User talk:Arllaw/Archive 1

citation for definition of commutation
In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commutation_%28law%29&type=revision&diff=921490173&oldid=921488984, you reinstated a citation for the definition of commutation. The source is not freely available online, and while that fact is not cause for avoiding its use as a citation, I am curious as to the thinking behind using this source given that suitable definitions are freely available online. Fabrickator (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did find the source online, but it's listed here with a DOI number instead of a URL. I have no interest in the source, beyond its being an appropriate source when listed correctly as opposed to with a sneaky spam link. If you have identified an alternative source, by all means exercise your discretion. Arllaw (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've boldly changed it to just wikify the term to Wiktionary. Bolder still would have been to drop it altogether ... though I don't know whether there's a policy for which such "common knowledge" is exempt from requiring a citation.  I have a couple of comments:
 * * a "doi" link does not seem very helpful as compared to a live link, this being the more so, given the trivial nature of what the citation is supposed to support.
 * * given that that it involves a malicious edit/malicious actor, we should not be obliged to attempt to rescue potentially beneficial edits or portions thereof.
 * Sorry if I seem to be dragging this on, getting clarification can hopefully make me a better editor. Fabrickator (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I agree on both counts, and for a point that simple a good live link should be available, and I didn't mean to create confusion given the history of that particular addition. But part of the DOI problem is Wikipedia's preference not to include both a DOI and a link to the article, as the DOI often links to a paywalled version even if a free version is available elsewhere. (But I digress.) Arllaw (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Major Problems with the Emotional Support Animal Entry
This page has significant problems as it does not comport with the law. I am trying to add in the legal sources so that someone can decide for themselves whether the other cited sources are reliable. I am using verified sources and citing everything when making my edits. The vast majority of articles that are cited USE AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD. This is causing rampant confusion and adding to the problem. Please stop removing my edits. AbbyNormal17 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
 * You should discuss your desired changes on the relevant talk page. I have already started a discussion in that location. Arllaw (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop edit warring with me. AbbyNormal17 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
 * Please discuss the article on the relevant talk page, and please refrain from personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Competency evaluation (law) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Competency evaluation (law) was changed by Arllaw (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2017-05-24T21:16:32+00:00.
 * That was triggered by a link to Google Scholar? Believe it or not, although I wish it were otherwise, I don't own Google. Arllaw (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Probate
In the edit you made to probate, you refer to the "state of domicile". Could you clarify please whether this means US state or sovereign state (country). If you meant the latter, "country" would be better as it is (almost) unambiguous. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've followed up on the page, thanks for the note, but please don't let my edit history stand in the way of your boldly clarifying murky text. Arllaw (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Accusations from Skythrops
Please be advised that I am posting a formal notice regarding what I believe to be ongoing edit warring conduct by you. I've twice raised concerns about what appear to be breaches by you of the 3RR rule on one page and your closing down of discussion on the associated Talk page makes it difficult to collaborate properly and reach consensus. I hope you may be open to some discussion regarding editorial conduct as well as regarding the content of pages with which we're both involved. Thank you.Skythrops (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear intent upon trying to shout down, shut down and exclude any editor who doesn't share your personal bias on the subject of parental alienation. That's a shame. Arllaw (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Skythrops (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And... predictably, that went nowhere. Arllaw (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public defender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Public_defender check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Public_defender?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Prenuptial Agreement and UPAA Pages
Hello, I am accepting your invitation to explain my rationale for the edits I just made to the Prenuptial Agreement / UPAA pages, pursuant to which undid a couple of your edits and reverted to mine.

For Footnote 1, I added back this reference because the article cited contains a clear and thorough explanation of the actual legal purpose that parties enter into a written prenuptial agreement—to opt out of the default state laws that govern marital, divorce and death rights of spouses in favor of their own terms. The article I cited was the actual authority for my revision of the initial definition to include the purpose of a prenuptial agreement, and there is no reason to exclude readers from being able to read the full source because it contains additional information and specific examples of default state laws that can be modified by a prenuptial agreement. In contrast, the replacement source for footnote one does not support the statement whatsoever, it is a bad cite and provides no support for my statement. So I replaced fn 1 with my original reference since the replacement citation you added is not widely available and does not appear to support anything in the prenuptial agreement entry. Moreover, the external website to which I cite is the only website to have the full article that was published in the magazine.

