User talk:Wikidea/Archive 07

Incorporation of terms in English law
done. Feel free to tweak it how you wish. May I again request, by the way, that you use proper inline citations in your articles? Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. I think the leading case currently, however, is Interfoto v Stiletto when it comes to reasonable notice of onerous terms. There's also incorporation through custom, common understanding and course of dealings. And it might be interesting to look at the relationship with misrepresentation, for instance.  Wik idea  08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Course of dealings I've looked at - damn, I knew I'd forgotten soemthing - incorporation through custom it is. I'll include interfolio after the section on the red hand rule, and try and find some sort of journal article on misrepresentation or similar. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Court Case
Hello Stephen, if you want, use my template: to italicise case names in the infobox, just put in the two apostrophes.  Wik idea  20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I made this change which should fix any problems by ensuring that the italics parse properly. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But Stephen, that's not the problem. Maybe you can fix it with a bot or something, but there are a few hundred cases, like Armory v Delamirie or Donoghue v Stevenson that now have funny apostrophes appearing. If you can fix all those, then definitely go ahead and make the change.  Wik idea  10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen's solution certainly isn't optimal. Fancy giving me a basic rundown on the problem here and I'll see if I can devise a more elegant one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikidea, I think the solution may be to remove the ' from the sample template that you have in your userspace and to reapply the edit that I made (see "Template:Infobox Court Case/sandbox") which you reverted. If there is consensus that case names should be italicized (and it seems the four of us agree on it), then the italicization should really be coded into the infobox. The quotation marks that you have added to the articles you have worked on can be removed by bot or AWB. By the way, shouldn't this discussion be taking place at "Template talk:Infobox Court Case"? — Cheers, Jack Lee'''  –talk– 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the problem Jack. See above. We need a bot to fix the articles (of course I can change the template). Got a bot anyone?  Wik idea  08:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had prompt assistance from editors working at "AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks", which is faster than making a bot request. Try it out. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Law
Hi. I'm here to congratulate you on Law, and to pick your brains perhaps a little, if I may? Law is a very important article on WP. As far as I know, it's one of the few examples we have of a (subject) top level Featured article. It reads as an absolute masterpiece of concision. I'd like to try and get the architecture wikiproject or a few interested editors to do the same thing for architecture. One of the immediate problems is the shear breadth of the subject. How did you decide what to include or exclude? What was your process? As a start I've bunged a long list together to sift through and start deletion of subject headers, or at least amalgamation. The second problem is how to get a global perspective on both architectural thought and practice. Everyone will want their own country represented in some way. This seems to be have been dealt with simply at Law with a brief paragraph and a Legal systems of the world of the world link - how much resistance to this approach did you receive? How did you overcome it? Any help or thoughts you could provide would be gratefully appreciated. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't deserve these compliments, but thankyou! It was just a "feel" really. In fact a year later a Hong Kong Professor wrote "A Very Short Introduction to Law" which is a bit longer but covered fundamentally the same stuff. Perhaps I could suggest looking at the equivalent one for "Architecture"? When I wrote it (and most law pages) nobody was doing anything, so that wasn't hard. What's hard is plodding through something, without a plan/final vision/time to push it through. Then every idiot who doesn't know anything will niggle (have a look at the FA and FAR to see what I mean). I also had a very good person who helped with the style and new quite a bit about law too to work with.  Wik idea  08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So far as a global view goes, I reckon this could be harder in architecture. An advantage for writing in English about law, is the readers will predominantly be from English law based systems; and the six case examples given are one's common to the whole Commonwealth, plus America. So when talking about the core subjects, this is relatively easy, and I tried to point out some simple differences to non-common law countries (eg the absence of the doctrine of consideration in Germany/civil law). For the history/philosophy/legal system varieties, etc, it's really easy to be global, because these areas are global. With architecture, I suppose it could be hard to balance the general with the specific. I'd say,


 * (1) have a good structure: each heading and sub-heading should link to a main article. The idea is really that you want the stuff underneath to grow
 * (2) where you're talking about a large issue, take a core example of that large issue to illustrate the subject matter (eg talk about the Houses of Parliament to illustrate neo-gothic revivalism, etc)
 * (3) perhaps use a few key texts? This might be difficult. I happened to have done quite a bit of law, so could really choose from lots of places, but maybe it's easier to focus with the core works on any uni degree: actually that's important. You want this page to look like an overview of the content of a degree in the end.


 * Hard to be general. But it's great to try!  Wik idea  13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very, but I'm nothing if not ambitious (ok I'm maybe also doomed to failure :-). The trouble with architectural education as a starting point, is it's unsurprisingly designed to equip people to be architects. Nothing wrong with that, but in terms of getting a subject overview, we zoomed through about 5000 years of world architectural history in 2 months arriving at the Bauhaus in 1919 and spent the next five years exploring developments since then. Also, much of the course is about practicalities of how to put a building together. Architecture however distinguishes itself from this 'construction' - it's supposed to be construction with the 'divine spark of inspiration' - art essentially. Education focuses on providing you with the notes and strategies to make later symphonies. It's been 20 years since I first sat down to a lecture about it, and I still can't really define the subject, it can be bent to encompass almost anything it seems - most architect's end up with their own 'manifestos' about what is important to them.
 * The idea might be useful though - structure the article to major on 'global architecture today' and then deal with the historical context of theory and practice in later sections.......Thanks for your thoughts. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Law quotes
Rather than just reverting things, you could have pinged me and I'd have told you about quote box2, which supports a background colour option. This is far preferable to hacking up one's own tables. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * People have a habit of not replying if you request - but sorry Chris, I didn't realise it was you. You tend to use different names.  Wik idea  13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. For the names, I've only the two: thumperward, which is my user name, and Chris Cunningham, which is my real one. I feel odd signing into websites with my real name, while I likewise feel odd signing my comments with a pseudonym. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not an American lawyer. But why not set up simply a Wikiproject called US law? I'm not sure I understand the point of this task force. You want to create a JD programme's worth of content - but on the normal Wikipedia pages or not? I reckon the best thing is simply to go for the traditional method. Make US law better, so it serves as a portal for every other page. Then work on cases; lots of cases. If you can get people to do US tort law, US contract law, US corporate law and US labor law, then I'd be thrilled. I'm doing stuff every now and then on myself, and hope that contributing that way is okay!  Wik idea  05:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the feedback. I just have a hunch that this is the best way to do it -- i.e., my modus operandi is that the "portal" should appeal to American law students, since they're our prospective editors.


 * That being said, I didn't even know that US law existed! So, I'll take a close look at it, and actually in all likelihood it will serve as the "portal" for our project.


 * Anyhow, I noticed your proposals at WP:SCOTUS, and also noticed that User:MZMcBride reverted them. S/he has devoted an immense amount of hours to discussing and implementing the outline as it currently exists, so I'm fairly sympathetic to his/her decision to revert your edits.  Nevertheless, I think your proposals are very legitimate and deserve consideration.  I wonder whether you would support the creation of a "styleguide" taskforce under WP:LAW, so that voices like yours (i.e. the transatlantic voices) aren't marginalized, etc.  Per the thread I started at WP:Scotus.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Law of India
I stumbled upon this article today, and realised that there is much to be written about it. What would you suggest as the priorities for this article - i.e. information that must be included? I've decided to start revamping it, beginning with a bit of legal history. I also have access to a lot of books and other literature, so any advice or directions would be appreciated. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, good that someone else is interested! I've just been to India myself and brought back a bunch of books. Are you from India? Send me an email if you like. I would say that contract, tort, trusts, property, crime and public law are the most important, core subjects; I'm also personally interested in labour and company law. Really it's a very big task! Start wherever you like!  Wik idea  14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm from India. Thanks for the pointers - I'll get round to working on them shortly. Also, would an article in a peer-reviewed legal journal count as a reliable source? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes definitely; cases, articles, textbooks are all reliable.  Wik idea  13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RfC/U
Below is a possible phrasing of the complaint for RfC/U based on my experience with VT:
 * User:Vision Thing is a disruptive editor in the Paul Krugman article. He inserted material that was against policies for reliable sources for a WP:BLP, and continually inserted negative material that did not fairly represent the sources given and were POV.  After Wikipedia policies were explained to him by several editors and his edits had been reverted, he continued to insert them and similar edits, and misrepresented Wikipedia policy to defend his edits.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair
Combining cites to make a point; i.e. "Reported cases show him acting predominantly for employers or wealthier clients" is original research and synthesis. You need a reliable cite that has already done this. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, you're right I suppose. But try to show some courtesy and do not revert my addition. I don't know if you were the one that deleted it before, but here is a case in which he acted, which is fully extracted in the article. That's useful. So I'm putting it back, again rephrased, and if you don't like it, then change the sentence. Don't delete the case, okay?  Wik idea  11:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

pompous?
I think you're just jealous. I bet you live in Archway. ElectricRay (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, very funny. :)  Wik idea  15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Inns of Court
Heya, any chance you have sources on these? I've got Gray's Inn to Good Article status (really looking to make it an FA, it's at FAC now) but I'm a bit stuck for sources on the Temples. Ironholds (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilkes v Jessop


The article Wilkes v Jessop has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable case – does not establish a new principle or a precedent for future cases (county court decisions by deputy DJs are about as low on the scale as you can get)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BencherliteTalk 14:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary was: "Clearly as an English case it does establish a precedent. It's reported in a journal. Therefore it's notable. Deputy County Court decisions can be very important."


 * 1) Not all English cases establish precedents. This is a simple application of existing law to a factual situation - no new law or refinement of existing law. It couldn't even be cited in another court case – see the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities, particularly para 6.1 and 6.2(b).
 * 2) Not everything that's reported is notable. Current Law prints hundreds of case digests every month.  Are you seriously saying that all of them are notable?  I've had twenty or so cases of mine published, simply because I've typed up a little case report and sent it in.  Eventually it's published and I get £40 for my trouble.
 * 3) Can you think of a level of case in the county court that's lower than one being tried by a deputy district judge? There isn't one.
 * 4) I can't find any mention of the case outside CLY - e.g. |countryGB this search, this search, this search. Surely a notable case would get more than a mention in CLY?
 * 5) Why is this case very important?

I am not deletion-happy. I just simply fail to see how this case is notable. BencherliteTalk 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I disagree. The doctrine of precedent is that, whether for better or worse, even a Deputy County Court judge establishes a precedent through her/his judgments. So all English law decisions are precedents. Exceptions are, for instance, in the case of tribunals which make findings on matters of fact. But findings of law are if fact precedents. Yes, I am saying that CLY if it publishes something has established notablity. Ok, maybe it's not notable on a galactic scale, but hey, that doesn't mean we need to delete it does it? Surely Wiki-hard-drives can cope? Let's be relaxed. And of course you're right about nothing being lower than a DCCJ - but that doesn't mean it's unimportant. The reason I put this up was: think about yourself getting photos developed. Do you want to know your rights? Of course you do! (I have other reasons - we prescribed it on our reading list, that's the main reason - please contact me directly and I'm more than happy to chat about it). And no, you're right only the CLY was the only reporter to report the case. But I can think of lots of cases that were the same. I think you're like me - we edit this encyclopedia because we want to expand knowledge, and I bet that one day there will be someone with a similar claim that may want to look this stuff up. Come on mate, let it be.


 * But on a simple level I would say, any reported case is ipso facto notable. There's loads of frivolous shit put up on Wikipedia, but a legal case will never be one of them. Come help me and expand our collective knowledge.  Wik idea  23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please get your terminology right. It was a decision by a Deputy District Judge, not a "Deputy County Court Judge", which is a non-existent title. There are no such creatures as "County Court Judges" (not since the Courts Act 1971, anyway, which renamed them) - it's either "Circuit Judges" (the part-timers being known as "Recorders") or "District Judges" (the part-timers being known as "Deputy District Judges"). "Deputy Circuit Judges", which is the closest title to your "Deputy County Court Judge", are retired Circuit Judges, helping out to supplement their meagre pensions.
 * Next thing is that WP is not a "how to" guide for people looking up their legal rights – even if you've put it on a reading list for students. Do I want to know my rights?  An irrelevant question.  Would I trust Wikipedia to tell me what my rights are?  Of course not.
 * "All English law decisions are precedents", are they really? Hmmm... Precedent means that lower courts are bound to follow a decision on a point of law by a higher court, whilst courts at the same level pay regard (sometimes great regard) to a decision on a point of law. A county court decision binds no-one, since there's nothing lower than the county court. It might theoretically be persuasive authority, but the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities to which I referred you earlier makes it clear that I could not rely on this decision in another case, even if it established a new point of law, which it doesn't.  I've had a search through Westlaw and cannot find any subsequent case that has referred to Wilkes v Jessop, unsurprisingly.
 * You and I just disagree on the notability-establishing potential of CLY. Someone I know had a decision on an application for an adjournment published in Current Law a few years ago - does that deserve an encyclopaedia article merely because CL published his note about the case?
 * It's no personal criticism of you when I say that I don't think the article meets notability standards; later in the week, if time permits, I'll invite the community to take a look at WP:AFD. Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done for pointing out that you disagree with me. Unfortunately your web research shows I'm right. Did you see (b) in the practice direction?:

County Court cases, unless (a) cited in order to illustrate the conventional measure of damages in a personal injury case; or (b) cited in a County Court in order to demonstrate current authority at that level on an issue in respect of which no decision at a higher level of authority is available.


 * Do you know another case about this point? Precedent doesn't just mean that lower courts follow a ratio, but also the same court must follow its own ratios unless it can distinguish. Still don't see what your problem with this article is. It's a precedent, and it was published in a report. It's notable.  Wik idea  09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Wilkes v Jessop
I have nominated Wilkes v Jessop, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Wilkes v Jessop. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Law
Hi, may I ask what was your intention with this edit? I restored the removed interwiki links. Cheers 79.178.137.83 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice the links to other pages in other languages. As for the comment about possession being nine tenths of the law, I think this is just a well known phrase that the 'lay reader' would connect with, and Armory v Delamirie is a good example that shows it is not really true!  Wik idea  19:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Page moves
I don't particularly care what title the article currently at Rule in Dearle v Hall goes by, but cut-and-paste moves like you've done twice now are not the correct way to change the title. See Help:Moving a page for more information. --Carnildo (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just that the page already existed where I was moving it, so I didn't think that I could do it without cutting and pasting. I may be wrong of course - and please excuse me if I am. I understand that bots fix double redirects, so that's okay isn't it?  Wik idea  23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with a cut-and-paste move is that you lose the edit history. The correct way to move a page where the target already exists is to list it at Requested moves under the "Uncontroversial requests" section so an administrator can perform a proper move. --Carnildo (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, stupid me. I forgot about that. Will do it differently next time.  Wik idea  12:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Union Avoidance Consultants - The Burke Group
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Trustee Act 2000
Please, please, please learn how things work on Wikipedia. Sorry to be blunt, but you've been here long enough that you should.
 * References are references. Academic sources, textbooks - whatever. Not cases. Articles should be referenced with secondary documents, not primary ones.
 * Cases on their own are not valid material as sourcing. Cases and their transcripts are primary documents, not secondary ones - we should, where available, use secondary ones.
 * Academic sources are perfectly qualified to discuss points of law. Simply pointing to a case and saying "X set the precedent that Y happened, look, I've got it in the transcript" is WP:OR and the use of primary sources, both discouraged, particularly when secondary sources are available (as there are here).
 * The main writer/expander/whatever of the page sets the reference style used, assuming it does not conflict with WP:MOS. We are not a court, nor barristers preparing an opinion - there is no onus on us to use OSCOLA.
 * Where a secondary source conflicts with another secondary source, it should be discussed. Where a secondary source conflicts with your personal opinion and interpretation, as a layman, of what happened in a case, the secondary source stands unless you can find other reliable sources to back you up. Ironholds (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional note that this is a good example of what is wrong with your style of writing, when looked at in an encyclopaedic context. The bibliography is improperly formatted, there are no inline citations and whoever "Andrew Burrows" is is not established, nor referenced. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of taking a patronising tone with someone who you don't know, and is a few hundred miles ahead in their understanding of the law, listen. You don't have to use OSCOLA, but you should, because the courts in this country do. The formatting you're following isn't one I've seen before, or used by anybody (like capitalising Section in the middle of a sentence). Secondly, perhaps you don't routinely look up case reports, but it is a secondary source, because the headnote will give you the points of law. That's why this is preferable to a book that fewer people will have access to. Please change Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc if you think it could be better. I agree I haven't completed it, like an awful lot. My view is better something than nothing. But if you've never heard of Burrows, that just confirms you've got a bit to learn and you could learn something by taking advice instead of just objecting. Just because Wikipedia lets anyone edit, doesn't mean you should cast off how you'd act in the real world. I'm helping you. Academic sources should not be used for points of law, because then the reader can look at the case/statute directly.  Wik idea  14:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I took a patronising tone; it was not my intent. Perhaps you would like to take a look at your own tone, particularly the implication that somebody "a few hundred miles ahead in their understanding of the law" is superior when it comes to discussing such things (particularly when that person claims that county courts set binding precedent, something a first-year law student knows is wrong). The fact that I don't know who Burrows is does not undermine the validity of my opinion. We are writing for lay people; you should set out 1) who burrows is and 2) reference your work. The headnote gives a brief point of law, but proper secondary sources such as textbooks are always preferential. In regards to OSCOLA; I don't have to use it, and I won't - indeed, I would advise nobody to use it for academic articles. The referencing style (author name (year) page) is confusing, particularly since it's not immediately clear what the funny number at the end is for (obviously, it's a page number, but a simple p. makes that a lot easier). Academic sources are always preferential for points of law, because they show how the law has been applied since the case and give a clearer indication of what was meant than a brief, two-line summary written by a law reporter. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A note, by the way, that I'm neither trying to be petty nor "vandalise" by putting out false information on the law as you suggest - I've just yet to see any evidence that the reliable, respected textbooks I've been relying on are incorrect on this point. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I give up. Petty, small. Please don't bother me again.  Wik idea  15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on
With things like this, now, you're just being petty. What more do you want? I've admitted that you're right on the point of law, given you leave to input it and your reaction is to make petty little edits like this and that while accusing me of being childish? I've no problem with you including your summary of how the case went down in the article - the only reason I reverted your edit, as stated in my edit summary, is that it removed other things. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you rolled your three previous edits into one, which explains why your last reverted edit contained other things I'd disputed (such as the use of OSCOLA when my method passes the MoS). Lets not get petty here. Put your summary back in the article, on its own, without making wider changes that I've disputed. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done for changing the page! Good work.  Wik idea  23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the redactions :). Is it worth getting a third opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard vis a vis the use of law textbooks for points of law? Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Plain English in U.S. legal writing
The leading pioneer of plain English in U.S. legal writing was Professor David Mellinkoff of UCLA School of Law, who published The Language of the Law in 1963. There were a few talented judges before that point who wrote in plain English like Benjamin Cardozo. But it was Mellinkoff who persuasively made the case for plain English in a way that swept the profession. See Mellinkoff's 2000 obituary in the NYT here. It's because of Mellinkoff that there is a really dramatic shift in the quality of published appellate opinions in the 1960s and 1970s.

