User talk:Lawrence Chard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nordic gold I added a paragraph to Nordic gold, which is my expert opinion. If anybody thinks it should be edited, please feel free to do so. It contradicts a, not unreasonable, opinion already stated on the page in a somewhat factual manner.

Hi Lawrence, and welcome; sorry if I jumped in too soon, but you never know when people have finished editing, or if they necessarily know the correct style. My comment about the article title was wrong, I see now that it is standard format.

I've put a marker on your user page to make it easier to get to your talk page, please delete it if you want to. jimfbleak

[edit] Golden Brown - Gordon Brown

You're quite right, it was a valid edit that deserves to be there, and I've restored it. I don't want to apologise as such because I don't believe I was morally culpable for removing it, but I was certainly in factual error, and I am sorry if that in any way offended you or anything.

The reason I removed it without fact-checking first is simply the fact that, as I'm sure you'll understand, pages on important political figures tend to get filled of all sorts of random little insignificant factoids that support the political views of whoever edits the page.

While I'm not academically trained in politics and don't understand the subject to that level, I do spend upwards of 10-15 hours a week reading and learning about it, and cannot recall ever coming across that nickname - although I may of course misremember. Under those , I didn't see the point of doing research - if I did that on everything on those pages (or similarly initially suspect edits elsewhere), I would have significantly less time for other things on wikipedia - especially as I was operating entirely within the rules of wikipedia.

I know your comment wasn't intended as rude, but it was a bit sharp. I think this sharpness was unjustified, as was the request related to it, in fact. WP:Verify states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

and

Any edit lacking a source may be removed.

I was therefore simply following the rules of wikipedia by doing so, and disagree with any suggestion that I am not within my rights to do so. TJ 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to British two pound coin

Lawrence, thanks for editing British two pound coin. Your edits referred to the copyright status of the images on the page. I have reverted them since Wikipedia articles should refer to the subject of the article not to matters internal to Wikipedia.

The images you referred to have the following tag affixed to them:

This image depicts a British unit of currency. This work is protected by British Crown copyright and is expected to lapse in the public domain in 2059. or in the case of banknotes is copyrighted by the issuing bank. The use of this image on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself. Any other usage, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. Additional legal restrictions outside of copyright law including laws regarding counterfeiting may also apply, particularly when this image is used in printed form. Bank of England notes are reproduced by permission, ref. FCA/9292B, which needs to be renewed annually. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

If you wish to dispute that status, there exist avenues for you to do so. However, I hope you'll appreciate that the article is not the place for that and that your edits have been reverted accordingly. Many thanks. — Lincolnite (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)