In the 4th full paragraph, I added back “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent”, and added a direct link to an external legal website that contains a completely accurate, verbatim version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement act, as well as links to every single state’s version of the currently enacted UPAA/UPMAA that would be incredibly helpful to any read wishing to learn more about this topic. Also, my addition actually clarified an absolutely critical distinction between a marriage settlement agreement and a postnuptial agreement. Your edit and removal of the reference to an external site that sets forth the exact language from the UPMAA has caused this article to blur the critical distinction between a “postnuptial agreement” and a “marriage settlement agreement”. §3(c)(2) of the UPMAA (2012) specifically states: “This act does not apply to … an agreement between spouses who intend to obtain a marital dissolution or court-decreed separation which resolves their marital rights or obligations and is signed when a proceeding for marital dissolution or court-decreed separation is anticipated or pending.” I verified that the UPMAA on the referenced external link is completely accurate and that page would be a very valuable resource for people wanting the full text of the Acts and links to each state’s version of the UPMAA/UPAA so they can see what applies in their jurisdiction. For that reason, I am also adding back that reference as an external resource link on the UPAA page because there is no other site that has all of the relevant UPAA information (full text of both Acts) and links to the statutes for each state that has adopted a version of the UPAA anywhere else. It makes no sense to keep that resource from readers wanting easy and direct links to each relevant state statute, in my opinion.

With regard to your assertion that the content “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent” is unsupported and contradicted by the next sentence, you are incorrect. (See Revision as of 15:12, 3 December 2019). A “postnuptial agreement” is entered into after a couple gets married, and covers many of the same topics as a prenup. The real difference is that usually, spouses are considered to have a “fiduciary” or “confidential” relationship and enhanced financial disclosure obligations to each other once their marriage has been solemnized, so many states require full financial disclosure between parties entering into a postnuptial agreement, relative to the disclosure obligations owed by an engaged couple signing a prenuptial agreement. The important difference is that every state prohibits a postnuptial agreement that governs the rights of the parties during the marriage and what happens when it ends (like a pre-marital agreement) from being a substitute for a divorce settlement agreement which the parties enter into and present to a court when they ask to have their marriage dissolved. In every US jurisdiction, public policy favors marital agreements that are intended to promote matrimonial harmony and certainty as to the marital rights of each spouse, but it is against every state’s public policy to have people enter into a contract that leads to divorce. Like I distinguished with my edit, if divorce is “imminent” then the parties need to look to state law to determine their divorce rights and no postnuptial agreement they signed at that point would ever be valid.

Under the Federal Laws section, I added back the cite to the external link, notwithstanding the fact that it is a different page on the website I referenced before. The section of the website I cited specifically states:

"The Affidavit of Support creates a 10-year contract between the U.S. Government and the sponsor, requiring the sponsor to financially support the immigrant from the sponsor’s own resources. Divorce does NOT terminate the support obligations the sponsor owes to U.S. Government, and the immigrant spouse has rights as a third-party beneficiary of the support promise the sponsor makes in the I-864 Affidavit.  As such, the prenuptial agreement must not violate the contract that our client makes with the government by providing the Affidavit of Support, or the prenup is at risk for being unenforceable.  The alimony terms for a prenup where one party is sponsoring an immigrant fiancé must be carefully drafted to avoid invalidating the whole agreement."

There are more people who are seeking prenuptial agreements precisely because they plan to marry an immigrant than ever before, given the dramatic changes and trends in US immigration laws in the last 3 years, and the uncertainty about immigration law changes in the near future. As such, it would be helpful to the reader to have the external website cited for this content to be able to evaluate for themselves the merits of the admonishment that terms restricting alimony in prenuptial agreements where one party will be submitting an Affidavit of Support. Although the last sentence of the Federal Laws section is very true and important for people to know, without the reference I provided for a source, the sentence might be misconstrued as legal advice to the reader. Whatacoolguyiam (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Whatacoolguyiam
 * If you want to share your thoughts on the content of the article, please post on the article talk page so that the entire community can review your positions and share their thoughts.


