User talk:Wikidea/Archive 06

UK Agency Worker Law
I read your article and thought it was very good and thorough. It would be great if you could update it in light of the EU's adoption of the directive on Oct 20, 2008 and in light of the UK's agreement in principle to enact a modified version of the directive. If you did this, I think you could delete the article on the UK temp bill, after incorporating any parts of it that you deemed advisable in the main Agency Worker law.

Here are some cites to give an overview of the changed landscape.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/social-partners-hail-agency-worker-discrimination/article-176599

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20081020+ITEM-013+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/10/the-agency-workers-directive-to-become-eu-law.html

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/temporaryandagencyworkersequaltreatment.html

Best wishes. Rosspz (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Law
Hi, pal! Could you possibly have a look at this thoughts of mine, and offer your input? Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Wikidea, this comment was uncivil, and not helpful to the creation of the encyclopedia. Please review our civility policy and try to do better in the future. It can be more helpful to the building of articles, when editors work together in a collegial manner. Thanks, --Elonka 08:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidea, apparently I was in error suggesting you removed the uncivil comment as well as my reply from Talk:Law. I saw it was gone, and assumed you had removed it, and there was no other indication. I apologize to you for my statement on that page, both here and on that page. I have also suggested there that Yannis and I make some accommodation, which will probably require your assistance. At any rate, I apologize. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving Keeble v. Hickeringill
Why did you move this page to a title without the period? I thought the title with the period was more grammatically/legally correct? --Eastlaw (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see...differing legal citation standards. I'm in the USA, and here, we use either the Bluebook or the ALWD Citation Manual (which are substantially similar in most respects anyway), along with a raft of local citation rules.  I know that each country has different standards as to how cases and legal authorities must be cited, so I figure you are correct in leaving the period out (because this is a UK case, after all).  But unfortunately, having a multitude of different citation standards can cause a lot of confusion.  And, admittedly, I don't know jack squat about OSCOLA; in fact, this is the first time I have heard of it.  You learn something new every day, right?  --Eastlaw (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, perhaps you should consider writing an article on the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities, since we already have articles about other legal citation systems. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ανθρωποκτονία εκ προθέσεως=what?
Could you offer us your knowledge in terms of English legal terminology and proper translation of legal terms here? The problem is how are we supposed to translate the Greek legal term "ανθρωποκτονία εκ προθέσεως" which literally means "homicide with intent" (or "intentional homicide?!). But is there such a term in English legal terminology? Could we use it or should we tranlate is as "murder", although they are not exactly the same ("homicide with intent" covers in Greece all the cases of homecide with dolus directus and dolus eventualis, but not negligence). Bottom line, should we say "homicide with intent" ("intentional homicide") or "murder"?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the Barnstar, Wikidea. It is appreciated. I recently completed Detinue and Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Pass along any ideas you might have - included articles in need. A E Francis (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bank Charge Case
Hey Wikidea. Long time :-) The case on point of law was heard between 8th Oct & 5th Nov. I can assure you that this is accurate, but I cannot cite a reference, I am aware from conversation. Judgement has not been handed down, but we should not have long to wait for this. The High Court appeared to consent to the fact that the OFT may decide upon (un)fairness if within the ambit of the legislation. OFT appears to be reserving its opinion until after the Court of Appeal rules upon the ambit of the legislation. Last I heard, actions were only stayed until the end of Jan '09. Bamkin (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Detail isn't "cumbersome" whereas brevity is sometimes (and definitely in this case) misleading. It's ridiculous to give an example situation (paying for something in a supermarket) without labelling it as an example, and when the issue is far wider-ranging than that. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated on my talk page. MarkyMarkD (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

100 Worst Britons
Hi, please don't add the list to 100 Worst Britons. That makes it a copyright violation, since the list is the intellectual property of Channel 4. If it were an objective list of statistics, it could stay, but being a subjective list made up from a poll, it's copyrightable. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Minimum wage
I just want to compliment you on your insightful and cogent comments at Minimum wage. Dlabtot (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Court Case
The bot didn't 'screw up' in the sense that deleting the image field was exactly what it was supposed to do (see Bots/Requests_for_approval/Bot0612_4). Per this bot request I programmed the bot to strip the wikicode from the image= parameter and, if a valid court was specified in the court= parameter, remove the image parameter entirely. I assumed that this had been agreed upon and was non-controversial. User:Magioladitis requested that this be done, so you'll have to ask him about the motivation behind having a default image; I'd rather not have to revert all the bot's edits and then go back and undo the reverting, so would you mind talking to him first to see exactly what is going on, that way we don't end up with a bigger mess! If the removal of the image= parameter was wrong and without consensus I will obviously reverse it.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point about it not being discussed on the talk page. I will revert the removal of the images, but I take it the technical modifications (removal of wikicode from the image= parameter and removal of underscores) still stand? Once that is clear I will revert all the edits as appropriate.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick clarification, it was actually User:Jacklee who asked at BOTREQ for this to be done, I got confused as Magioladitis was the one commenting at the BRFA.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is intrinsically wrong (except the issues surrounding the wikicode in the image= parameter). I will start trying to undo the mess now!  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I got them all! Now that the FUBAR has been fixed, shall I rerun the bot fixing only the technical issues with images and underscores?  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem exactly is. As far as I understand the infobox works in the following sense: If the court is in the list then the image is automatically set unless another image is specified. If no image is specified then the default image is shown. The bot was supposed to completely remove the image only if the court was in the list. Didn't that happen? :S PS The discussion about the bot request can be found in Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 4 -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An example of the technical issues can be seen here. As the template does not require the, just the filename, the extra bits show up in the infobox. Also, if the date decided parameter has an underscore:  , it is not displayed. This is what the bot will fix.  RichardΩ612   Ɣ ɸ 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

