User talk:Proz (usurped)

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for working on competition law; it's a mess right now from it's biased first draft and contentious history. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition law
Hello Proz - thanks for your work on the Competition law page so far. The public sector regulation section, as you've seen is a bit of a stub - but it needs expansion, not deletion. It is considered a part of competition law in the practice and academic discipline in the EU, and by many authors in the States - you can see it's usually in the final sections of books, which you can check on Amazon. You're welcome to start again with a stub if you want. I just wrote that part quickly to have something, rather than nothing. I've done a bit on the European Community regulation page just recently. As for the section on monopoly stuff, please go ahead and edit: that's better than leaving tags. Keep in mind though, that there's nothing dubious about what I've written there, and there's all footnotes: this page is about how to find good way to summarise the differences and the similarities between the two (and all the other jurisdictions in the world as well - Japan, Australia, Canada, etc), isn't it?  Wik idea  07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Competition law:
Your recent edit to Competition law (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad bot. Smack.  Smack.  Proz 09:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time...
Next time I say something to you, please return the politeness and talk back to me, not go to another page and mock my comments there. I've replied to what you've said. I'd be interested to know where you're from by the way, because you put across the impression that you know what you're talking about and maybe you could make a few positive improvements.  Wik idea  11:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to your comments about Competition law on Talk:Competition law. This seemed most appropriate for a discussion of the content of Competition law. Even now I cannot see the mockery in what I wrote. Proz 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I have put across any impression that I am an expert. I hopefully know what I am talking about when I decide to talk about something, but I am anonymous here, therefore I cannot claim any expertise. Proz 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition articles
Thanks for making some headway with the Competition and EC Competition articles. Another person's input is always welcomed! Sephui 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP policy issues
I'll try to address all of these, but briefly.

Some duplicative content is allowed and in fact demanded according to Summary style. For example, the competition law article just got a subpage for theory, and much of the high-level summary would have to be repeated on the article over the whole subject. Editors are encouraged to be bold, so to the extent that content is needlessly repeated, you should streamline the efficiencies. There is a subject style guide at Manual of Style (legal), and you are free to recommend additions to it. Specific questions can be asked at the talk page of the law wikiproject (WP:LAW).

Court opinions are an exception to the rule that we should rely on secondary sources. However, I think this mainly applies to citing opinions in non-legal articles (that is, for example, citing a ruling that imposed penalties on the subject of the article&mdash;no other source could be as reliable as the opinion itself). I think this is unwise for citing principles of law for the original research problem you mention. Court opinions often do not summarize the law and come with a guarantee of typicality: any opinion could be an idiosyncratic and ignored holding. Therefore, when analyzing the state of the law (as opposed to particular holdings relevant to particular parties), we should probably rely on secondary treatments to avoid undue WEIGHT. This is sensible: if a case is really important to the development of a principle, someone should have written about it.

No disclaimer is needed because all of the pages include a very expansive set of disclaimers at the bottom, including the Legal disclaimer. Good luck, and thanks for editing. I've got to go now. Cool Hand Luke 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Account still used ?
It seems to me that you no more use this account (72 edits, no contributions from 27 July 2008). Is there a problem if I ask it for me (yours and your edits will be renamed) ? I own the global account Proz (SUL account, see Help:Unified login), and it will make things really easier for me, essentially for minor factual corrections, when I edit french wikipedia, which I often currently do not make because it takes too manipulations. In case you are still watching your page, you can respond me if possible on my french talk page fr:Discussion_utilisateur:Proz, or on my talk page here : I will check it in some days and anyway before asking usurpation (if I ask), see Changing_username/Usurpations. Sincerely. Przo (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)