 * If you want to talk about the issue of your posting nine or ten links to the same site in the article, and about five links to the same site on a second article, and beyond the editor notes provided when they were removed, need additional explanation of why those additions were inappropriate under wikipedia's governing standards, we can talk about it here. Arllaw (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Contingent fee reversal
Hi Arllaw,

You recently removed a contribution I made to the contingent fee article. I am a new user, and hoping to be a valuable part of the community - so I I'm hoping you could offer more insight as to why this contribution was removed - and I can better make lasting contributions in the future. The message you left was "Section is not encyclopedic". By this - did you mean that it did not cover the issue thoroughly - or was it something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenkrain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about an article or what may be appropriate within an article, you should post them on the article's talk page. I may have provided links to material on sourcing when I made the edit in question, but if I did not please review WP:RSLAW. In terms of editing in Wikipedia in general, you may find the resources at New editors to be helpful. Arllaw (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV problems at PA
, the work I contributed met all WP policies. It is not my place to debate with you, it is our place here to describe the debate. I am restoring the citations as I have edited them, and I will place them under discussion so that you may locate and place another sourced viewpoint. As it stands, the fact that the DSM-5 is being used to diagnose the symptoms of PA is published by several reliable sources. I did the work to place those reliable sources with their statements of fact. Those reliable sources, and those relevant attempts to seek recognition within the diagnostic publications are notable, and they belong in this article, and they belong within it in the way that they are written.

I look forward to balancing the differing opinions you have found about the status of PA within diagnostic material, and I likewise assure you that the point of view held by your sources will not be arbitrarily purged based on my personal beliefs.

Please discuss your proposed edits at the DSM-5 status talk section I have made for this purpose. Thank you. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not a debate society.


 * You have suggested (but not confirmed) a strong conflict of interest on this topic in the talk pages. From the series of entries on your talk page, you have repeatedly engaged in nonconstructive editing, so it's difficult to believe at this point that you don't know what you are doing. Wikipedia is not your soap box.


 * If you believe, contrary to the position of the APA itself, that the DSM includes diagnoses for "parental alienation", you should try to make that case on the article talk page, but keep in mind that an editor's strong belief in a fringe theory (with or without an economic reason for advancing the fringe theory) does not justify its inclusion in an article. The DSM-V has been discussed on the talk page on several occasions, as the decision to exclude P.A. occurred way back in 2012-2013 following the APA's rejection of advocacy for its inclusion, and discussion has occurred along the way. The outcome of the debate between proponents of P.A. and the content of the DSM-V is unambiguous.


 * Again, the place to make your case about the DSM-V is on the article talk page. Arllaw (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Parental Alienation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.The WP:ORIGINAL research policy on Wikipedia is not negotiable. Please take a break from editing articles which you feel personally attached to if you find the need to search for reasons to revert content.
 * , please don't abuse Wikipedia by posting messages like this on people's talk pages. Arllaw (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with the present spate of disruption is that it takes far more to go down every rabbit hole that is presented as an obstacle to consensus than it does to actually fix the article, which is presently wretched. Arllaw (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is yours to fix so long as the discussion on page 498 of the Handbook re: attempt to recognize PA in the DSM-5 get NPOV treatment as a WP:RS, and is WP:BALANCED with the secondary source by S. Whitcomb. Opposing citations are certainly welcome.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop abusing my talk page. It is not a tool for you to use in your campaign of harassment. Arllaw (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is uncivil to accuse editors in good faith with disparaging terms. Thank you.--Frobozz1 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop abusing my talk page. It is not a tool for you to use in your campaign of harassment. Arllaw (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The present resolution:
 * "I have reverted Parental Alienation to an earlier version, the last good version before the editing of Frobozz1 whom I deem by the available evidence to be a disruptive POV SPA. All of that material is now officially disputed by me, and restoration of it requires a WP:CONSENSUS of editors on the talk page, in which the possibility of WP:Canvassing, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry will be closely monitored."


 * I hope this brings the matter to a close. Arllaw (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Utmost good faith
Why is a topic on Utmost good faith inappropriate for a topic on Utmost good faith? Why is the link (secondary source that Wiki seems to rely on instead of primary source that established academia favours) that explains Utmost good faith and the case law that it relates to inappropriate? Seems like censorship for a genuine information provided on an encyclopedia, explaining a topic within that encyclopedia, and using a citation backing up that information? 110.33.188.54 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Please see the comments that I have added to your talk page, where you asked the same question. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
Why has the present situation of Parental Alienation in Ireland (where I live) been edited into an ill informed piece of information. I cited the content given as advised and yet it was deleted? Is this a form of censorship? Please advise and proive what information was wrong that I added?
 * You have received extraordinary feedback and guidance both in comments in the edit history and on the talk page. Literally hours of time have been devoted to trying to make this process clear to you. If you truly do not understand the talk page and edit history explanations, please ask follow-up questions in the very extensive talk page discussion. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC). T