new articles AFD
Several articles you apparently began, but never did substantial work on have been challenged by another editor for deletion at AFD-- see Articles for deletion/Scottish family law. You may want to comment. DGG (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These articles are less than stubs. They are purely definitional. Why not Albanian property law saying that Albanian property law controls property law in Albania and about 1000 others; if smaller swaths of law are taken into account (such as technical marking of consumer products or how many parts per million of various contaminants are permitted in canned tomato juice, say) and subnational rule makers are involved 1,000,000 others; all little different than creating an article Scottish house saying that a Scottish house is a house in Scotland or that Perth weather is the weather in Perth or June 9, 1833 was the day which fell between June 8, 1833 and June 10, 1833. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OSCOLA
Standardisation is good as it saves thinking and helps searchers. I am happy to adopt. Not doing much editing at the moment owing to demands of pupillage but still have some plans. Always up for a beer though. Cutler (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:OSCOLA
Will do; sorry, finishing the prose was the main thing on my mind. Thanks for the expansion work you've done; I'm with you on the contract law resource work (per your userpage); it is the area of law that interests me most and I was shocked at how appalling the wiki is as a standard law resource; wrong info, half complete info, info that seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the area of law and just half-quoted off a website, we have the lot. I'll try and get some work done on contract cases when I have a bit of free time; I actually have a Contract Law exam on Tuesday, so while I could probably quote most of the cases verbatim at the moment I have more important stuff on my mind :). Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, cited everything I can find cites to; if you could go over it then I'd be grateful :). So yes; I can help in the areas of criminal and contract law mainly; some of our criminal law is dire too. R v. Cunningham and the cases overturning Caldwell-style recklessness are, from memory, in the recklessness article rather than kept as standalone cases. At the moment I'll focus on adding the case infobox to the articles we do have. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exam done; easy as pie (although I forgot the year for Stilk v. Myrick, a case I need to write up for WP). I was planning on writing a history of the development of English contract law for WP; do you have any advice on article title? I was thinking 'History of English contract law' or something simple. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * on that subject... Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * John Baker= a genius. I did a lot of work on the Court of Common Pleas article and his books helped me immensely (although I do have to integrate some of his theoretical stuff into the creation section. Him and Holdsworth together are an unstoppable legal history resource; kind of like if the Power Rangers were honorary QCs. I've never had much time for Pollock and Maitland's stuff; pretentious dross that can be found in greater detail in other texts. An under-appreciated guy outside the academic domain of legal history is Edward Foss; his Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England and his nine-volume expanded set of that (along with the Tabulae curiales, which has helped me immensely in putting together lists of judges) are absolute masterpieces. I was lucky enough to find first editions of the Tabulae and Biographical Dictionary in my uni library (along with Haydn's list of dignitaries). You just breached the dam on an obsession of mine, I'm afraid; I've actually been invited to submit a paper to the Journal of Legal History on the CCP (although with uni work it keeps being pushed back). Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. You wouldn't happen to know where I could get the judgement for Hartley v Ponsonby, would you? Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they don't have it. Maybe they don't consider it a particularly important judgement, I don't know. I couldn't find it in the Queens Bench records either (although Byrne v Van Tienhoven was an important case too, and that isn't mentioned in either the CCP reports or the AER. So much for decent law reporting.) Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: just to confirm, in cases where it is written as 'X v. Y' rather than 'X v Y' I should move it? Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed a lot of case articles you have created don't use the standard infobox template, and have reference bits missing; is this a deliberate omission or do you not have the information to hand? Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a read of the OSCOLA page if you're in doubt. It's without the period; yes I've been moving cases. I use that infobox in all, because it's much better that the other ones. When there are things missing, I suppose that's just because I haven't had the info to hand. Cheers,  Wik idea  18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I'll add them in where/when I can. Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't disclose my practice area
Sorry, I can't disclose which area I practice in because it's highly specialized, which would make it too easy for people to guess who I am.

As to the US tort law and US contract law articles, I will look at them when I have the time but it will be difficult for me to add anything of substance to them until I visit a large academic law library and look over the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Most law firms and local law libraries don't carry the Restatements (or subscribe to the online versions) because (1) they're quite expensive; (2) most sections in any particular Restatement have not been discussed or adopted by the courts of one's state anyway; and (3) the sections that have been adopted by the courts as representing the general state of the law would be expressly discussed at length in the case law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry (again) at The Burke Group
You may find this of interest:

Talk:The_Burke_Group

thanks,

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question at the german Wikipedea
See this judgement of the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen or this judgement of the Bundesarbeitsgericht.78.94.118.219 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

English contract law
The page is currently a bit.. dire? odd format, big chunks missing, no theory behind it.. Since you are the main editor of the article would you mind if I worked up paras in userspace, asked your opinion of them before transcluding and then moved it? Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's a paste job from Contract law: I've been doing cases mainly until there's enough to write up properly. Happy to read what you do.  Wik idea  12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. My thoughts exactly; write up all the cases and then you can use them to illustrate the article. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quaint photograph
There is a photograph in the infobox of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd which at first sight claims to be of the King's Bench Division but looks more like the Cosey Corner cafe! I see you included the Geograph photo (which is really of Tulse Hill station) and added to the article that this is where the block of flats was. Later someone else removed the Tulse Hill information but left the picture. So all this now looks rather quaint. I rather like the Cosey Corner image and can imagine Lord Denning sitting there having a cup of tea but here's a heads-up in case you think otherwise. Thincat (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just tried to find the revision with the Tulse Hill info (spot on, that's why I put the photo in: a tube station didn't seem so good) but couldn't see it. Can you put it back? You don't live near Tulse Hill do you and feel like going and snapping the appropriate block of flats? :)  Wik idea  13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't live anywhere near. There seems to be a (modern) High Trees Estate at Tulse Hill. Is this the same area? Even if so, Geograph doesn't seem to have a photo. By the look of Template:Infobox Court Case, the intention is to have a photo or coat of arms of the court (but I see you have been editing on its talk page). I still prefer things as they are! Thincat (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, me too!  Wik idea  14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove the Article for deletion tag
RE: Articles for deletion/Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd

Not because I agree with it, but because those who oppose you will happily block you. Ikip (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Use sources
RE: Articles for deletion/Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd

I would suggest adding the sources I provided on the AfD to the article. That is the best way to avoid deletion. I tagged the article with, which means my friends will probably be here to help you add sources. Ikip (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Ikip (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in the outcome of this AfD, so consider me neutral on the matter. What I am bothered by, however, is your tone. It is entirely inappropriate to make comments such as "What would you know", "Stop wasting everyone's time and do something useful", "That's really a very stupid thing to say". It doesn't matter how expert you are on the matter or how "unexpert" others are. Personal attacks and other such personalized comments that focus on the contributor rather than the contribution are among the more egregious policy violations on Wikipedia. If you can't discuss issues without verbally abusing other editors, perhaps you should reconsider whether you should be editing on Wikipedia. If you continue in this manner, a WP:ANI report is inevitable. I have not templated you because you've been around for a while. But that's all the more reason you should know better. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ward3001, I appreciate that my tone is scorning. You can see the message I just put up. It is inappropriate that people go around and shove up these tags without even following the guidelines for nominating in the first place. It is even more inappropriate that if the tagger changes his/her mind, then the nomination page shouldn't be deleted straight away. This is what I tried to do, and then I'm told I'll get blocked. If you believe that is appropriate, then we're going to disagree. I think it was clear from a moment's reflection that deletion was not appropriate. I really have no time for people who won't simply say "woops, I take it back" - so maybe my tone will alert people a little more starkly to the pointless endeavour, and change their approach. The point is, actions can be just as uncivil as words. Wikidea 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that anyone else's behavior is appropriate or rational. What I am saying is that your behavior and tone are inappropriate. If others do things incorrectly there are acceptable procedures for dealing with it on Wikipedia that don't involve personal attacks and inappropriate tone. It appears that this is not the first time someone has brought this to your attention. I hope you learned something from your earlier block for this kind of behavior, because a second block will be for much longer. You should know better, and even worse, you're not helping yourself or Wikipedia if you keep this up. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Common Law
You added this sentence to "History of the Common Law" inthe "Common Law" article: "The term "common law" originally derives from before the Norman Conquest." I am not an expert in this area, all I know is what I once read in Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. He attributed the unification of the law throughout the realm to Henry II (?) in the mid-late 1200's(?), at any rate well after the Norman conquest.

The later discussion in this section gives this explanation. Thus, if "common law" derives from before the Norman Conquest, the body of the discussion has to be changed to track your introductory sentence.

Do as you think best - I assume your expertise on legal history, and willingness to look it up so you're right, is greater than mine. I only have expertise to contribute to the top part of the article, how common law works in practice today. :-)  Boundlessly (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law
A tag has been placed on Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Corp gov reports
Hi Wikidea, when looking through the reports I think I only added the ones which appeared to be government commissioned reports and did not add the category to those such as Turnbull Report which appears to be Stock exchange commissioned. I hope I didn't make any mistakes! The one you mentioned on my talk page, Greenbury Report, says "The Greenbury Report released in 1995 was a UK government report on corporate governance." Or am I missing something?

As for expanding UK to United Kingdom in category names, our category naming policy (Naming conventions (categories)) is against using abbreviations. I know typing that is longer, I find it a pain myself, sorry!

Tim! (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem let me know when you've done that :) Tim! (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Burke Group
I did a little more reading into the history of this, and it seems though there are some quite persistent editors trying to unbalance the article and turn it into a piece of advertising and insert POV nonsense - yourself not included. Said editors shall remain nameless for the moment. It might be interesting to inquire into their editing patterns, and what other articles (if any) they edit.

I've added the article to my watchlist, and will be checking up on it, with the aim of either reverting it to your previous version, or at the very least, scrubbing it of self-referenced primary sources, like their "Privacy Policy" or their "Press Releases", but it's 3 AM where I'm at (GMT -5:00), US/East Coast, and my bed calls.

Please feel free to message me if you need any help defending your edits on that article.Katana0182 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Heya, how goes your work on English law? Just thought I'd check by seeing as how you're one of the few people I've encountered who works on such articles. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Much work on English law just not on Wikipedia at the moment, sadly! Hopefully much more from April. :)  Wik  idea  21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear :). I've got exams coming up, I know exactly how you feel (although professional work is a lot more important than university work -if I mess up an opinion, I cripple my career. If a barrister messes up an opinion, he cripples the career of someone who has put their trust in him). You might be interested in this, if you have time; always great fun, and a great proportion of lawyers:laypeople. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Title change proposal : "Public sector economics" → "Public economics"
Hello, Wikidea. The above is discussed at Talk:Public sector economics. Is the proposed change agreeable to you? Thank you for your asssistance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If I may say, I do appreciate your earlier efforts in that "neighboring vineyard" & even (in retrospect, at least;) the mock-Keynes intonation of the Edit summary with which you restored and added to the earlier article (in all but name). To paraphrase Churchill, queried on how much of the hall his liquor consumption could have filled, so much have we done, so much have we left to do.  BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Just thought I'd extend another invitation to this. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility, templates
This exchange is unacceptable. Regardless of whether you think an editor made a mistake or not, repeatedly using invective to refer to it (along with attacking said editor's competence) is unwarranted. Don't do it again, please.

