and all of a sudden everyone is so unkind.

1476:

Row Live clash | date=4 February 2014 | accessdate=13 February 2014 | last = Monroe | first = Jack

1061: 1033: 794: 611: 556: 2154: 2017: 1927: 1839: 1751: 1673: 1600: 1527: 1403: 1376:

diseases &/or disorders with psychiatric features associated with known nervous system injury,

984: 1191: 908: 880: 853: 844: 679: 571: 496: 375: 365: 355: 322: 233: 185: 168: 153: 86: 1052: 959:

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the

2115: 1421: 1318: 1153: 1109: 1082: 814: 702: 345: 76:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

2166: 2029: 1939: 1851: 1763: 1685: 1612: 1539: 2189: 2052: 1962: 1874: 1786: 1291: 997: 972: 924: 418: 2169:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2162: 2032:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2025: 1942:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1935: 1854:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1847: 1766:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1759: 1688:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1681: 1615:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1608: 1542:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1535: 1056: 1012: 382: 313:

I am in danger of falling foul of 3RR, and I want to know what I should do instead. A user

2081: 1486: 1444: 1381: 1338: 1249: 1228: 923:

You blocked a user called 82.36.94.228 back in June because he was inserting abuse to the

754: 715: 621: 586: 520: 305: 287: 2092:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1262: 1047:"Anyway I give up. The forces of US-centrism have defeated me and I will edit no more." 743: 697: 661: 270: 124: 2106:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1104: 904: 876: 684: 551: 489: 137: 39: 222:

Beth, I did not mean to be unkind. As you can see from the above comments, and from

2111: 2107: 1417: 1314: 643: 616: 566: 541: 2131: 1994: 1906: 1818: 1730: 1655: 1582: 1509: 1227:

No problem; in such circumstances there's a pretty high threshold for me as well!

230:

Also please try and remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs at the end.

1452: 993: 928: 638: 414: 318: 510: 466: 462: 281: 2204: 2119: 2067: 1977: 1888: 1800: 1714: 1641: 1568: 1494: 1425: 1389: 1322: 1299: 1276: 1256: 1236: 1214: 1199: 1184: 1161: 1148:

Rachel, I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive in regards to "wooden" (natural?)

1138: 1117: 1090: 1069: 1041: 1001: 946: 912: 884: 861: 847: 822: 802: 781: 762: 422: 406: 394: 330: 292: 258: 236: 216: 188: 171: 156: 112: 80: 1287: 2173:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2036:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1946:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1858:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1770:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1692:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1619:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1546:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

523:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

2150:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2013:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1924:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1836:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1748:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

731:

Your contributions make Knowledge (XXG) better -- thanks for helping.

601: 469:. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the 269:

No problem at all! Glad to have helped!... If you intend to expand on

1456: 1350: 749:

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on

435:

Just wondering if you'd be interested in joining out little group

2186:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2049:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1959:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1871:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1783:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1149: 1029: 1024: 1016: 666: 581: 141: 133: 2176:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

2144:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

2039:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2007:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

1949:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1861:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

1773:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1695:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1622:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1549:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2085: 1918:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1830:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

927:

page. He has for the past month been inserting abuse into the

381:) and then, if it continues after a final warning, report at 1742:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2157: