User talk:Wikidea/Archive 08

Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd
Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd--The content seems pretty substantial.It would be great if you could also upload a picture for the related article Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc. Jipinghe (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, but what sort of picture do you mean? The ones in the infobox I usually just put in to relate to what the case is about. Or you mean another kind of picture?  Wik idea  21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding File:Abbey National logo.svg
I have removed File:Abbey National logo.svg from Abbey National Building Society v Cann because it does not have a valid non-free media use rationale for the article. Please see Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Non-free use rationale guideline if you want to address the issues. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest companies
Hi. You reverted my removal of a few thousand external links from this article... Firstly, I did attempt discussing this change on the talk page but given the lack of response just went ahead anyway.

I've never on Wikipedia seen an article with so many so thought it reasonable to remove them, given the guidelines on WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. The links are *not* for verification as 1) many didn't include this information and 2) they are first-party sources...

I'm of the opinion that all of those entries requires a source from a third party publication, verifying their establishment date, but that's a separate issue. I really don't see why a link to the official page is needed however, so will revert your change - as mentioned on the talk page, if a company truly is a few hundred years old, it should have a Wikipedia article all of it's own where a link to an official website is encouraged.

Cheers, Nik the stoned  13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It just looked to me like someone had gone to a great deal of trouble to do that - and it seems to be someone from Japan. Did you try to ask them? It's more the list itself rather than the links that'd need verifying. Surely it's useful to go to those websites? I don't think the linkfarm policy is so rigid - or aims to stop this thing.  Wik idea  14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just can't imagine anyone browsing that list that would then fancy taking a look at a specific-entries official website and NOT their wiki-page... It appears to me that the links have always been included but I still maintain that there's no need for them being there, other than verification - for which most were unsuitable, as per the above. Nik the stoned  14:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review/Law/archive2
Whenever you're ready to take a crack at this FAR, please let me know - I'd like to help out. At the review, I asked for a roadmap for improvement and didn't quite get one - just a list of a few minor items. But I'm not going to ask again, for fear of triggering a rush of "Delist - no progress" comments. Suffice to say, let me know what I can do. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I'm hoping to do something before long - hopefully there's some progress with suggestions for what people want by now!  Wik idea  10:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Blackburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are four stages to a proportionality test
Please see Talk:Proportionality (law) -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Belchier v Parsons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Administrator


 * Matadeen v Pointu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fourteenth Amendment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dutch


 * Illingworth v Houldsworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Business as usual


 * Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 8) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lord Hutton


 * Re Spectrum Plus Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Business as usual


 * Restitution in English law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Compensation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Floating


 * Re Rica Gold Washing Co (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Columbia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Beneficiary principle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Charitable


 * Foskett v McKeown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Breach of trust


 * Knight v Knight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Downton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries Michael Palin has traveled to
List of countries Michael Palin has traveled to was just a redirect to List of countries and territories Michael Palin has travelled to. That article has been deleted by this article for deletion debate. Garion96 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, forgot that. :) Basically it was a list with the following tables "Place" "Journey(s)" and "highlights". Below that a small list of countries Palin visited more than once. Basically the AFD was correct, it wasn't really needed. Garion96 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You want the whole article or just the list of countries. Here's the list. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Albania Algeria Antarctica Australia Austria Bangladesh Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) Egypt Estonia Ethiopia Finland France Germany Gibraltar Greece Greenland Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Italy Japan Kenya Latvia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Republic of Macedonia Malaysia Mali Mauritania Mexico Moldova Morocco Myanmar Nepal New Zealand Niger Norway North Pole Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Qatar Republic of Korea (South Korea) Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sudan Switzerland Tanzania Tibet Transnistria Tunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine USSR (what are now  Estonia,   Russia,   Belarus and   Ukraine) United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Vietnam Western Sahara Zambia Zimbabwe