I see you started a new caselist template for navigation sidebars. I've fixed it so that it at least displays something; however, as the template you modified it from inherits its stylings from the Military History project it probably isn't the optimal solution. It may be better basing said template off of sidebar or the like. I've also started my own ultra-simple sidebar template at user:thumperward/sidebar which might work well here; I'm not ready to deploy it yet, but it's easier to use than any of the other designs. I'd be happy to help out whatever solution you go for; just drop me a line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thake v Maurice
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Thake v Maurice, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thake v Maurice
Noticed in the edit summaries where you work on that article that you mention it appears in most leading textbooks. Can I bother you to list some in a references section? That'd help in the future, especially if you are no longer here to ask. Ta. Hiding T 11:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. But as I said in the page I think, for legal articles the citation from the law report warrants its notability, etc too.  Wik idea  12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Full stops
Hi, just wondering why you're removing the full stops from the titles of law case articles? Lots of US case articles (eg Roe v. Wade) seem to leave them in. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupiers' Liability
I simply noticed that wikipedia seemed to be lacking clarity on occupiers' liability, so I created articles for a couple of cases I know about and I've chipped in a little here and there as needed. I looked at the articles you suggested, though they did seem a little long winded. I've read the law reports for the cases concerned in my articles (both of which make nearly 100 seperate points) and they are not the most interesting or accesible of materials, so I've tried to consolidate it a bit to make it readable for someone with a passing interest, as well as those who may be refering to it for slightly more serious purposes. I'm reluctant to re- format the existing articles, though I will try to incorporate this format into any future articles. Also, since I seem to have the attention of someone more knowledgable and experienced in this subject on wikipedia than I, I have a few suggestions.
 * We could do with a "main page" for occupiers' (my particular interest atm, though I'm relatively knowledgable about tort in general), aswell as for other topics- negligence etc, with a page for each tort
 * there is an occupiers' page already, though it oculd do with improvement so this could be a good foundation
 * This page should link to all the relevant cases/ statutes we can find to make them more accesible (I was unaware of your contributions until your message and have found various other case articles through searching)
 * OR a 'list' page, listing every relevant article, linked to the main page and the Acts of '57 and '84
 * A concerted effort to have an article on every major case, with the appropriate detail but accesible to the layman
 * An effort to find every relevant article currently in existence and to link with other relevant pages and improve where necessary
 * An effort to eliminate all red links through redirects, proper capitalisation and article creations.

It would be a pleasure to work with you and others to do this and to have this area of law comprehensively covered on wikipedia, so get in touch if this interests you, in the meantime I'm kind of "adopting" Titchener v British Railways Board and will most likely be working on other articles in order to achieve the above. Many thans for your time, HJ Mitchell (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd
You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment. Cases that aren't on BAILII are problematical when trying to get a legal article to Good article status, as I have found, but we at least have cite case at our disposal. Wouldn't panic on it, however, the general run of editors here don't seem to understand legal citations, or have access to a law (or indeed, any) library. Rodhull andemu  23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reflection, there's a more pressing issue, notability, since it does not seem to be taken for granted that Court of Appeal decisions are inherently notable, and therefore, reliable, third, party-sources would seem to be required to establish this. On "slippage" cases, it is probably a leading case, but needs to be cited as such. -- Rodhull andemu  23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Titchener v British Railways Board
First, may I extend my thanks for your contributions to this article. When I stumbled across it initially, it was merely a sentence or two long. It's good to see it getting some attention, however, I fear you may have removed some of its better content in your editing. I'd admit that it was little "woolly" in places and there was unnecessary detail- it's a habit in the way I write, though I thought the first sentence of "facts" was not part of that, minus the possible use of claimant/ appellant. I wonder if we could discuss where to take the article from here- either here on its talk page, either is good for me- before making dramatic changes to the substance and style of the article. Many thanks and kind regards HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

London (European Parliament constituency)
Hi Wikidea,

I've put the YouGov polls back into the article (that is, reverted your edit). Feel free to discuss this at Talk:London (European Parliament constituency). Kind regards, --filip (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It just seemed a bit spurious - as the thing said itself, it was an internet poll, and probably misleading.  Wik idea  12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You rock
Thanks for the articles. Arpitt (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm really happy somebody looks at them all! Change things if you see mistakes.  Wik idea  12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Indian Law
Sorry for not giving timely reply. India is having a hybrid legal system which follows common, religious and laws based on statutes. As India was a colony of Britain, most of the cases held by the Privy Council can be taken as precedent. Moreover, according to Article 372 (1)of the Indian Constitution gives special provision that "all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution shall continue to be in force." In Re Amina AIR 1992 Bom 214. HC held that the expression in Art. 372(1) of the Indian Constitution, “ all the law in force” includes not only the enactment of the Indian Legislative but also the common law of the land which was being administered by the courts in India. This includes not only the personal law, viz. the Hindu and Mohammedan Laws, but also the rules of the English common Law e.g., the law of torts as well as customary laws, the rules of interpretation of statutes. So, we can follow Common law rules in many fields, though they are not binding but have persuasive value.