The current leading proponent of plain English today in U.S. legal writing is Bryan A. Garner.

Hope this helps. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lord Lindley cases
Hi Wikidea

I have nominated Category:Lord Lindley cases, which you created, for deletion.

Your comments would be welcome at Categories for discussion/Log/2009_December 25. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have remained as polite as I could manage in my reply to you, but was very tempted to just post a stream of expletives. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * reply moved here from User talk:BrownHairedGirl, to keep discussions in one place

Hey, don't get upset! I was just trying to be helpful by replying at all - in the early hours of the morning after Christmas, I wasn't really doing more than flicking through a few things and answering messages. You're right, I should've added the category in the first place - thanks very much for doing it in the end. Ho ho ho, happy new year,  Wik idea  14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so snappy and rude in my message above: it was unnecessary and unhelpful, and I'm grateful for your v friendly reply. I was feeling a bit tired and fed up after wading through so many uncategorised categories, and should have taken a break at the point I felt like snapping at you, rather than biting and then taking a break.
 * Happy new year to you too! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries!  Wik idea  22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

R(E) v Governing Body of JFS
Hi Wikidea. Please check if Race Relations Act 1975 is correct in R(E) v Governing Body of JFS, as there is a Race Relations Act 1976. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Danke sehr mein Freund!  Wik idea  22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United Kingdom)
Thank you for your contributions to the article Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United Kingdom). A number of points; firstly, and most importantly, the list of First Parliamentary Counsels you have given is unreferenced. It needs to be referenced to reliable sources; if you know the names, I assume you got them from somewhere reliable, so that should be used. Second, I have reverted your changes to the "references" and "bibliography" section (changing them to 'notes' and 'references' respectively). The Manual of Style is clear on this point; either system is appropriate, and when deciding between them one should use the system approved of by the page creator/significant contributor, unless this style is completely wacky. Considering the title of the reflist and references tag used to display what you called "notes", and considering that I have got several articles to FA using this, it seems to be considered an appropriate style. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake. Don't be such a haughty, obnoxious jerk.  Wik idea  16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your choice to ignore the guidelines, then. Note that the list must be referenced, or it will be removed by me or any passing editor. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it up there with an "expand" note precisely so someone who did know would expand it! The website for the OPC mentions the three, and that's in the external links. Please don't pester me with your nit-picking. Well done on your starred articles, but don't get a big head about it. This is an online encyclopedia.  Wik idea  16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply using the articles to point out that this citation style has been considered acceptable in high-quality articles, and not commented upon, not to indicate a "big head"; please assume good faith. The expand tag is something completely different from what you were using it for; it means "this section is incomplete, please expand it" (which it is) but not "please reference it". If you have, as you said, found links to three of them, include those links as inline citations. Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joanne Cash
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joanne Cash. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Joanne Cash. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Joanne Cash
You accused me of 'deleting articles', and then gave a link to support you that showed that I HADN'T deleted anything. Seriously, LOOK AT THE EDIT; nothing has been deleted. Do not launch personal attacks against me and do not lie about the content of my edits. Bastin 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really confused now, and I'm not sure what's going on... Oh I see you've moved them down - I honestly wasn't lying. Anyway, sorry to be a pain. But cheer up!  Wik idea  15:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

naming conventions for Court cases
Hi,

In your edit summary for S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, you had mentioned that dots should be avoided in titles. But do we follow OSCOLA for wikipedia articles?. I have two specific doubts 1) Before moving, i checked some FA like Roe v. Wade and high profile cases like Brown v. Board of Education, all have a dot after the the v ; so should we put a dot or not? 2) The dots in SR Bommai's initials, i placed them as it was the cognomen.