Brackets at Template:Clist belief
Hi, in Template:Clist belief there are a mix of square and round brackets around years for the cases. Why is this? Thanks Gareth Jones (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Passenger Compensation Regulation
Please can you clarify on the talk page where you found this name for the regulation and the justification for moving it from its previous title? Stifle (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Swiss referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FTSE 100 Index
Hi - Great work enhancing the FTSE 100 Index article with a market capitalization table. The concept is very good but some of the companies you have included are not FTSE 100 index constituents. The official listing is here: 100 Index Constituents&dl=&p_encoded=1. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does make a difference because the list you are using is the FTSE All-Share Index which has a different composition to the FTSE 100 Index. A possible solution is for you to move your table to the FTSE All-Share Index article where it would be more relevant. A better solution might be for you to select those companies that really are FTSE 100 Index (which are identified in your source): in which case you should delete Banco Santander Central Hispano, Virgin Media Inc, DP World Ltd, Yamana Gold Inc, First Quantum Minerals LD, easyJet, London Stock Exchange Group, Signet Jewelers Ltd, Travis Perkins and Mondi. You also need to include John Wood, Kazakhmys and Intu Properties. By the way neither index changes every day - they both have a fixed composition, albeit different, which is reviewed on a quarterly basis. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I've understood. I'll get round to doing it soonish - but feel free to do it yourself of course! But any idea about market cap figures for those remaining companies?  Wik idea  22:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The market cap figures are in your source. I will give it a try myself. You may need to tidy it up! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have now fixed it. Great table! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Act like a human if you want to post on my page. There's no problem with using the images.  Wik idea  15:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at our non-free content policy it does not permit usage in that manner. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't YOU read some copyright law: here's what it says on the page, for instance, for the Shell logo. "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa."
 * Now can you please direct your efforts to something useful.  Wik idea  15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is far stricter than the law. Policy is what you need to familiarize yourself with. Werieth (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note I referred to it as non-free content, which has far stricter restrictions than fair use on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't explained what the issue is with Wikipedia policy. There is none, and don't use empty threats to make your point.  Wik idea  15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is not permitted in lists. it fails WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See also NFC Werieth (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to say what it is that you object to. There isn't anything there that's inconsistent with displaying these logos.  Wik idea  15:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to learn to discuss things before you waste my time, and everyone else you drag in, with this immature behaviour. See Talk:FTSE 100.  Wik idea  15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Our non-free policy is much stricter than you think. We do not allow non-free content in lists and tables (WP:NFLISTS) because the content is nearly always used as mere decoration. Non-free content when used is supposed to be the subject of discussion within the article, and these uses do not meet that. --M ASEM (t) 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My talk page isn't the place for this. That policy does not stop anything at all. Please see Talk:FTSE 100. It shouldn't have got to this.  Wik idea  15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring in a clear violation of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC requires text in each individual image file that includes "the name of each article ... in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Non-free use rationale guideline." If you can add an individual fair-use reasoning to each of the 100 image files, you can then add them back to the article. If you restore them again before updating the licenses, you will be blocked. If you have a question as to what WP:NFCC requires, feel free to ask me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't threaten me again. I've posted a comment on Talk:FTSE 100 Index if you'd like to help. Thanks,  Wik idea  23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi - As you will see above I congratulated you on your great work enhancing the FTSE 100 Index article with a market capitalization table. However the article is now a mess as a result of various editors insisting that you remove most of the icons. WP:ELNO also discourages the use of external links and in this case you have inserted very few of them so the article is now a mess in that regard as well. What however what I am really disappointed about is the fact that, despite the fact that I think I am the sole supporter of your work on this article, you have chosen to remove the whole of my efforts to providing a new table which shows the new position after the latest quarterly changes in the index. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many apologies, I didn't get that that's what you'd done. Anyway, it's all back now from someone else's reversion, and I've opened a copyright discussion. If we can get the logos back, and the website, of course your improvements are great and should be retained.  Wik idea  16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. Let's see what happenes with the copyright discussion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Right to not support a union law"
Per WP:COMMONNAME, an article must go where the reader will look for it. This name you made up for it is not used by anybody; and my preferred name for the topic, the more truthful "right to work for less law", is used primarily by worker advocates. The fact is, the name "right-to-work law", however specious, is the name used in common discourse; and the true NPOV violation would be to ignore that fact in order to make a point about the falsity of the term. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How about putting it in quotes then - entitled "Right to work" law?  Wik idea  19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to: but again, the use of scare quotes is a species of editorializing; and most ordinary uses of the term do not add the scare quotes. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the dilemma. But I'm still not sure it's right to follow the misrepresentations of the laws' proponents. Its almost Orwellian: no right to work in any shape or form. Maybe scare quotes - or some other idea? - is the lesser of two evils. What about the formal name under the Taft-Hartley Act itself?  Wik idea  06:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced new articles
Hi there,

I've just noticed you've been creating a lot of new articles which (despite having references sections) don't have any references, such as:


