User talk:Wikidea/Archive 09

Question on abortion topic ban
A POV-pushing anti-abortion editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" has continued his POV-pushing in the Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton articles. While I don’t typically think of politician articles as "abortion-related pages, broadly construed", Trump is a Presidential nominee polling at around 50% in the polls who has provided a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and (according to the Political positions of Donald Trump article) The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Given this situation, the Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton articles are likely the most abortion-related pages on Wikipedia with regard to the future of US abortion policy. Shouldn’t they be included in the “broadly construed" topic ban? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no expert on how the administrators conjure all their policies, but if an article concerns abortion policy, it's certainly arguable that its within the ban "broadly construed" - I expect the purpose is for him/her to stop writing any material on abortion.  Wik idea  19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See WikiSpeak for the precise definition ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Confidence inspiring!  Wik idea  20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Statute of Artificers year?
I see you created the Statute of Artificers set of pages (Statute of Artificers, Statute of Artificers 1562, Statute of Artificers 1563. From what I gather, the law is usually known as Statute of Artificers 1563 (although I did find a usage in a book chapter by Simon Deakin of the 1562 date).  Is there some reason for believing 1562, under which the article now resides, is more correct than 1563? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're right - should be moved.  Wik idea  16:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll request the move (page histories prevent me from doing it). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

United States labor law
Please keep the pictures on the standard thumbsize in the article United States labor law. Especially for people with small screens it is annoying to get pictures at 400px. By clicking on the picture you can make them bigger anyway. The Banner talk 15:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just check Manual of Style/Images - this must be something (relatively!) new that I wasn't aware of - so my apologies if I'd been mistaken. What about charts, where it's difficult to see detail without it being larger; does that count as an exception? Cheers,  Wik idea  18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When you click on a thumb, it enlarges to its original size. That should be enough to make all details visible. The Banner talk 21:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd
Wikidea, you removed a unreferenced tag from above article, thereby stoping the article being picked up by the WikiProject Unreferenced articles process. You may think the article is notable, but it still needs inline citations to prove it. You seem to have history of doing this. Don't. It's deeply uncool. I'll need to escalate it next time.Scope creep (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Scope creep, you mightn't be familiar with Case citation in law articles - the reference is to the law report.  Wik idea  11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So in this case "AC" in [1894] AC 535 refers to a very big dusty book of "Appeals Cases" from the year 1894, which you could find in a library. They come from private reporters who provide a headnote summarising the case text, editing submissions, etc, etc.  Wik  idea  11:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bednash v Hearsey


The article Bednash v Hearsey has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage.

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. — swpb T 19:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bednash v Hearsey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bednash v Hearsey 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/Bednash v Hearsey 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. — swpb T 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It would have been preferable if you had simply asked politely instead, but I've added some information in any case.  Wik idea  13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Re Brightlife Ltd


A tag has been placed on Re Brightlife Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Re%20Brightlife%20Ltd. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. MM ('"HURRRR?'')  (Hmmmmm.) 09:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Tag obviously placed in error, since the url relied upon to show copyvio specifically says that it is re-using material from Wikipedia. BencherliteTalk 09:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Capital Requirements Regulation 2013
You could've at least consult me before making such a change. Both the directive and the regulation were in the same article because they are considered a package, CRD IV package. And then you create a new one about the Directive which is just a blurb. Before reverting I prefer to obtain a proper explanation. Thanks Triplecaña (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies - usually nobody cares and I just get on with it! Thanks so much for the work you've put in. It's fantastic that you've been working to develop these pages (much of which is obscure to non-experts). The first main reason is that we just need separate pages for each Directive and Regulation. (Sometimes there are pages for packages, but ideally there needs to be separate pages as well for each instrument, if not breaking up the main page). Second, the CRD has really become the Credit Institutions Directive 2013 - it's title, of course, doesn't include capital requirements anymore. That's in the Regulation. So there's an accuracy point. I've added some notes to the content of CID 2013.  Wik idea  09:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Enterprise law for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enterprise law 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/Enterprise law 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! (probably)
I've just been using History of Europe and got floored with the length of the Intro but on reading the Talk page it looks like you basically wrote what stands today; it's a "special case" that makes anything shorter rather useless; and it was much worse before. Though it is still long I think it is a bloody good write. Clear, well-informed and observant - and I like your attitude.