This is the first time i am editing a law article, so i would be grateful for some pointers.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Was that some sort of Turing test? Tim! (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no bot. Tim! (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart
I've posted a request for a third opinion/some form of general consensus here. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just do a bit of compromise. Start using OSCOLA and follow the simple format - with the detail in a 'significance' section. Life is too short!  Wik idea  09:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your current preferred format violates the law Manual of Style and is also inaccurate. You're using Lord Griffiths's judgment; why? It wasn't the main one. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not, WP:STYLE itself follows my style, because I follow it. I seem to remember Griffith's judgment came first, and summarised the others. Often one judge will give a very long piece of advice and another will give a summary. In any case, I think (as I've said - I don't know how carefully you're reading my points) that it's fine to trim his extract - and the overviews you had of the other judges were generally good.
 * Then why did you revert them? WP:STYLE, yes; WP:MOSLAW? No. You've argued that we should be writing it like a case in a textbook; "Wikipedia is not a guide for law students – try Wikibooks if you want to write a textbook". You've argued we should simplify it and not include loads of analysis; when "Writing about particular cases, [use] the legal details, for those who need to better understand the legal issues involved and how the court arrived at its decision." You've argued that this is too complex; "Provide some depth and detail worthy of an encyclopedia". I'm not talking about your "style" of editing (where to dot the Is and cross the Ts) I'm talking about what you consider should be included as compared to what the legal manual of style says should be. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, that's a guide, not a rule; second, that point's not really discussed, and to the extent that it says law students or lay readers shouldn't be able to use it, I think it's wrong (what are we trying to do?). What we do here is far more sophisticated than a case book would be. Anyway, you need to settle down, and perhaps leave it for a while.  Wik idea  16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is more sophisticated - so why did you say that we should attempt to replicate such texts. It is a guide, yes, which means there can be common sense exceptions, but your exception would apply to every single case. I think you need to actually read the guideline if you think it says "law students or lay readers shouldn't be able to use it". And no, I will not leave it; I have made good-faith contributions which you have seen fit to tear up. While it has taught me a basic rule for the future (draft things out and run them by you first) leaving the article in this state is not appropriate. You have contained absolutely no records of prior court action or decisions. You have contained no record of the dissenting judgment, which is essential for the "significance" section. You have not attributed your quote. You have absolutely shredded the facts section, which means that nothing else makes sense (there's no reference to the prior law on Hansard, or the actual law under dispute). Tell me; would you leave an article in such a state that it made no sense? Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It made sense before. Please just reintegrate your material into the "facts" and "judgment" sections, and leave out anything that isn't necessary. We can go from there.  Wik idea  16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that much of the academic analysis refers to the main judgment, not Griffiths; for obvious reasons, nobody interprets a side judgment. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Post a play-by-play of the problems with my version and I'll try and work on them. I agree the judgment section could probably be tweaked, but "background" is necessary, and we must include the result of actions in the lower courts. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorica ad Alexandrum move
I approve of being WP:BOLD, and I too will often refer to the "Rhetorica ad Alexandrum." However, the move creates the sole exception in Wikipedia to what is otherwise the case: that every article on a text in the Corpus Aristotelicum is named according to the standard of the Revised Oxford Translation. This is not perfect, but it is a good and consistent standard in English, and if we're going to scrap what now exists as a complete solution covering all the works, there should be some discussion (and I would support the status quo). So I hope you will understand why I am moving this article back. Respectfully yours, Wareh (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the Rhetorica ad Herennium? Actually, it should really be in Greek, rather than Latin shouldn't it? The problem with translations is that they come out different: "at" is probably not the best, or at least only, way to translate "ad" here, is it?  Wik idea  15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at that Aristotle page and see your point. :)  Wik idea  15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The proper Greek title would be simply Τέχνη ῥητορική. I dug up Greek and English texts for you--see the article's external links.  Wareh (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Wik idea  19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart
this discussion/comment request may interest you. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Are you saying that judgments are not copyrighted? Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the reports have copyright over the format. So if you wanted to cut and paste from the QB reports or something, or more importantly, copy the headnote, then that would fall under copyright. The judgment itself, however, is probably not subject to copyright. Now I say "probably". In America, the courts have said that their judgments are public property, and not copyrighted. For the EU courts it's the same. In the UK the question has never come to court. The IP texts all leave it as an open question, but if anybody WAS going to have copyright, it wouldn't be the Crown, or any other reporting company, but the judge himself/herself. Now, my opinion is that the UK probably wouldn't be different to the US or EU if it was litigated, and there would be a potential ECHR claim if a judge were trying to assert copyright. But I think most people these days would agree, that the law is public property. It's only the headnotes of reports or the formatting of a report that's under copyright. In any case, there are lots of good reasons on Wikipedia not to copy the whole of a judgment out, but copyright isn't one of them!  Wik idea  09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a Canadian case on the issue: CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 SCR 339  Wik idea  10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I do a lot of worth with Wikipedia's copyright policies, and Ironholds had asked my opinion here. As a first point, when it comes to importing text, "probably" doesn't work under copyright policy. :) We have to be able to verify that content is free for our reuse before we can copy it or extensively quote it. But the good news is that while we do try to respect copyright of other nations, Wikipedia is governed by US law. As Public domain notes:

(I've converted the footnote to small text.)

Since under US law judgments are not copyrightable, regardless of country of origin, the use of the material here is not a problem for the project under copyright. We do have to consider the copyright status in country of origin in terms of reuse, as Jimbo noted here, so that these were clearly marked as quotes is a good idea, as that will enable their removal for skittish reusers in the UK or elsewhere if their copyright is unclear. (I am far more familiar with US law than other nations, though Wikipedia has certainly educated me a good deal about them!) As long as we retain the clear marking, we should be okay under Reuse. The quotation marks alert that the content was not written here and is not necessarily available under CC-By-SA and GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK law is indeed unclear; apparently (I understand this from a friend in the civil service) judges have began claiming they have copyright. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I say "probably" I'm just hedging my bets a little, because there's always an outside chance that judges would win a case for royalties, etc. I doubt they'd try, and imagine what a ludicrous result it would be. But I would say it's really more like a 97% chance that there's no copyright on UK judgments. Anyway, glad it doesn't matter on Wikipedia.  Wik idea  11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "filthy"? The only "filthy" thing I see is you calling me a massive prick. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well.  Wik idea  12:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unlike many websites, Wikipedia is conservative on the question of copyright. Our policies are not built on the likelihood of prosecution, but rather simply on staying well within copyright law. This is why, for instance, our non-free content policy and guideline are built conservatively. We could probably get away with quite a bit more than we do, particularly in the "fair use" image department, but we don't push it. :)