 * Re Kayford Ltd
 * R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge
 * Twyne's Case
 * Buchler v Talbot
 * Berezovsky v Abramovich
 * Belmont Park Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustees Ltd
 * Re Cheyne Finance plc

Many others don't quote anything except the case references involved:


 * Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne
 * Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain
 * R v Lovelass and Others
 * Loreburn Report (in this case, the publication itself is cited)

They usually include very large quotations from a judgement, and presumably you are getting this from somewhere - could you please try and cite your sources in future? Without a source, in many cases, it's impossible to tell whether these are notable cases or not - for example, Berezovsky v Abramovich suggests that it was important because of the barrister, not because of any legal importance (or public notoriety), and doesn't even give the context of who Berezovsky or Abramovich were! Meanwhile, articles like the Belmont and Cheyne pages don't tell us if the judgement sets precedent or if it was completely run-of-the-mill.

Without some kind of reliable third-party sourcing and clear indication of significance, there's unfortunately nothing to stop these pages being listed for deletion! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Guinness plc v Saunders
I was coming here to make a similar query to the above about Guinness plc v Saunders so I though I might as well put it here! A reference such as "[1990] 2 AC 663, 686" unfortunately means nothing to me as a non-legal knowledgeable person. I have tried to find some on-lne sources. I found http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/company-law-director039s-fiduciary-duty-guiness-plc-v-saunders-and-another, which may be useful. Unfortunately the text of this cases' judgment does not appear to be available on the Internet. Without having references that are checkable I feel that articles such as these fail wp:Verifiability. --220  of  Borg 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikidea,


 * It's the official case reports, which you can find in any university library. I was trying to get a template like the ones for American cases: Brazee v. Michigan,
 * Do you know how that would be done? Then one of the links takes you to the case citation explanation page.  Wik idea  07:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think any template you want created could be brought up at WikiProject Templates. 220  of  Borg 20:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll ask there.  Wik idea  15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Cite BAILII is a useful template for linking to judgments found at the Bailii site. In this case, it is referenced as Raellerby (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I was hoping for the more sophisticated template that I described, one which also links to the Case Citation template. Any chance one could be made up?  Wik idea  11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the 2010 RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing "citation needed" tags
These tags should only be removed if someone has added a citation, or if you feel that the statement doesn't require a source, for whatever reason. Making a sentence more specific does not, by itself, remove the need for a citation. --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point.  Wik idea  14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568931942 your edit] to List of next general elections may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * | [Economy of Finland|263]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569207786 your edit] to List of next general elections may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * | [Demographics of Taiwan|23.3]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569278538 your edit] to List of next general elections may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * | class="wikitable sortable" style="width: 100%" style="font-size:90%;" "text-|-

Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion
Please comment here. Thanks. georgian JORJADZE 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 activation
You asked how to use the Article Feedback Tool on the talk page for the editor's help page. About 6 months ago the mechanism was changed from including a category to something else. The instructions for using the category was removed but the replacement instructions where not added. I put in some instructions that work for me; please look them over an see if I missed anything or if what I said could be said in a better way. Nutster (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce (!)
I found your user page because I got a notification you'd linked to a page I'd created. And it looks as if you might be able to help me with an entirely different matter. Some time ago Jarndyce and Jarndyce was unilaterally moved to Jarndyce v Jarndyce so I, supposing there was a legal technicality regarding the two different ways of citation, made a request to move it back at Talk:Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Whatever the outcome of this rather unimportant matter, I'd like to put a footnote in the article. Is there a reliable source saying that a case written as "A v. B" is spoken of as "A and B"? And, a real long shot, do you know of any source discussing Dickens' usage of the term? Thincat (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Royal forest page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586037242 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20Royal forest Ask for help])

Reference Errors on 15 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Royal forest page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586168906 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20Royal forest Ask for help])

Speedy deletion nomination of London streets are paved with gold


A tag has been placed on London streets are paved with gold, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A10 - the article merely repeats part of the Dick Whittington article without adding any new information

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Labour Party Rule Book for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Labour Party Rule Book 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/Labour Party Rule Book 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591400020 your edit] to Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * | caption = Wellington Pier, [Yarmouth]

