User talk:Legis/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Legis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi there,

Thanks for clarifying whether Bush is premier-Elect or not. The media reports I saw indicated it was a done deal.

Just noticed that you're knowledgeable on BVI politics, which I guess is rare for a Wiki user. I've been making electoral map diagrams for the British overseas territories but I can't seem to find a diagram showing the constituency borders in the BVI which I can recreate. Do you know of one I could use?

Also, the articles on the two BVI parties (as with articles on parties in most other Caribbean overseas territories) seem to be pretty vague on the positioning of the parties in the left-right spectrum. Is there any chance you could clarify that somewhat?

Many thanks!

--RaviC (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well Cayman politics being what it is, it looks like the position changed at least two more times during the night! We'll just have to see where we land.

I don't know of any electoral maps for BVI, but I'll look and see what I can find.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 07:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Local authorities swaps litigation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Local authorities swaps litigation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LuisVilla -- LuisVilla (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey there. Two comments/questions on the Lord Lindley SL post-nominal (and for judicial post-nominals on Wikipedia in general):

(1) Is it not customary for QCs to drop that post-nominal upon elevation to the bench, at least in England and Wales? I know that in NZ they don't drop, but I'm pretty sure they do in England.

(2) As for serjeants, I've never seen SL used in contemporary reports to refer to serjeants. It was my impression that they were referred to as Serjeant [last name] instead; at least it's what I've seen in the old reports.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on both.

Atchom (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly correct that when High Court judges are in office they would not longer use the designation QC or SL (although not true of Court Court judges, who continue to be called QC even on the bench). But after they are dead normally obituaries and other records will refer to whether they received the honour. Serjeants at Law are also a bit unusual in that judges who were former Serjeants would wear a black coif in their wig to designate themselves.

My view has tended to be that, in line with the "obituary" rule, its probably correct to record a QC or SL in the post-nominals at the start of the article, even if a judge ceased to refer to the honour. But I am not militant about it and there seem to be articles that go either way. But for the reasons noted above, I tend to think SL is "more deserving" of inclusion than QC.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 17:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legis, I have stuck my neck out and created an article on Civil liability in recreational diving, since I found a few references that looked usable and it looked like the article could be useful. When you have the time and inclination I would appreciate any feedback in the form of comments, suggestions, recommendations, criticism or edits you might feel appropriate. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Will do. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Male head silhouette (narrow).png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Effects of Hurricane Irma in the British Virgin Islands at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, do you still wish to pursue this nomination? Two other reviews have left messages and are asking for your thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I think I had previously indicated that I didn't want to proceed with it. I didn't have time to fix the (very valid) criticisms of it, and I didn't anyone else would. So easiest to just withdraw it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Virgin Islands general election, 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressives United (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Legis,

Thanks for creating 2019 in the British Virgin Islands! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Legis. I noticed that several of the results from the 2019 and 2015 election don't match the published results by the governnment (for example, the 2015 district seats largely don't match these results). I guess you may have added the preliminary results rather than the final ones?

Also, with regards to the main results table, having them on a separate template is to be avoided (there is a big drive to delete all these templates at the moment), so I have moved the 2019 results to the article in a new table (see here). This format is based on the one for Luxembourg, where voters can cast numerous votes, but it still allows easy reporting of the actual number of voters etc (see here). I will also look to convert the previous articles to this format over the next few days, which will allow the addition of other data, such as invalid votes etc (I was doing it for the 2015 elections, but then got sidetracked after noticing the district results didn't match the formal ones). Cheers, Number 57 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

Do you have any knowledge about the positions of the four major BVI parties? As in, which ones are left of centre, and which are right of centre etc? There is some information already on Wikipedia but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

Thanks

--RaviC (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. The reality is that BVI Political Parties are not really centred around ideology. We don't have a political 'left' or 'right' in the normal sense of that word, nor do we have parties attached to a particular platform (like a 'Green' party, or similar). BVI elections are just more about dividing yourselves into teams and seeing who is more popular rather than promoting a particular system of government. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sock-puppet of Riegels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.12.139 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a sock-puppet, it's a Username. Small but crucial difference. But if you feel differently, then please feel free to click: report it.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Judiciary of the British Virgin Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent summary of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. Not the easiest case to nail down with the different judgments. WakelessGrub (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Not going to lie, that was a bear of a case to break down and summarise for a lay audience. I won't pretend my attempt was perfect, but it took a lot of effort! --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list