 * One thing, though, I did notice your edit here and was a bit taken aback. The two of you have a history, based on notes further up the page, and I'm not reading back to see what it was. But Ironholds' note to me does not seem as "snarky" and "filthy" to me as it evidently has seemed to you. As per WP:AGFC, our behavioral guidelines rather require that we presume any copyright concerns we have are caused by misunderstanding, at least unless they become repetitive or are egregious from the start. (Egregious, for example, as in the users who sometimes upload images taken by others with a clear assertion that they are the photographers. No assuming misunderstanding there.) And it's not unreasonable to assume that a contributor to Wikipedia may not be familiar with our strict handling of non-free material. Plenty of very well educated contributors have, for instance, factored in Wikipedia's non-profit nature in deciding whether use of material met their own interpretations of "fair use", while the WMF excludes that factor from consideration. It can sting to have your competency questioned, I know (happens to all of us at some point in our wiki careers), but please remember, ala AGF, that sometimes the questioning is done in service to the project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moonriddengirl. Wikidea, I'm sure you're an excellent lawyer, and I admire your goal to turn Wikipedia into a superior reference work for law students - it's one I share, with one amendment. Wikipedia is not a legal resource for lawyers and law students. It is not a casebook. It is not a practitioner's text. It is a work for the laypeople, to explain as simply as possible (in this case) how the law works. That's what you should aspire to with your articles, and it's what I aspire to with mine. The layperson is more helped by third-party references and summaries than (to them) unintelligible case citations and full body quotations from judgments. While such quotations and citations have their place (this, I feel, uses such case citations well, but I might be a teensy bit biased) they are the obiter, not the ratio. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got no idea why you keep saying "it's not a casebook". I don't see why not. Stop being a jerk. I'm not really interested in your views. It's not personal.  Wik idea  13:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because encyclopedia != casebook, because MOSLAW states that it isn't, and because the citation preferences of Wikipedia infer that a casebook-style setup is not wanted? Because one of the five pillars that make up Wikipedia includes the point that Wikipedia is not a textbook or manual. While they're only essays, I'd advise taking a look at WP:RF and Make articles useful for readers. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm trying to prevent an enthusiastic and knowledgeable editor doing things the wrong way. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you just go away, please.  Wik idea  13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WARN, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 21:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 21:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you didn't bother to even let me respond before reverting. Odd.  Anywho, WARN is the call sign for WARN 91.5 in Culpeper, Virginia.  The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act should be redirected at WARNA and not WARN. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deal, you put the page for that radio station back how it was then, and I'll create the new link for WARNA.  Wik idea  01:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! As such, I have recended the vandalism warning above. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
I've responded here. I'm sure that I've had this discussion with you somewhere before, but obviously you're having it with others too right now. While your user page states that you would like Wikipedia to be the primary reference for legal cases in future, good encyclopedia articles and good instructional documents on case law are, in my opinion, not going to be written in the same way; Wikipedia has specific rules regarding the use of primary sources which would strongly suggest that your favoured style (based heavily on direct extraction from court documents) is not the best way to present such cases on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm considering a new cleanup tag / category specifically for this kind of article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

EA 2010
What's your interest in this then? It's a useful new bit of legislation, isn't it?  Wik idea  02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, I'm not sure how to answer your question. I edit tonnes of articles without any particular focus on any one topic. I just happen to find it interesting, I guess. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :)  Wik idea  09:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Equitable Life Assurance Society
Hi Wikidea. I wonder if I could encourage you to expand the Law Lords decision on 'The Society'.

I wrote up some of the history and probably could do it -but your efforts would be much more authoritive and it is a potential featured article. It's interesting because the company based its survival on "Article 65" which gave bonus payment discretion to the directors as it had done since the 18th century. Modern contract law overrode this and also natural justice leading to the decision that the company was already insolvent. Regards JRPG (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Socrates.
But purely on moral grounds. For I KNOW the State can be wrong and when it is the citizen should not feel compelled to submit his or hers will to it...such as an innocent person happily going to the gallows for it. Nor do I feel as though the nebulous and ever unchanging "will" of the majority is inviolate precisely because it can never be held accountable for the injustices done in its name by groups...or even an individual and alleged elected Head of State.

You have indicated that you are a licensed Lawyer and which I understand requires a great deal of both intellectual and psychological investment...in written codes. I chose not to be the former...and do not have the latter.

That being said, I'd like to ask...do you feel as though only Lawyers should be allowed to add content to the page on Law in Wiki or do you feel the intellectual philosophy of anarchy specifically and the madness of the World going on around us which drives those to embrace that anti law philosophy should be censored from those pages which seek to have such thoughts "il-legalized" by written codes because such ideas are too dangerous for the majority to even know of?

As an aside, I might add that while there are many different kinds of anarchists, as a "philosophy about law" and rightly or wrongly so, it has generally come to require the utmost faith in the inherent goodness of the individual and holds that it is not the true Self's requirement to fit into the whole fabric of society but rather society's responsibility to find a place for and to exploit, in a positive way...the best in each individual. Also, and I don't think I would be going too far out on a limb here by saying this, but virtually all of the anarchists I know hold that those at the so called top of the food chain by virtue of their opulent wealth are every bit as oppressed by "The System", and maybe on a karmic level even more so, than are those who have been legally impoverished by them...because in one way or another they got to write the laws.

Be well,

Tom

PS.

Honestly what was it about the two paragraphs that did not conform to what you feel should be allowed on the Philosophy of Law section and why didn't you at least have the courtesy to tell me what it was...before you preemptively deleted them?

ADDENDUM TO PRIOR P.S.

Where as in the quid pro quo involving to wit this statement by the probation officer I have for this conviction involving a Crime Against Nature: It is very well written, Tom. Why was it deleted?

So forsooth! Forsooth I say! Should poets also be banned by lawyers...from interpreting the Law?