Proposed deletion of Landmark Cases in Land Law


The article Landmark Cases in Land Law has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Aargh, yet another bad, undiscussed move
at Somersett's Case. Please stop doing these! See WP:RM - you are supposed to ask first. NOBODY calls it by the new title. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I didn't want to upset anybody! Most of the time nobody seems to be interested, because I create hundreds of case pages and often realise they need moving. The reason I gave in the move for this was that the name now matches the report, and in fact if you look on scholar.google.co.uk, about 500 to 100 articles appear to call the case Somerset v Stewart, as seems to be correct.  Wik idea  11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a very well-known case, and on normal google most only do so after referring to it as Somersett's Case or Somerset's Case. The WP:COMMONNAME is one or either of these. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But of course normal google may be reflecting the Wikipedia article being wrong for so long. The case report is what matters most, and then this: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Somerset+v+Stewart%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=  Wik idea  12:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Scottish case law re-categorisations
Hi there, I was wondering about your recent recategorising of Scottish case law articles as United Kingdom case law. As Scots Law is a separate system to that used in England and Wales, would it not be better to leave them as "Scottish" and make the Scottish category a subcategory of United Kingdom, as is the case with Category:English administrative case law‎? -- Teh Cheezor Speak 08:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there - yes, good question: I'm doing it with the English ones too - merging them all into one category. This is partly my fault from previous edits, but in fact UK administrative law is a whole system. Differences in judicial review do turn on Acts of Parliament where their geographical scope differs but in principle all these cases are the UK cases first.  Wik idea  08:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Thoburn v Sunderland City Council page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608518559 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F608518559%7CThoburn v Sunderland City Council%5D%5D Ask for help])

May 2014
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your colourful warnings - hopefully you don't mind the main changes I was making: the article's formatting. Yes, it does need some work because it's very messy, and so I've left your tags up this time. Perhaps the best thing is to state what you want on the talk page of Thoburn v Sunderland CC?  Wik idea  10:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609826158 your edit] to Tony Blair may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * of 1998, British workers gained a statutory entitlement to paid holidays. {{cite book|last=al. {{red|&#93;}} |first=Nancy Falchikov ; with contributions by Margo Blythman ... {{red|&#91;}} et|title=Learning together : peer tutoring in higher education|year=2001|publisher=RoutledgeFalmer|
 * tax and National Insurance, restricted to couples earning not more than £43,000 per annum. The {{red|&#91;&#91;}} Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 {{red|&#91;&#91;}} extended a legal right to walk to about 3,200 square miles of open countryside, mainly in the

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611057415 your edit] to Company union may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * for the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 (known as the "TEAM Act"). The bill would

June 2014
Your recent editing history at Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.CFredkin (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You've got some cheek!  Wik idea  18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable to ask that, rather than keep adding the same material, you simply show on the talk page that it should stand because here is the source and this is where it says it. It is exactly the same test that applies to every editor of every wp article.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another way of viewing the idea of accusing people of being sockpuppets is that it is offending two or more people at once, and should prob be avoided. But no worries.  Wik idea  09:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Global caselist templates
Category:Global caselist templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Scalia
You can't do a content fork for the purpose of perpetuating a BLP violation. That material is of dubious relevance and as it is it's a violation of BLP policy and reliable source policy. Blog stating what somebody else supposedly said is not reliable certainly not for living person. if you don't believe me any number of noticeboards will tell you the same thing. And it doesn't matter whose article it's in.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my intention. I should have redacted the quote.  Wik idea  10:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Salvatore Eugene Scalia


A tag has been placed on Salvatore Eugene Scalia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is very strange idea that it's an "attack". That is absolute nonsense that my intention is to disparage or threaten a dead person. Such things are entirely unfounded, and frankly, Bbb23, I am unimpressed with you for suggesting this: surely that is an "attack". This is the rest of my reply:


 * This page should not be speedily deleted because... First, isn't this ground for deletions for BLP? The person here is no longer living.


 * (1) SE Scalia is notable as the second reference showed, because he was a professor at Brooklyn College and by being the father of a notable judge, Antonin Scalia. Two easy examples of people who are notable by their association are Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham. Why are they different? Here the case seems even stronger for notability: SE Scalia was a professor of Romance languages at a notable higher education institution: Brooklyn College.
 * (2) How is this an 'attack' exactly? Factual information, backed up by the references, cannot amount to an 'attack'. This simply cannot be regarded as accurate. If the sources are not deemed credible, this surely justifies deletion of those references, not the page.