As for the legal studies in India, it can be studied as a 5 year integrated course with B.A., BBA, B.Com. or B.Sc. degree or separately after graduation as a 3 year course. India have as many as 10 National Law Schools and most tradition universities have a department of law. The course differs from university to university but it is mostly the same with the basics, Contract law, Company law, Constitution law, Criminal law, Family law, and other areas of specialisation which varies. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  01:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers - that's interesting - perhaps I can paste some of the things you've written into the Indian law page? I was also really interested in what the actual content of the degree was - esp. the course outlines for contract and company law! Do you have any of those perhaps?  Wik idea  12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I've suggested it before, but..
This is always great fun. If you're free that day and want to pop in...Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

History of economic thought
Please note that links to YouTube should not be added, as references or otherwise. See WP:YT, WP:ELNEVER, and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could double check for me, but as I see the videos were all from people who had licence to them, or the producers of the videos themselves.  Wik idea  18:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The one about Paul Samuelson doesn't look like it's licensed, unless there's some reference I'm missing from the username "dogshu". The other one is probably OK; I'll put that one back. Sorry about the false positive (we're testing an automated system which will warn people who add links to various sites that host a lot of copyright-violating content). Stifle (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Sounds fine.  Wik idea  18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again, W. Your recent silence on the above for whatever reason (grading exams, ...) is admirable, and your time on other pursuits is doubtless well spent. It might take me a couple days or more, but I do intend a comprehensive comment on recent history of the article. There will be plenty for everyone to build on as to your remarkable earlier efforts, yourself included I hope. The trick will be in not throwing out the baby with the bath. IMO, recent cuts are not the starting point. Rather,the article before the cuts is still relevant, as I hope to substantiate. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding a certain editor who radically shortened the section on Keynes, moreover throwing out useful and relevant citations, and provoking you to call him a "troll": he was apparently copying from another Wikipedia article (used here: ) but without saying so in his edit summary. This, it turns out, was part of a pattern of much worse plagiarism.  I've documented some of this plagiarism on the current Talk page  for Paul Krugman, and quite a bit more at Susan Leschman's Talk page,  I just thought you might want to know.


 * I'm going through Vision Thing's contributions and of course, whatever the scurrility of your attack, you were quite right on the substance of your charges: Vision Thing's WP:PRESERVE violations are far too extensive to list. Cleaning all that up is a big project.  For now, I'm limiting myself to identifying plagiarism, which isn't hard to pick up (though some of it might fall into grey areas where he might have copied from other Wikipedia articles without knowing they contained the plagiarism of others).  Obviously, that stuff's got to go, ASAP, wherever it can be found in a current version of an article.


 * Of course, one shouldn't egregiously insult other editors for abusing Wikipedia. Shame on you!  For one thing, with the really major offenders, you can often do so much better: you can nail them on glaring violations of formal points of policy and, in some cases, even on violation of international copyright law. ;-)  Yakushima (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Education (Infant Class Sizes (England)) Regulations 1998
I've tagged the above article for speedy deletion as it seems to be a copy of this. Kanguole 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Streetcar lines link addition
You added a main and normal wikilinks to United States v. National City Lines, Inc. from Great American streetcar scandal. However, the former link is simply a redirect to the latter. So it ends up being very self-referential. I removed them- let me know if I missed the point. tedder (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
tedder (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please address the lack of footnotes before removing this maintenance tag. RadioFan (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
I'm curious why you are opposed to footnoting Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy and prefer to bullet the 2 references at the end. Do you not agree that footnotes would make the references clearer?--RadioFan (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, done; see my points on the talkpage about referencing that should clear this whole thing up. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Poussard v Spiers and Pond
A tag has been placed on Poussard v Spiers and Pond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Passportguy (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith v Eric S Bush
Just to check - surely this should be at Smith v Bush? Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How very odd! I'll check out the law reports when I have a moment to see what the quasi-official things say. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that I got a case up to GA - it is possible! I wonder if we can do it with Carlill? The sources are certainly there. Ironholds (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unreported, unfortunately; R v Williams was just a bit of easy deduction. The background/judgement format is excellent for influential, precedent-based cases, but it doesn't work so much here where it is more a story or a historical account than anything else. Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh fantastic! I'll find it and mix it in there. Thanks for your help :). I'm planning to do my contract law rewrites over the summer, so don't get too far ahead without me :p. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a few more, although not recently, and yes I always add the tags. I meant I'm going to rewrite English contract law and the like over the summer. A reminder - that offer of a Wikimeet and a pint is still open, we've got something organised on the 17th. Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbey National
Hi. You recently created Abbey National as a redirect to Abbey (bank). Unfortunately this had just been deleted to allow for Abbey (bank) to be moved to that name. If Abbey National is cleared again for this move, and I am not quick enough to move the article, would you be able to? Thank you. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you try the "create a book" (the link's in the left hand column) you'll see the page history sets the credits list. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've undone your cut & paste, the history does matter. Please do it properly through WP:RM if you really want it.


 * Okay, sorry!  Wik idea  19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Modern Macroeconomic Thought
I started a stub on the split-off article on Modern Macro HET: History of Modern Macroeconomic Thought still very rough and basically just the skeleton, so any help in filling this out would be much appreciated.radek (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. You might want to work on the macroeconomics page itself too; this really doesn't have much at all, compared to any good textbook. I expect if you've done a course or two in this, you can put some kind of skeleton together easily. It's a good method to put in the links for each heading that you want to create.  Wik idea  12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