--Zenbuddha77 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Hello. Could you please explain why you changed the numbers in the titles of these two articles from 81 and 82 respectively, while leaving the original numbers in place all the way through the text? As far as I can see, you did not explain the move at any point in edit summaries or on Talk pages. This is very far from being my area of expertise, and I am not suggesting that you did this for anything but good reason, but it has seriously confused me. Loganberry (Talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just didn't bother doing it, it's one of those changes I make to do something rather than nothing. There's a new Treaty with new numbering - it was the Treaty of the European Communities, and now it's the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Please do go ahead and change it in the article.  Wik  idea  10:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Beer
On your User page, you write that one of your main interests is beer. Do you think that there is a culture of alcohol in Britain that strongly influences British people, from a young age, to assume that drinking alcohol is expected of all adults? Are there many people in Britain who think that drinking alcohol is an unhealthy, destructive activity, one that often results in pain and misery?Lestrade (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Almost certainly, of course! We probably drink too much as a country, but the really bad thing is the immature attitude toward alcohol, and binge drinking, as opposed to a country like France where people in my experience are more sensible. I'm not entirely sure what you do, because alcohol is good fun too and in the UK the pub is a central focus for social life. So you've got to change the culture so people are more balanced - maybe we should learn to enjoy food and a good meal more, as I think people are doing. That said, I probably think that people use alcohol excessively because life can be otherwise pretty rotten in a lot of ways - jobs aren't secure, might be very low paid and non-fulfilling, children have less access to leisure and "clean" fun than they should - so alcohol is an escape. Why do you ask?  Wik idea  23:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Attlee
Hi - well done with United Kingdom labour law and History of labour law in the United Kingdom. Given your editing interests I hope you will not mind my pointing out that Clement Attlee is spelt thus, and not in any lesser-teed fashion. This is of course crucial leading-edge encyclopaediaism, and also as the Attlee Spelling Society is empowered to abseil down your front windows and throw stun grenades and stuff, which can be messy, I've corrected it (them, him?) for you. To be honest I think I liked the one above, about beer, better. But hey. Have a nice Thursday, or other day(s) of your choice. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, stupid me. Thanks.  Wik idea  16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very very welcome. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Corporation
Hi Wikidea,

I noticed you removed this line from the Corporation article, without mentioning why: "Shared ownership by contributors of capital." Did you notice anything wrong with it? --Jonovision (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically, because I wrote it there when I put a lot of stuff in the article before, and I was referring to a passage in this book, The Anatomy of Corporate Law. There was a sentence following to qualify that shareholders do not always have exclusive control rights in corporations (employees often do). But then I found that The Anatomy authors were just following an older corporate scholar, RC Clark, who listed those four core characteristics of public companies, minus shareholder ownership, in his 1986 book. So I took out the fifth as a characteristic (because it doesn't represent every company by a long shot) and changed the footnotes. Sorry that's a long explanation but there you go!  Wik idea  19:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000  02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Corporate group (sociology)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Corporate group (sociology), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Corporate group. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for this typo/grammatical correction. I often don't notice these things unless I copy-edit xP --HXL 何献龙 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  Wik idea  14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Corporate group a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

National Pension Service‎
If it encourages someone to rewrite a copyright violation, then clearly it's not wholly unproductive. Thank you for rewriting it by the way. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BAILII citations
Scragged from my response to you at my talk page: I have just established that cite BAILII works fine if you omit extraneous parameters: for example, gives you a perfectly acceptable link. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which…
You're just rolling back my changes, aren't you: how is that helpful? —Phil | Talk 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Keynes
Hi Wikidea, I see you wasnt too impressed with the Keynes article. Despite appearances, its authors have read Keynes's Economic consequences of the peace and many other works by Keynes and his biographers, who have said Keynes was friendly with LG prior to and during Versailles, and for much of the later years. There was possibly some bitterness on LG's part about what Keynes wrote about him, but not on Keynes side. In the mans own words "the difference between myself and some others is that I criticise Lloyd George when he's wrong and support him when he's right". Even in consequences Keynes included complimentary passages about LG:

"To see the British Prime Minister watching the company, with six or seven senses not available to ordinary men, judging character, motive, and subconscious impulse, perceiving what each was thinking and even what each was going to say next, and compounding with telepathic instinct the argument or appeal best suited to the vanity, weakness, or self-interest of his immediate auditor, was to realize that the poor President would be playing blind man's buff in that party."

Anyway, no objection to you changing the word friend to colleague, as they werent always the strongest of friends, but just wanting to reassure you that it wasnt as glaring a mistake as it might appear. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the words of praise, appreciate it [[Image:718smiley.png|30px]] FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ganymede22 Edit warring on Law
Hi,

I noticed User:Ganymede22 is edit warring on the Law article. He has been attempting to remove content without discussing his reasons for 2 weeks now. These changes should be reverted as they have been; however after reverting changes, the user should be notified via their talk page that their edit has not been accepted, after the second attempt to remove content the user should have been warned that it is not acceptable; making comments such as "Would this dick calling itself Ganymede please piss off.", and simply undo the changes is not constructive. Please attempt to resolve the problem with the user asap in future, if after that, the use continues to edit war they should reported to an administrator.