 * In short, I'm very confused about why this raises an issue. Is it because some people are uncomfortable about who Scalia might have been? That would be a very significant precedent to set.  Wik idea  22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

re animation
If you mean it won't animate, yeah, large GIFs don't load entirely on wikipedia pages, to keep bandwidth and memory usage low. There's no way to get it to happen, people have to click through to animate it. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That one is a lot smaller; fewer colors, more jagged lines, less information, etc. Yeah, there's not much to be done on this one, and that's fine. We can direct people to click through. --Golbez (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matthew W. Finkin


The article Matthew W. Finkin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Gbawden (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Usr
Template:Usr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://chillingcompetition.com/2009/10/10/ecj-c%e2%80%9150106-p-glaxosmithkline-services-unlimited-v-commission-6-october-2009/.

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) 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Oxford v Humphreys


The article University of Oxford v Humphreys has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * nothing to show that this is a significant case in labour law

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BencherliteTalk 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there anything to show that this case has been treated by subsequent court decisions and / or by legal journals as significant? Quoting extensively from the case itself doesn't prove it is important. BencherliteTalk 15:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bencherlite - usually if it's a Court of Appeal case, it's significant in itself simply because it's the second highest court in the UK. A quick search shows that there's about 12 cases citing it since. I'd only really put cases up that were discussed in textbooks etc. Do you want more references?  Wik idea  17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion
Hello and thanks for the work you've done on British legal articles, but please add citations and references to your articles. smileguy91 Need to talk? 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting pages from Britannica 1911
Hello, I was intrigued by the encyclopedia article links displayed on your User page. Unfortunately, when the links are visited a message is displayed that states, "Thank you for visiting the 1911 encyclopedia. This site is no longer available". I simply wanted to bring this to your attention in case you were unaware. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Hong Kong Fir"
Hi, I've made a number of edits to Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (my favourite ever case!). I've uploaded a photo of the actual ship, but I am not entirely sure if it's out of copyright, so we'll have to see if it stays on Wikimedia Commons. I do quite a lot of Wikipedia editing on English law (inter alia), so no doubt we may meet again! Arrivisto (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Treaty on European Union
Hello. I'm slightly confused about the Treaty on European Union article you created, partly because the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 is also called the Treaty on European Union. However, that original treaty has since been amended. Is the point of the "Treaty on European Union" article to have an article on the current standing version of the treaty, as opposed to the other articles, which are about the treaty as it stood in those points of time? Harej (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Harej, yes, that's pretty much it. We wouldn't call the TEU the Maastricht Treaty anymore, like we don't call TFEU the Treaty of Rome - although that was the original.  Wik idea  10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Categorization and WP:NAVBOX
First, categorization reads- "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist."

Second, NAVBOX reads-"Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates."

Therefore I reverted your edits. If you disagree with these very clear policies, take it to their talk pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist eu executive
Template:Clist eu executive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist eu judicial review
Template:Clist eu judicial review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry William, I should've explained - there's always links in these template boxes, and rightly because it's an important way to access materials. The policy you pointed to is only a guideline, and in many cases, it's right and useful to have links.  Wik idea  12:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your behaviour, I have to say.  Wik idea  13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus, no external links in templates. Editors have been told so in multiple talk discussions, here and here, are just two examples. You want to change consensus, start a new discussion.


 * FYI, templates consisting entirely of redlinks or having very few links have routinely been deleted via TFDs. Here and here are examples. Simply put- Navboxes/Templates are for navigation from one WP article to another and what is there to navigate between if there are no links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's different in this case from other templates - there's been no discussion about this. I see your point, but there is no consensus on this. On the contrary, the consensus is just as it was. I've seen you've made a list of deletions to important information: this is needed for a good encyclopedia, so you need to kindly stop deleting. There's no case for that.  Wik idea  18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a consensus for no external links in templates, no redlinks in See also sections, no links to nonexistent categories, and no using wikipedia articles as references per WP:CIRCULAR. All of which you are doing. An editor was recently blocked for violating several of these. You think the policy or guideline should be changed, bring it to the talk page of the policy or guideline involved as you have been instructed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's completely mistaken - and I'm also amazed at what you've been doing generally. You simply cannot take away important information. You can discuss this further, but it's not acceptable to delete those links, or the extra information in see also sections. This is a different case to what you've been reading in those policies.  Wik  idea  19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I should add, I can see that on some cases you've done some positive things - you're obviously intending to clear away the "dead wood" of various links, bits of info that seem superfluous. And that's good: but really it's super important to keep those links in the templates, and also references to other cases (even if the links are red, because we haven't written those pages yet). I know it's not immediately obvious, but I hope my explanation is enough for you. But please don't patronise me with telling me that I "have been instructed".  Wik idea  19:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not mistaken. WP:Seealso says "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)" WP:Navbox says 'Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates.' The guideline is very clear and if you want to change them, take it the guideline's talk page. I just summoned an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * William, that's just not right: those are general policies, which always admit exceptions. Look at this also Red link. "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.[1] Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2]"
 * So you need to be creating those page, not making life harder by deleting them. I can see you're doing this on other pages, apart from law, but it simply isn't right for law. This is a different topic, different subject matter - and so it need flexible interpretation of the rules.  Wik idea  19:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here also: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."  Wik idea  19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from Wikipedia. When removing deletion tags, 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.You can not remove deletion templates per WP:DELAFD which says- "If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page." ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Give me a break! This guy needs to take a break too.  Wik idea  13:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing about Wikipedia. WP:DISCUSSAFD* says "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." You did this not once but twice, once in each of the templates for discussion I opened.