Lucy Skywalker (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Global financial crisis timeline
Template:Global financial crisis timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sheriff Nottingham


The article Sheriff Nottingham has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable publication"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mead v Tilley
Why Maroonbook infobox and not SCOTUS case? Rhadow (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's just the generic infobox - one good thing is it allows individual pictures, should they be desired, rather than the SCOTUS logo. The Maroonbook is a case citation method. Hope that helps.  Wik idea  19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Long Island Care at Home Ltd v Coke


The article Long Island Care at Home Ltd v Coke has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No references Major cleanup required Should use SCOTUS case infobox Supreme Court Justices have their own articles; they should have wikilinks. Standard for WP is not lastname, initial. There are eleven articles created today of similar quality."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rhadow (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhadow, you can read about case references at Case citation.  Wik idea  19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello idea -- And we we can read together Template:Infobox SCOTUS case and MOS:LAW. I got beat up really badly the first time I tried, too. Rhadow (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

SCOTUS cases
Hey there -- thanks so much for taking the time to create new articles about SCOTUS cases. Just as a heads up, you should make sure that the article format conforms with MOS:LAW and WP:SCOTUS/SG. Also, the article titles should be the titles that appear in the official reporter for the case. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks again for your contributions! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Armour & Co v Wantock


The article Armour & Co v Wantock has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Massive cleanup required Standard for article name v. Standard infobox is SCOTUS case, used on 2800 other cases. For newer cases (those decided after 2000 or so), you should enter the Supreme Court docket number in the Docket field. List all justices under these headings only by their last name, as their full names are already given above in the court membership section. Opinions are normally handled by link, rather than direct quotation."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rhadow (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of article on ERISA
Hello, Wikidea. I noticed that you unilaterally moved Employee Retirement Income Security Act to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This change should have been discussed beforehand on the article's Talk page, especially given that it appears to violate WP:COMMONNAME. Would you please undo the move and open a discussion on that Talk page? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of article on Japan's Labour Standards Act
Hello again, Wikidea. Despite the obvious controversy and lack of consensus regarding your unilateral page moves, I see that you've done another one today. I've reverted it. Please allow consensus to form on this issue before making any further such moves. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with moving pages, often with simple adjustments - like adding the dates.  Wik idea  16:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist trust care
Template:Clist trust care has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Healthcare in the United Kingdom)
Why have you moved the article? Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Rathfelder, simply because it's poor grammar. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recognised as a spelling in the UK. I'm agnostic to be honest but I think that's correct.  Wik idea  20:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:POINT
This and this were massive violations of WP:POINT. The issues you have can be resolved, as I have done for you on other pages. Removals of the warning without resolving the issues will be treated as a furthering of this point, beating a dead horse and a failure to listen. Stop now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wooo!  Wik idea  12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked you to stop, you continue to push your point (diff). With reference to editing restrictions and your blocklog:
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: .   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you doing, and how dare you? I deleted the links to beconlib - I thought that's what was supposed to happen. You are acting disgracefully, and I fail to see how you can exercise a discretion to block me when I'm in a dispute with you - maybe you don't understand what a conflict of interest is.  Wik idea  17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have taken an administrative decision at your initial request, and shown you that that the language of said request was inappropriate. You don’t want to hear that decision, you don’t want to hear the reasons, you   You then continue to harass by putting notices on my talkpage and userpage, you first keep on removing notices without resolving, you insist that I solve the problem for you.  After I show you how to solve the problem, you even post the exact same request again.  That is not being in dispute with me, that is being disruptive.  And I have asked you to stop.  The link you are now using is millimeters short of plain blacklist evasion, and there was good reason why I chose a site like ibiblio in the first place (and I am now aware of an even better solution).
 * So, no, my actions were administrative. You tried to personalize the dispute through abusive language, but edits like this are just plain vandalism (and maybe I should have blocked a long term editor like you already just for that).  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 02:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Justice.