Mw-wsh

Wii

The use of Nintendo GameCube controllers and USB keyboards is noted in the "Backward compatibility" and "Technical specifications" sections. A link to the Wii Balance Board was included in the infobox, and I've went ahead and added a brief summary of the board in the "Hardware" section. just64helpin (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the section is redundant, as the bulk of the information is already noted in the article. The "Wii Remote" section is meant to be a summary of the Wii Remote article. just64helpin (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Death of Baby P, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps marking the places with [citation needed] would be clearer ?

Grant

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have altered your unexplained revision of the Bernie Grant page. Cheers, Monk Bretton (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

edit war on Death of Baby P

Hi - I've noticed you're now a little past 3RR, and judging from the discussion on the talk page, I think there is no longer a consensus to suppress the names of the family and children. You're welcome to try to get a broader discussion going, but the back-and-forth reversions between you and various IP authors on the page are unhelpful. Best, Ray^Talk 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true I can see no concensus. The children should be prime factor here. And there is nothing to be gained by publishing. I've applied to semi-protection to allow a proper debate.--Mw-wsh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote - you seem to have missed the point. As you have noticed, there is no consensus to censor Wikipedia -- thus, you should not edit-war. Unilateral removal of verified information from Wikipedia is always problematic -- you need to get consensus on the talk page for doing so, or some administrator will come along and sanction you. Ray^Talk 18:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and there is already concensus.--Mw-wsh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed entry by person from Rugby

Its important to protect child anonymity

I'm determined to protect the surnames of the children involved in cases like Baby P. In the case of Baby P there seems no reason to publish the surnames. The mother will be given a new identity on release from prision so it serves no purpose in trying to punish her more. Its the children who will find it difficult to change their names and move on from their past.

It was been suggested that I support the perpretators of this. Personnally I have no problem with them being locked away for life. My main argument for protecting the names is to protet the children.

A bit late now isn't it. Besides, the 16-year-old should have phoned the police. I wpould have prosecuted her as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.9.8 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we can't help. You obviously want to hurt them more.

Yeah I do. They're evil and they deserve to be hurt more. A LOT more.

I meant you want to hurt the children. You're using them to hurt those responsible. Would you like to ask the children what they want ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they should have done the right thing while Baby P was alive. They had better increase those sentences immediately otherwise this unelected government will be out even sooner.

Don't think the poor siblings could do much. Not sure what the "right thing" for them to do was.--Mw-wsh (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe phone the law like any decent citizen would. (JohnRedwood (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Do you know how old the siblings are ? One was 2 at the time. --Mw-wsh (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So just because the stepfather raped her you think the murdered child Baby P shouldn't be named? I'm sure she has a new name now. It seems consensus on the talk page is definitely with my side now. (92.14.251.66 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

No - because the siblings (including the raped girl) need to move on. I think thats a more worthwhile cause to fight for. But see the Talk page for a full discussion. I fail to see how Ray and I in disagreement creates a consensus either way. --Mw-wsh (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

They can move on with their new names. Allowing Baby P the dignity of his real name (which everyone already knows) is a very worthy cause. Everyone except you is on Ray's side. Anyway this cannot continue because you can't keep names hidden in this modern Internet age. Sooner or later - and I think, sooner rather than later - this site will be giving the murdered child's full name. (92.12.37.48 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

They don't have any new names yet. But I know you don't care for the siblings so thats not an issue. Suggest you read the Talk page again. There's old discussion on this. If the names are available elsewhere so go look, why the obsession with this site. When the children have moved on, perhaps they should be named, but I don't want to abuse them more. You're no better than the killers. --Mw-wsh (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Damp (structural), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-22t12:11z 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)