 * Sphilbrick may not want to rule on this matter, I will bring it to WP:ANI in that case....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to relax!  Wik idea  18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:WilliamJE, I've opened a discussion here - which you're welcome to contribute to.  Wik idea  18:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wikidea/Clist eu judicial review
User:Wikidea/Clist eu judicial review, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikidea/Clist eu judicial review and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikidea/Clist eu judicial review during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As above, you need to relax.  Wik idea  15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This was done by me in mistake and undone....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * William, I'm so pleased - that almost sounded like an apology!  Wik idea  18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v Parliament


The article Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v Parliament has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * trivial

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe google the judgment first! If it's from the ECJ, then it's almost always going to be notable. In this case, the judgment has been described as "legendary".  Wik idea  10:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ready Mixed Concrete
I have been discussing employment status with HMRC for four years, as a result of the uncertainty arising out of the IR35 tax measures. When the senior UK judge said that "Employment Status is a matter of law", he/she went on to say that in most cases the decision turns on the facts of the case, as established by the fact-finding tribunal of first instance. Unless the tribunal misdirects itself, or draws conclusions that can be established as perverse, the original decision made on all the facts of the case should stand. It seems to me that a contract of employment is better described than defined. What can be defined is the process for legally establishing employment status - this can only be done by having a disputed case heard by properly constituted tribunal or court. I have argued with HMRC that they need to withdraw the threat of penalties if a tax tribunal determines employment status differently to the view that I have taken as a taxpayer, particularly since the tax tribunal are ruling on the employment status of a hypothetical contract. Anyway, thanks for creating the article on Ready Mixed Concrete - and I hope that Wikipedia decide to recognise the importance of Judge McKenna's carefully reasoned decision. Regards A Fraser (redalasdair@gmail.com) 92.237.13.56 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist eu judiciary
Template:Clist eu judiciary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Alert (Donald Trump)
Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore the racist/fascist addition to the Donald Trump article without consensus on the talk page. Doing so is almost certain to earn you a block or topic ban. 23:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Woo, so you like using threats too do you? I bet you're a really good person in real life.  Wik idea  02:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg
 * A little more advice (no threat here). Try to stay in the top 3 tiers when you are responding to others on talk pages. Your tendency, judging by your response to me here, and to DrFleishman on the Trump talk page seems to be to go straight for the ad-hominem. You've obviously been around the block before, and will do as you see best. ~Awilley (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice chart - I think that the central point was that the article on Trump is completely bias, because it's airbrushing his racism and sanitising someone who's calling for killing judges today. How much "top of the pyramid" engagement was there in response?  Wik idea  22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly up-to-date in recent events surrounding Trump, but I'm sure one could find any number of "sources" calling many famous politicians bad things. I don't think there's a hard rule for determining when something rises above partisan bickering and media spin and becomes "notable" enough for Wikipedia, but my own guideline is to wait for stuff to reach the NYTimes, WaPo, Guardian, or similar major newspapers. ~Awilley (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's two in two seconds. Are you going to support me now against the blockage on the page?:

 Wik idea  00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/world/europe/rise-of-donald-trump-tracks-growing-debate-over-global-fascism.html
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/03/donald-trump-racist-gary-johnson-antisemitism-hillary-clinton


 * I don't see anything in those two sources that supporting your edit that "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist",[293][294] "racist",[295] and "fascist".[296]" I wont try to stop you from trying a case on the talk page, but you might want to slow down and make sure you're not trying to twist sources into saying what you want to hear. ~Awilley (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever.  Wik idea  00:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)