Regards,

Aeonx (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, I was not being constructive in any way! I suppose I'm just not particularly patient. Thanks for helping. :)  Wik idea  17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've warned the Ganymede22 following his/her last edit removing content, if it happens again feel free to jump ahead and report it on WP:ANI. Aeonx (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
You've previously been warned regarding your incivil behavior: edit summaries like this are simply not acceptable Wikipedia behavior. THF (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh go away, will you, and do something useful.  Wik idea  15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I know that it's intentional incivility rather than an unintentional oversight, I've taken it to WP:ANI. THF (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done mate. Did you call your Mommy too? How about learning to control your own snarling, nasty manner first?  Wik idea  18:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland
Hi, I have just deleted this page you created under WP:CSD, because it was a redirect to a non-existent page, Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland & Hampstead Plant Hire Co Ltd; but I'm puzzled to see that the target has never existed. Were you planning to create it? If so, you will have to make your redirect again. Or was there perhaps some mis-spelling in the target's name? I have tried a few alternatives but not found anything. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of law journals
Hi, I don't think a wholesale revert of my edits was warranted. There was more than just some deletions of redlinks: I edited the lead, corrected redirects, removed double entries, etc. Many of the redlinks that I removed (and some were not even redlinked) are non-notable journals. Probably not all, but those can easily be re-added once the appropriate articles have been created. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

employment case articles ?
i believe you redlinked various notable employment cases such as "Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas’s NHS Trust" in Workplace_bullying and Protection_from_Harassment_Act_1997. Any chance you may develop these cases as individual articles ? They could be included in the abuse cases template which currently is overburdened with catholic sex cases. --Penbat (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it'll happen eventually, but definitely!  Wik idea  07:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! —  Spike Toronto  17:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally don't support the idea of WP:TEMPLAR, but in this case I do. If a user who has been editing for over six years doesn't use edit summaries I think it's safe to say they just don't want to and a template explaining what an edit summary is is not going to change that. Despite how we sometimes act it is not actually required by any policy to use them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really appreciate the snooty tone. I'm afraid my edit summaries will typically be the same, and pointless - but tell you what, I'll try to do a bit more when I edit pages that others are active with too.  Wik idea  09:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Employment Act
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Postal services
Please delete the changes I made to the Postal services article if these diverge from your conception of the article. If they are OK, then I have further suggestions. I have non-frivolous reasons for exploring the treatemnt of this topic. You can let me know on my User page. Thanks. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep going! Keep the paragraphs together, and if you can incorporate the things in the bullet points, and use references, that would be great. Will look on with interest!  Wik idea  12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

UKSC
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help


 * Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK case based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.


 * Complete that template and add it to existing cases.


 * Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.


 * Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking


 * Create new articles for UKSC cases


 * Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.


 * Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, a result of copying from the US version. I'll change it right away. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a very strange mistake though, I don't think anybody has ever used SCOTUK before that.. kinda has a nice ring to it though :) The temp. project page is here if your interested, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ogilvy v Hope Davies
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ogilvy v Hope Davies, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lawofcontract.co.uk/discharge/1029.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
Sections 1-7 were repealed in Schedule 2 of the 1979 Act; the rest of the legislation was not. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Investment Management Association


A tag has been placed on Investment Management Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Mrmatiko (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Lynn Stout
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lynn Stout, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/all-faculty-profiles/professors/Pages/lynn-a-stout.aspx, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lynn Stout and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Lynn Stout, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lynn Stout with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lynn Stout. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Lynn Stout saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peer Zumbansen


The article Peer Zumbansen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No claim of notability of this person; A7. No references in this BLP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at the guidelines at WP:PROF - this would help establish taht this person is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD David Kershaw
You may want to look at Articles for deletion/David Kershaw. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Public Economics
I agree with your point that page doesn't need to be cut down any more; my thinking was this though: As it stands the page is a jumbled mess. Public goods is included in two separate sections. I think I understand the rationale for that though (i.e. public goods is one of six market failures, the market failure/government failure section is intended to be an introduction into the government rationale for involvement with the economy). My plan was to simplify everything by breaking it down into six sections: public goods; public choice theory; public production; cost-benefit analysis; taxation; fiscal federalism, and; deficit finance (most of the main areas in public economics). I was going to fill in those sections as I got together what I felt was the best information to do so. Beyond that I was hoping someone else would add in a discussion of macroeconomic stabilization and some discussion of externalities (undoubtedly a major area). While this page is still being constructed it should definitely have a list of suggested readings though (hence why I re-added it after you took it away) so that students initially being exposed to the field can just go to the wikipedia page and find good sources to read if they want to learn the field. This should be real sources though, not things like entries in encyclopedias etc... even Stiglitz's book (a great book... and I agree it should be the basis for some of the page being built up) I wouldn't include on that list. Stiglitz is a genius but his book is a school textbook, not a scholarly book or article, just something intended for beginners. Beyond that... I don't think that it needs a section with particular sectors because, for example, with healthcare, you have an entire separate field of health economics, and including that section is also just ripping off Stiglitz's book a little bit too much. At most, the page should contain a link to the health economics page etc... This page when finished should introduce people to the great thinkers in the field like Harold Hotelling, Wallace Oates, William Baumol, A.R. Prest, and James Andreoni etc... I totally understand your criticism and am not intending to fire back or anything like that. I will leave the page as it is (except for adding more good sources to the further reading section) unless or until I come up with a good draft to complete the page. At that point, you can look at it and decide whether you like it and want to build on what I made, or else just put it back to pretty much what it is right now (including the further readings if you wouldn't mind). Best wishes. (p.s. I think it is important that the page does service to what separates public economics from public finance, as public economics is a dignified field of its own... also I wouldn't get too heavy with welfare economics (i.e. social welfare functions) which has its own page... that will only serve to dampen the individual voice of public economics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.220.62 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Those categories were there just because they followed Stiglitz - why not just start with that template, or start writing first, and then delete later? You're obviously knowledgeable, so it'd be great to see you starting writing - with some good referencing. Cheers,  Wik idea  07:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Law for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to address the concerns given comments by Ajpearce and Sandy. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what I'm meant to say, though. I'd really like to rework the page - I know a lot more than I did then, and do think it's really important to make it global - you're right it could be better. AJpearce is right, among a number of good points, about law and econ, for instance. But I really don't know what to say to the idea that the page is "bad", because it was featured, then reviewed and kept as a feature. If I had more time, I'd start doing stuff now - I'd like to get round to it at some point.  Wik idea  09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough; rewriting an FA is a time-consuming thing, and people have careers. If you get some spare time and want to fill it with that, give me a poke; I've got quite a bit of journal/book access at the moment, so I can probably help deal with sourcing concerns. Cheers, Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)