User talk:Nrh15/Archive 1

Possible copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lily Claudette Chauchoin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800039994/bio, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lily Claudette Chauchoin and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lily Claudette Chauchoin with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lily Claudette Chauchoin.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Lily Claudette Chauchoin/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Lily Claudette Chauchoin saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Please remember that this woman was known as Claudette Colbert and there is an article about her. It is not necessary or desirable to create a new article under her birth name. Rossrs 08:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Colbert

Please stop removing cited text from this article. If you disagree with it, discuss it on the talk page as that is the correct way to approach this type of disagreement. You keep adding things like "dazzling" to describe Colbert, and talk about her "heart shaped face" and then you tell me that my edits are "POV or guesswork". You may have something worthwhile to contribute to Wikipedia, but you seem to be unaware of how this community works. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:MoS and WP:Consensus. My edits comply with these policies, but for the most part yours do not. Please read some other articles, especially some of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured Articles to see how Wikipedia's best articles are set out and constructed, and use these best articles as a guide.

Also please be honest in your edit summaries. I always provide an accurate summary, and you revert it with a summary that says "revert unexplained edit" or something similar. To be blunt, your edit summaries are usually nonsensical and unrelated to the changes you have made, so don't attempt to hide bad edits, behind a dishonest edit summary. My edits are always explained, so be honest. Your edit summaries in Claudette Colbert, Charles Boyer and Vivien Leigh have accused me of making unexplained edits, when the opposite is true. Rossrs 12:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand it. I do not write it in this old version at all. It is you that removed it.

You are misunderstanding it. I am not writing in this old version at all. It is you that detached it.

Iam not good at English. --Nrh15 12:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misunderstand. This is a completely illogical reply. If you are not good at English why are you so quick to delete edits that are in fluent English? The changes you make are not related in any way to your misunderstanding of the English language. You are making dishonest statements in your edits summaries, and quite frankly, I am tired of this nonsense. If you are Japanese and not good at English, I can only wonder why you prefer editing English Wikipedia to Japanese Wikipedia. You seem to be saying that you are not confident in English and therefore not responsible, but that's nonsense. Your edits and edit summaries are absolutely confident. Rossrs 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Colbert

Some of your additions to the Claudette Colbert article do not meet our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:V. I've reverted the article and protected it from editing. You can see more of my comments at Talk:Claudette Colbert and I want you to discuss changes that you want to see there rather than edit warring at the article space.--Isotope23 13:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've redirected Lily Claudette Chauchoin to Claudette Colbert. We don't keep 2 articles about the same person at 2 different names. If someone has a "stage name" and a "birth name" we generally keep an article at the name they are most known as and create a redirect at the other name.--Isotope23 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Leigh

You keep adding "cite needed" to comments that are cited. Please read WP:Cite and WP:V. We don't need to add a reference to every single phrase that is contained in the article. If we did, the list of sources would be longer than the article. Where several points are covered by the same source, it is sufficient to have one source at the end of the section. This is the case with these facts. I have added a note to the source, and if you click on it, it will take you to the list of sources and you will see that I have related the two points that you were contesting about the ancestry of Leigh's parents. This reduces the need for multiple notations that all refer back to the same source. Please accept that this has been done to address your "cite needed" tags. It is the only way I can see that it can be addressed because we are not going to have the same work cited 3 times in the space of 2 short sentences. Although I don't believe it was necessary, I have done this in good faith to address your point. Rossrs 07:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags

Please stop adding spurious fact tags to the Vivien Leigh article. The text in question is clearly cited by the book Vivien Leigh by Hugo Vickers. Continuing to remove the text is tendentious editing. If that text disagrees with statements made by others, then clearly state in the article that it contricted statements made by "person X" and cite that.--Isotope23 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've issued a 48 hour block. Please stop adding unsourced information to Claudette Colbert as well as changing her name in the article against WP:NAME conventions. Beyond that you were warned against making changes to the article without discussing them. Use the talkpage to discuss changes.--Isotope23 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]