English cases format
I've been thinking about the infobox format we use. For Appeals and Lords cases, do you think we should move closer to the American Supreme Court infobox, where they make it clear which judges agreed/dissented/so on? Ironholds (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually put (dissenting) after a judge's name in the infobox anyway. The Americans usually write their judgments together, whereas we don't (our judges give their own, or say I concur, etc). There are different shades of dissent, so I'm happy to just stick with my brackets. :)  Wik idea  09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair does. Oh, List of cases involving Lord Denning should probably be merged into the main article at some point, I think. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And forgive my ignorance - what does LJJ mean? Ironholds (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No! You can't merge it! The article would just be too long - and that list can be MUCH longer. 2000 cases. LJJ is just the plural for LJ - it implies Lord Justices (though in the infobox I usually name them individually). If you read case reports you'll see the same there often.  Wik idea  13:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. The articles could be 2000 cases, but it won't be - we only need to report those cases with individual notability imo, i.e those who deserve articles of their own. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I learn, the more I think that every case is notable in one way or another. It'd be wrong to limit the encyclopedia in this way. Every case that gets litigated is an example of how the law could be decided, and possibly has precedential value. I think it'll be a while yet - a long long time - before there are cases put up that aren't notable; if it's reported in a law report, that's notable.  Wik idea  16:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we ever managed to describe what is/is not a notable case, but going by WP:N it should have third party coverage, which I don't think all cases get from the law reports (after all, the reports look at every CoA/HoL case, and are an involved party). I'd say all House of Lords decisions are inherently notable, but everything below that is really case-by-case; saying that cases should be kept because they might be an important part of precedent set by some case in the future runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAl. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I'm afraid it's not true that reports cover all cases - not even all House of Lords cases. They cover the ones that the reporting companies think are notable at the time. A good example is Regal Hastings v Gulliver - you'll see that the official report (Appeal Cases) did not come out until 1967 (when Boardman v Phipps was decided). It was only done in the All England Law Reports. And even some unreported cases are notable, though I agree that if it's not reported (and there's only the official transcript) you'd want some third party source. But of course you'd probably only know about it through a third party source!  Wik idea  15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'd like to extend a big thank you, coming from a law student. The articles you've made are a great supplement to my core text book and case book, which prefer a wordier and less principle based approach to cases. Don't stop what you're doing! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.165.161 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great to hear that! Send me an email (with "email this user" on the left").  Wik idea  15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whither Socialism?
Can you please clarify the sentence I've tagged at the subject, it appears to be unchanged since your first creation of the article. The history shows the issue. Overall the article seems to state that Stiglitz would be a supporter of either market socialism, third way, whatever, but "wrongly encouraged the belief that market socialism could work" contradicts this. 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact I didn't write that, and I wouldn't think it's accurate (Stiglitz is much more guarded about what he thinks would work). I pasted the material that was first there from a dead (red) link on the Stiglitz page, so that it could expand as its own article. So I've got no objection to it being altered!  Wik  idea  17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Lycurgus (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statutes missing
Our brief discussion on this gave me an idea - Why not get someone more technically minded to write an AWB script/bot or something that could query the HMSO archives and set up a basic stub article for every piece of legislation that we can then expand as we have time? It's certainly better than a load of redlinks. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea because it might encourage people to write things (they tend not to if they also have to create the article maybe). But you couldn't make a bot do anything more useful for each page than have the name, that it's an Act and the category or a template and see also... That's quite a lot but might it annoy the deletionists?  Wik idea  13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, statutes are inherently notable. We could also pull out the long title with some tweaking. Would you be able to help me with something, by the way; I'm pretty sure the Financial Services Act 1986 has been repealed (I'm writing an article on it) but I can't find concrete evidence anywhere. Any ideas? Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't mean I'd AGREE with people who wanted to delete. By all means, I think it's very worthwhile! Is it perhaps in the Schedule of FSMA 2000 or something? Wasn't that the Act that replaced it?  Wik idea  16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes, I'll look that up. Second question - do you know anything about the background to the Act? Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not my area I'm afraid! But I do know that in some ways FSA 1986 was a deregulatory statute. See the provision, which I think I put into that article, about the Gaming Act 1845. I think it's a very good basis on which to blame the previous government for a lot of the financial havoc of the current collapse! There's a good new book called Financial Law by Joanna Benjamin which I'm sure would tell you a lot.  Wik idea  18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look that up. Yes, it essentially made the financial sector a self-regulating one, which caused the current hoo-ha. I would have thought rule 1 of government was "never give a body made up of private individuals statutory powers, it'll all end in tears", but there we are. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the institutional aspect. I know that the FSA was the first body of its kind to actually exist in the UK. The provision I'm referring to was the one that allowed speculative derivatives immunity against the 1845 Act. Apparently judges may have been striking down sound financial products like collateralised-debt-obligations-for-mortgage-backed-securities! Good thing Mrs Thatcher got rid of that one!  Wik idea  23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Caselist agreement
If you'd like to see the default styling of the Caselist template changes so that it better matches what you have in mind for Caselist agreement then please edit that master template - as it is, it's not being used at all because Caselist agreement is its own fork. There is little point in having a Caselist at all in that case. I think the changes you'd like can be easily applied to the master template. I'll see what I can cook up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now added support for the various changes you made to Caselist and updated Caselist agreement to use them - output is near-identical to your preferred version. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers
Hey, just wanted to extend my thanks for all the work you've done on "ye olde English lawe." There aren't that many people who write on those pages, and it seems like you've done a lot of the work already. I try to add what I can when I can, but I don't have as much time for it as I'd like. So, cheers! Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! More forthcoming!  Wik idea  17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Justice Holmes cases
Can I ask you to consider deleting this category you created? We recently deleted an identical category for Cardozo, at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 12. The same comments made there apply to this one: categorizing cases by every justice that participated in them could lead to as many as nine such categories on every SCOTUS case, more if this is expanded to include appellate-level judges and district court judges. Significant cases with which Holmes was involved can be listed in his article or in a list article. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You ought to be ashamed for deleting Category:Justice Cardozo cases without warning me. The discussion does not relate to that category at all, and if it was aimed at that category it is ridiculous. No I will not consider deleting this category, or the head category, Category:Case law lists by judge. I am putting it back, and also request that in future you tell me about any proposed deletions of any categories I spend time creating.  Wik idea  09:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And another thing, it is spectacularly short sighted to argue that these categories perform no function, because there are too many things to go in them. Precisely because there ARE lots of cases it needs a category. And if it involves every case a judge does in a Supreme Court down to the time they were doing personal injury trials, that's valuable.  Wik idea  09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I might add on a lighter note (I've probably pissed you off or convinced you by now anyway) that it's dramatically ironic at its finest that the nominator for the deletion in that previous discussion was using the "indeterminate" floodgates argument style from Cardozo J himself in Ultramares Corp v. Touche - but the fact is there are a definite, limited number of cases. People everywhere will want to have access to a clear list of the cases done by an individual judge. I certainly do.  Wik idea  10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Cardozo category because it was the same as a category that had already been deleted per a deletion discussion ("Cases involving Justice Cardozo"), which I link to above. See WP:CSDG4. I didn't mean this as a slight to you at all, nor did I think you were at fault for recreating it without knowledge of the prior deletion discussion, but it will be deleted again. If you want to challenge that prior CFD, then WP:DRV is the way to do it; you can't simply recreate something and because you disagree with its deletion. As the Holmes category was never discussed at CFD, I will list it at WP:CFD shortly. Postdlf (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a different category with a different name, and I wasn't party to the deletion discussion.  Wik idea  17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of the category is slightly different, but it's the exact same category in substance because it would contain the exact same content. It doesn't matter that you weren't party to the deletion discussion because it isn't a judgment on whether you did anything wrong; that CFD represents a community decision that the category should not exist regardless of who makes it.  If you think that CFD was improperly decided, then that's a matter to bring up at Deletion review, but that kind of review is more concerned with procedural errors than in relitigating arguments, and a unanimous CFD is not going to be overturned this quickly without some showing of new information or serious error in that CFD.  Postdlf (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. But surely you can see the sense in having these categories? I take the point about every SCOTUS case, esp since in the USSC judges often do joint opinions, just concur, etc, and don't write something for each. And perhaps you wouldn't want every case with a huge list of categories for each judge. But we could call it "Justice Cardozo judgments" or something to bring it down in how much it catches. I made the category because I think that Cardozo is one of the really good judges - I don't expect anyone will be jumping to make a similar category for Justice Van Devanter anytime soon. Though if they did, that would surely be useful to some people too, right?  Wik idea  17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued on my talk page... Postdlf (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A few questions and ideas
Hi there! You've certainly put up a lot of pages on English law, an area I hope to contribute to.. I couldn't actually find any coordinated effort, manual of style or templates/guidance on how to effectively go about this though. Do you think it may be a good idea to establish a WikiProject or some pages on how to effectively document the common law? I daresay such an effort would provide better information for fledgling law students. RichsLaw (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rich, nice to get a message from you. I just had a look at the pages you've put up. Seems fine to me; see the few changes I made to Attia v British Gas plc, just in terms of style. You've probably already found the case template I work from (and if you haven't, there it is!). The other main thing is to format according to OSCOLA for consistency (- this is basically about not having periods everywhere! The HL and most journals have moved to this form of citation). If you're typing up (or otherwise!) an extract from a judgment, keep in mind that reports have copyright on the format, but not the text. So it's important to link and italicise cases, get rid of periods, etc. Also, "judgment" is not spelt with an "e". I think those are the three most important things. To be honest, I've been doing all this by myself, so no need for manual yet. But go ahead and make one. Best,  Wik idea  10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing to add is that it's best not to use "Plaintiff" and "defendant" when describing the facts. Ideally you read the case report and summarise from there. I always use the names of the parties themselves where I can, because I think it's clearer. But if you're lifting writing from McKendrick, Collins, Furmston, Burrows, etc, etc, then say "claimant". Plaintiff is terminology still found in the cases themselves but outdated since the civil procedure reforms. (This, and other stylistic things may seem boring, but consistency will be really important somewhere down the track).  Wik idea  14:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Plaintiff and defendant was how I was taught, but when explaining facts the names are always better.  On the issue of 'judgement', I believe that is the British spelling of it?  As these are essentially British articles, would that not be the correct spelling? RichsLaw (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think our dictionaries allow both, and the Americans only do without the "e". But as I say, the House of Lords and all the courts do not use "e" - see here for instance. I'm afraid you may have been taught incorrectly on the "plaintiff" terminology (if it's recently)! Since Lord Woolf's civil procedure reforms the correct terminology is "claimant" in civil law cases. Cheers,  Wik idea  15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, seems best to adhere to what the courts do I guess. I'll take all this into consideration then for future articles.  Are you planning to eventually cover tort, also?  It's very lacking on a lot of subjects. RichsLaw (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully everything one day! We'll see. But if you're putting up the odd case page, that's really good. That's what I think people find most useful, and it's always necessary to build the descriptive pages from the cases.  Wik idea  16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. C RETOG 8(t/c) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Caselist templates
Hi again,

