User talk:Bapu~enwiki

I have carefully considered your response. While interesting, I am still highly skeptical of the whole concept of holistic law. It smells too much like the old-fashioned concept of "lumping" one's losses, which is precisely what poor people have been doing since the start of civilization. Teaching people to "lump it" is not achieving justice; it is simply the tolerance of injustice. Nonjustice is really no justice.

Even if analogized to mediation, I am concerned that holistic law has many of the problems of mediation, in that the lawyer may actually end up acting against the best interests of their client, just as mediators sometimes inadvertently end up helping one side more than the other (rather than achieving the ideal of a win-win balance).

Finally, my strongest objection is that the articles on holistic law, nonjustice system, nonjustice and James P. Kimmel, Jr., J.D. are all in violation of Wikipedia community policies. All these articles are essentially reflections of your own personal philosophy.

Please see Policies and guidelines.

In particular, I direct your attention to the following policies:


 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Deletion_of_vanity_articles

If the holistic law movement ever becomes the darling of the law reviews and gets its own special departments and degree notations, just like Critical Race Studies, then it will be worthy of mention on Wikipedia.

I do not have the time to personally put your articles into the deletion process (where they will live or die on the merits) but as a responsible Wikipedia editor, I will have to raise this issue at the Village pump page now and see if one of the administrators will deal with it.

I apologize if you did not expect this response, but on the other hand, Wikipedia will remain a high-quality knowledge source only if the official policies are adhered to. I am speaking with the embarrassing John Seigenthaler affair in mind, of course---you can look up the awful details on Google. --Coolcaesar 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting copyvio tags
Please do not delete copyvio or db tags from Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia does not accept the submission of copyrighted content, and such articles must be handled by an administrator. Thank you. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
I believe Coolcaesar summed it up nicely above. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for inclusion. It's not a judgment on the merit of your ideas or your book, but on whether or not they qualify. In my opinion (and Coolcaesar's), your articles do not meet the criteria. I suggest you review those criteria - vanity and notability would be good places to start. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Kimmel's comments on my talk page
Again, Mr. Kimmel, you clearly do not understand Wikipedia policy. Existence, verifiability and truth are necessary but not sufficient requirements for a topic to be worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Even if your ideas have been published and are gaining attention among a tiny number of lawyers, that fact alone does not make them notable or worthy of mention on Wikipedia.

You have not directly confronted the other requirements and restrictions on article content on their merits even though I already raised them. Either you cannot understand them, or you are aware that you have no legitimate argument against official policies which were formulated through the careful consensus of the Wikipedia community under the management of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Your inability to understand the basic distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions is not surprising. With all due respect, Pennsylvania's bar exam passage rate of 70% is, in my opinion, hilarious. And in case you are wondering, I passed the hardest bar examination in the United States on the first try.

Frankly, I wonder why you are so frustrated over the fact that the Wikipedia community will not allow it to become a soap box for self-promoters like you. Considering the huge number of law schools in the United States, you should be able to interest at least one law review in your ideas, if they have any merit. In the meantime, I recommend reading the works of the great legal philosophers of our time, like John Rawls and Robert Nozick. --Coolcaesar 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bapu. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bapu~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)