The changes I made included 1. A Government TD citing that Parental Alienation motion to recognise and address Parental Alienation had been passed by 30 Councils plus a drirect quote from a government website of goverment action to adress Parental Aliention by "76 Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations Q3 Civil Justice – Policy Research and Data Analytics" Both evidenced and factual and strengthening the article. You deleted them? I fear you are not editing this article in a helpful or objective manner? What is your hidden agenda here?
 * If you need help understanding editing policies I am happy to discuss them with you here. If you remain confused by the extraordinarily extensive discussion of your edits, as expressed in editor notes and on the talk page, I will again refer you to the relevant talk page. Arllaw (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please do not make personal remarks in your editing notes. See WP:CIVIL. Arllaw (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Pampelonne - embarrassing
I welcomed more than a handful of those socks and even gave one them a tip on fixing dead links. S0091 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You assumed good faith. It'll happen. Arllaw (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 Traffic_collision
Hello, Arllaw. Writing you back regarding my addition to the Traffic_collision page. Under legal I added information about what you typically do following a car crash. I believe it's makes for an encyclopedia post, as it offers a reader basic information about what to do from a legitimate lawyer. After reading the guidelines, it doesn't appear that I'm violating anything there. I've been contributing to Wiki since 2008, so I believe I know the process. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you. Jayo68 — Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As the link I provided in the note indicates, WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not an advice or how-to site. Further, the primary purpose of the added content and link was to promote a website, which is never appropriate. Arllaw (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry for mistakenly deleting your comment. It was my wrong choice after warning for editing conflict. Forgive me. --Joep Zander (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Arllaw (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Shower Page
You undid my edit on the Shower page, and I was just adding a citation for someone else's assertion there(and not spamming or anything like that). In this case, I could ONLY find a plumber site talking about the extra drains that get installed in Australia. I'm trying to understand and get better at editing: Should we remove the statement/assertion until a better source can be found? I'm not sure what to do in this case. I thought I had the right answers from the Tea House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_can_I_add_a_citation_to_the_shower_page?) Please advise - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see from your talk page that you have been warned about spamming, and given at least three examples of when linkes that you added were not appropriate for inclusion. The link you added to the Shower article was another inappropriate addition, as was the link you added to the Expert witness article. You do not have a very long history of editing Wikipedia. If you truly do not understand why the links you are adding are deemed inappropriate and resulting in repeated warnings about spamming, you should seek some mentoring. Arllaw (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The charge of being a spammer seems to be related to websites I am adding where I see citations needed, but don't we need to find URLs to support what contributors have asserted in these articles. It seemed like an easy contribution I could make, and I am doing spelling/grammar changes also. I want to understand: 1. Why a plumber in Australia is not seen as the right source for plumbing facts about Australia. Who else would we cite? And 2. Why the the Expert Witness citation wasn't workable (that site is from Peter Kent, the author of "PPC for dummies" and some other books. I didn't cite his book, but a post that he made about being an expert witness. It looks like he's been involved in some big cases with Pinterest etc - so what is that source missing in notoriety? I cited him as a source of who usually pays the bill for expert witnesses, and found his site through a Google search. Should I just stop with finding citations? Isn't the Tea House where I go for mentoring? Thank you for helping me understand(which I did with the Shower page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Start by reviewing Reliable sources. If you still have trouble understanding the problematic nature of the links you have been adding, why they are deemed low quality and appear to be spam, I suggest that you seek mentoring. Here is a resource. Arllaw (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not received my papers and I did them in October
I would like to receive my papers or my money back 65.35.0.62 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I suggest that you try contacting whomever has your money and/or papers. Arllaw (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from a newbie
Hey there, Arlaw! I noticed you refined a couple citations I added (to Expert Witness and Pearl), and I wanted to thank you. Also, to apologize for making an edit that required you to clean up after me!

I was hoping I might ask you for some advice, if you have time. Outside of the fields in which I work, I've found that my Google-Scholar-Fu is weak. Specifically, when I search to find a citation, I either get too many irrelevant results or else none. For things like economics and medicine, I can usually find what I'm looking for, but less so for others. (E.g., law, aquaculture.) So my question is: how did you find scholarly sources so quickly? I settled for what I could find on google, but sources from a journal (such as you added) are by far preferable. I'd like to avoid making editors like you clean up after me, if possible!