I've gone through all the caselist templates you created, ported them to use the caselist meta-template, and created a new Category:Caselist templates to hold them. This ensures that they are appropriately categorised for use by others, and helps to track any future additions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers mate, that was a good idea. I didn't think of it.  Wik idea  18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

English contract law
Can I ask why you removed exclusion clauses from this? Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because there's already that header for "unfair terms". What's hopefully going to happen is that the government brings in the Unfair Contract Terms Bill, which puts UCTA and UTCCR together. So while there will still be some focus on exclusion clauses as such, it's best to deal with it here as just one part of "unfair terms". That's what I think, anyway.


 * (In fact almost the whole concern of incorporation, implication and interpretation has been taken up by unfair terms in one way or another. Have a look at Lord Denning in George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds).  Wik idea  13:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a valid argument. Exclusion clauses are valid in certain circumstances (many circumstances, actually - to colour all of them as unfair terms is illogical. Unfair terms covers what is not acceptable in exclusion clauses, but does the same with other areas of law, and is not the be-all and end-all of exclusion clauses. The two areas intersect, but they aren't identical, and exclusion clauses are not entirely included within unfair terms. To say that exclusion clauses should be treated as part of unfair terms is to say that because a Blue Lagoon contains vodka (among other ingredients) vodka should be covered in that article, even though vodka is found in many other things and is not restricted to Blue Lagoons. Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only concern the law has with exclusion clauses is when they are unreasonable or unfair.  Wik idea  18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The same can be said of all terms of a contract - by that logic we'd have no articles and subsections on terms, either. Exclusion clauses and what is and is not acceptable as an exclusion clause is governed by a network of common law cases, as well as some sections of UCTA. "unfair terms" in the statutory sense and "unfair exclusion clauses" are not entirely analogous, and cannot work in the same article on "unfair terms". Every contract book I've ever seen considers exclusion clauses a seperate section that is covered individually, not as part of another section, and we don't look at what the law is concerned with, we look at what the reader is concerned with. Can a well-referenced, decent article be written on exclusion clauses? Yes. Would a reader be interested in such an article? Most certainly. Does it not entirely fit into another area of law, where it could be covered in a subsection? Yes. A separate article is therefore the best option. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No it can't. The rules of incorporation define a contract term's scope, implication determines what is necessary to give effect to the parties reasonable expections, and interpretation determines what a reasonable person would think. I'm not saying you can't talk about exclusion clauses, but on the main page you might as well integrate it with the direct statutory regulation of unfair terms. Go ahead and write an article on it if you want. It'll contain UCTA and Canada Steamship, right?  Wik idea  09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those bits that feature exclusion clauses, yes. My point is we should write about what the reader wants, not what the law suggests. Assuming that most readers of law articles will be students or those interested in the law, exclusion clauses should be coered separately, as I note they already are in a worldwide view article. I've got Treitel's law of contract, McKendrick's Contract Law and Chitty on contract (a practitioner's text, no less) and they all cover exclusion clauses as an individual element, although with the strong inclusion of UCTA in Chitty's case. I'll follow your suggestion, with a few tweaks - I'll write an article up in my userspace, polish and reference it as best I can and then prod you and a few others with links when it is done so you can voice your opinions. Does that sound alright? Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't see any problem at all! Keep in mind that Canada Steamship is largely dead: see HIH v Chase Manhattan, because the courts have now taken the view that it's unnecessary to "interpret our way out" of unfair terms (or exclusions which result in unfairness!) when we've got direct statutory regulation of fairness. I expect you've read Lord Denning MR in George Mitchell now, if you'd not already. The old extreme is best represented I think by Hollier v Rambler Motors. Also see Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd on the new interpretation approach. But really, keep in mind that there's nothing special about exclusion clauses as such. If you've got McKendrick he makes this point very thoroughly: his whole concern is about duty defining clauses versus duty excluding ones: there is a legitimate interest in having exclusions, and between businesses of equal bargaining power there is no real need for intervention. It's only where it ends up being unfair that it's bad. I think if you read book written recently, like Andrew Burrows, this only has an unfair terms chapter, and exclusions are a subheading. Keep up the good work!  Wik idea  09:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. A particular focus at the moment is our article on Privity in English law - I'm thinking we could get that to GA quite easily, along with the C(RTP)A 1999 (speaking of which, you might want to see my response on the talkpage.) Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have seen your point on exclusion clauses. I'm thinking of including them in the article on "terms" generally, since most of the information on them in textbooks is simply information on the incorporation of terms with "terms" replaced with "exclusion clauses". My thinking is a definition of exclusion clauses, an explanation of their purpose (in regards to how contract theory sees them) and sections on the rules on negligence and contra preferentem. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think definitions of things are generally difficult, because meanings of words are different given the context. An exclusion clause obviously "excludes" in some way the terms of a contract that would exist without the exclusion (eg the duty to take reasonable care). But then you can have clauses which have the effect of excluding liability: this is the s 13 problem in UCTA. I would create a page about unfair terms, because as I think I said above, incorporation, interpretation and implication rules can be used purely as a matter of construction, without the regulatory element. I'd say that it's important to talk about why exclusions have historically been a problem (again, Lord Denning in George Mitchell - this is one of the best decisions ever!). So there's just a couple of thoughts.  Wik idea  14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a few definitions that agree with each other. The draft definition I have so far is "Exclusion clauses are defined by Ewan McKendrick as "a clause in a contract or a term in a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a liability or a legal duty which would otherwise arise" and by Michael Furmston as "the attempt of one party to insert terms excluding or limiting liabilities which would otherwise be his". It most commonly takes the form of a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one party for any breach to the contract or damages suffered as a result of that breach. Another form is that of an indemnity clause, in which one party promises to pay the other party for any loss that party suffers when carrying out the terms of the contract". Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeer
Hi Wikidea! I'm trying to get an article on the Xeer going. It's the customary law legal system of the Somalis. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and give me some tips on how to best organize it to conform to wikipedia standards and fit in with the other law articles. There's links on the page of you need more info. Thanks in advance! --A is A (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)