User talk:La.coupee

Welcome...

Hello, La.coupee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dewster^{_^*'_} 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to K general election, 2008, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sark[edit]

Bouônjour! I must say that I find it hard to understand your comments that the refs from The States of Guernsey, the Crown Officers of Guernsey, and the UK House of Commons, are somehow opinions from Jersey. As I comprehend, your contention seems to be that Sark is not part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey - but do you have any verifiable ref for that? Mèrcie bein des fais! Man vyi (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you seem under the impression that the reffed info I have added to Sark is somehow my opinions. As I have pointed out, this information is from the Crown Officers of Guernsey, and the States of Guernsey. You ask where the information comes from - I am at a loss as to how to make it plainer. The reference is linked, and an extract of the relevant point has been given, viz. "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Even on a narrow construction, what we hold to be here in view is the collective governmental and civic institutions, established by and under the authority of the Monarch, for the governance of these Islands, including the States of Guernsey and legislatures in the other Islands, the Royal Court and other courts, the Lieutenant Governor, Parish authorities, and the Crown acting in and through the Privy Council." Now, I am quite willing to believe that other competent authorities provide different interpretations. The question is whether these references can be shown. And have you are better phrasing for "autonomous part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey". You have provided a reference (Leolin Price) that states that Sark is part of the Bailiwick. Have you any better formulation for the "autonomous" wording? Man vyi (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bouônjour acouo eune fais! In case it bothers you particularly that the Guernsey Crown Officers' submission is quoted from the copy held on the States of Jersey server, The Guernsey Evening Press hosts a copy too: Guernsey’s HM Procureur and HM Comptroller. And there's commentary (mostly related to Guernsey) from the Guernsey Evening Press which also quotes the passage about the definition of the Crown. Hope this helps. Man vyi (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "self-governing within the Bailiwick of Guernsey" be a more satisfactory wording than "autonomous"? Once again you refer to "my document" - as I have pointed out its not "my" document, it's a statement of constitutional position from the Law Officers of Guernsey who are inter alia legal advisors to Chief Pleas and to the Crown. You haven't responded re: the source which states that "Orders in Council with ‘Bailiwick of Guernsey’ in the title also extend to Sark", nor re: Leolin Price's formulation about Sark being part of the Bailiwick. It would be helpful for the benefit of other users to continue the discussion on the talk page, where I have justified my reverts. Man vyi (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note incidentally that the debate recorded in Lords Hansard includes the formulation "Sark is a highly autonomous dependency of Guernsey". Since this seems to you a satisfactory source (personally, I'd rather rely on domestic than foreign sources, but that's my preference), would this formulation meet with your approval? Man vyi (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sark. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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.

I've locked the page. I'm not going to block either of you because I want to see the pair of you agree wording over the issue which can be inserted into the article. See Talk:Sark#Locked. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La coupee, we all give our time voluntarily here. As you will have seen, the Sark article has been unlocked. It never was my intention to lock the article for an extended period of time. You, Man vyi and other editors are encouraged to discuss the issues on the talk page, reach a consensus over wording etc, and then the article can be edited to reflect that consensus.

The warning is clear enough, a repeat of the behaviour that led to the article being locked will result in sanctions being imposed. I could have blocked the pair of you over the first edit war, and many admins would have done exactly that.

I'm not going to block your account. As you said, you were editing in good faith. The cycle is BRD - bold, revert, discuss - and we are now at the discuss part of the cycle. If man vyi refuses to discuss, then raise the issue at WikiProject level. WikiProject United Kingdom covers Sark. Discussion may be held at the talk page of the WikiProject or on the talk page of the Sark article (better). Evidence of discussion at either venue will show that you are not edit warring, even if Man vyi does not agree with your edit. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sark Company Register[edit]

There is a discussion of this on the Sark Talp Page in which you may be interested.

Daithidebarra (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]