In any case, thanks for your time in reading this, and your help in getting better sources! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no short answer that I can give you. Finding scholarly articles involves developing some research skills through practice, ideally having access to larger or more complete databases than even some of the best online resources, and having or finding ways to access the full text of the articles in order to ensure that a citation is relevant and accurate. Google Scholar is a great resource, and for some articles it will provide links to free online versions, but it takes some effort to learn how to get past the quirkiness of its search results. Arllaw (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Arllaw! That's the answer I was afraid of, but it makes sense. After all, if it were easy, everyone would do it! I have one more question, if you'd be willing to indulge me. (No worries if not; time is valuable, and you owe me nothing!) I don't want to make more work for experienced editors, so should I keep finding some source (even low-quality) to add for citation needed tags, or leave them entirely if I don't have a high-quality source ready? Thanks for your help; I really appreciate it! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have references that most would regard as of high quality, and others that most would regard to be of low quality. If a reference is in place that is not pretty clearly on the side of insufficient quality, and I don't have the opportunity to replace it with a better reference, I might leave it in place rather than leaving the content without any reference. (A notable exception: if I'm cleaning up after a spammer. Also references that fail verification, that is, that don't support the material in the article for which they are provided as references.) But I would not add such a reference merely because nothing better had yet been identified -- if a poor reference is correct, there will be a better reference somewhere, and if it's not then adding the reference can introduce or perpetuate content problems in an article.
 * If I add a reference, I want it to meet the appropriate standard for the project and subject -- see, e.g., WP:RS, WP:RSMED, WP:RSLAW, and similar standards. If I make an edit that leaves dubious references in place, I will generally note the issue in the editor note (e.g., "editing to clarify content, references still need improvement.") Arllaw (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time and detailed answers. It sounds like I'm better off slowing my roll on the citation hunt, and only adding one if it's high quality. I'll read WP:RS again; it's been a year, and I could do with a refresher. Thank you for your time, and for helping to guide me to be a better wiki-gnome! Hope your week goes well! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, it will make more sense why those policies prevent articles from becoming collections of trivia and obscure anecdotes. But we can also take a step back and note that there remains a significant difference between an anecdote and a case study. Arllaw (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a case study
I have gone through the reversal of edits made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice. I am a newbie and it is possible I made a mistake. But I would like to know why, so that I may not repeat the same mistake again. The case of Dr. Shreelata Datta is a well-known case study of malpractice where she "did private work while on paid sick leave". This is a real case of a real named doctor, as even the BMJ citation says. This case is reflected in several websites also. Please be kind enough to educate me why it is not a case study. Many thanks for your inputs in anticipation.
 * Posting an anecdote about what a person did is not the same as posting a case study. The subject of the article is not "Dr. Shreelata Datta", it's medical malpractice. What any particular doctor did while on sick leave sheds absolutely no light on the subject of medical malpractice. If Datta is notable and the incident is notable, then the place for that sort of information is the article about Datta. Arllaw (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The point is that "doing private practice" while on "sick leave" is medical malpractice.When a doctor is on "sick leave" the leave certificate awarded clearly says that the person is unable to work. If the doctor [Dr. Shreelata Datta] is able to work, she should ideally report back to her parent institution and start work there. Instead she chose to work on a private basis. If she was indeed unable to work, she put her patients in grave danger. This case was reported in British Medical Journal as a case of medical malpractice. She indeed was awarded a 12 month ban on her practice. If this was not medical malpractice, one cannot imagine what for the sentence was imposed on her. I could have given the details to prove it was indeed malpractice. But all the details are in the BMJ paper that I quoted. Dr. Shreelata Datta is not notable, but the incident is an interesting / notable case, where a doctor cheated her own parent institution for financial gain. Thanks again. Anil1956 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are medical malpractice, with the scope of that definition varying by jurisdiction. If you read the article, it is certainly not a universal that practicing medicine while on medical leave is "malpractice". Further, there is no room in the article to discuss every doctor on the planet who has committed malpractice, whether by the conventional definition or by a less common definition from the nation in which they practice. Arllaw (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for your input. Difference of opinion is a healthy thing, and despite sticking to "my own point to view," I do appreciate your point of view. I need to learn a lot. Thanks again for you valuable insights! Anil1956 (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been reading your talk page, and was quite impressed with your discussion with another newbie like me. Especially striking was your sentence starting with "As you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies..." I think this is what I need to learn. In fact, initially I thought you wrote this as a response to my latest rejoinder. But discovered later that it was meant for some other person. Anyway, I am prepared to accept that my so-called anecdote could be classed among what you describe as "collections of trivia and obscure anecdotes." I also do understand that when one is new [as I am], one tends to overrate oneself. It is only very gradually that you learn. Once again thanks for educating me. Anil1956 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ellipses
Just a note that MOS:ELLIPSES requires use of three periods ("..."), not the Unicode character ("…"). -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)