User talk:Wikidea/Archive 03

I thought about this earlier when I decided to add misrep' as a tort. Indeed, 'the hedley byrne rules' would give rise to an action of negligence/negligent misstatement, within the framework of misrepresentation where contractual obligations are concerned. However the tort as provided for in Misrepresentations Act 1967 s2(1) clearly belongs in the statutory torts section. These two torts are inextricably linked (via the misrep' framework) and both give rise to an action for pure economic loss, as described in the first paragraph of the article economic torts. I am unsure, Please feel free to move the short paragraph I added earlier if you think it fits in the Negligence section or discuss further here or on my userpage. Bamkin 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I totally agree on your thoughts about a pan-jurisdictional law page, I'll remove anything British-only if you havn't already. I have a habit of forgeting, I'll definatly keep that in mind in future. I have only come across the very few and sparse UK cases considering human rights (using the term human rights) rather than civil rights/civil liberties. As for the contract page I will look shortly. My next project is the Constitution of the United Kingdom article - there is some good stuff but everybody is arguing without referencing their views (check out the talk page for that or compare to the United States Constitution page) and the structure is awful. It would be very nice to get the UK const' to a FA!! Bamkin 11:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going to start on the Constitution of the United Kingdom soon. I've only proposed the changes on the talk page so far in case anybody objects. Structure has to change definately. It would be good if you were to contribute also if you are not too busy. Bamkin 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice. I'm a bit busy for the next week, so I cannot give any thoughtful opinion on the matter at the moment. Your proposals seem reasonable. I will have to give it more thought later on. Until then, I won't be bothered if you fiddle with any of my work. I'll be back later on with some comments and/or contributions. --PullUpYourSocks 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great word isn´t it? I´m sorry for the revert. Because of ongoing deletion actions now, its hard to separate all useful edits. Please postpone any new structurechange until the layout questions are solved. But there is many you can do, I´d like to suggest to bring in line the references concernig Law section. They seem very profound now, but could be trimmed to standard style. We also need something about EU citizenship (image referring), and more about Maastricht and the new Constitution. Also merging paragraphs would be fine. Another small paragraph in Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters section from a Law perspective is needed.Plus any judicial, political implications regarding EU relation to USA-UN-China-WTO-KyotoProtocol in section International relation (including trimming a bit). AND VOTE! For keeping pictures! -haha!- I sound like a candidate for election ... all the best Lear 21 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		You have kept up with the demands from the FA reviewers so far. Don't give up now. You see the the star in this barnstar is almost healed, in other words you are very close to making it an FA status article, the star is almost complete. Parker007 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello Reswik, could you do me a big favour and find a book on the sociology of law, and then write a bit about it in that section you added onto the law page? The article's being reviewed right now (link in the law page) and I previously haven't bothered to put anything in, because I'm unfamiliar with the concept, and the article on sociology of law is pretty unhelpful. I'd really appreciate it! Wikidea 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. OK. In the next day or two (if not sooner), I'll add a few sentences or a paragraph of substantance to the new section (and foot note or two or three...) and perhaps a bit more to the Sociology of law stub. Although, there is already some substance in the last Law section on institutions -- a more explicit transition could perhaps be made between the last two main sections. Btw, nice article :) --Reswik 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikidea, what was the problem with the "etymology and definition" section? And if you don't like the definition of Britannica, why did you have to revert the whole lead, as I rewrote it? You see that the lead is under attack by reviewers here, and I agree: it is really confusing. Yes, I suggest a most concise lead, with an one-sentence definition (yes, we need a "comprehensive definition" in the lead!), and a clearer distinction of branches and systems. As it is now, it is really a mess. (The prose in the lead gets uncyclopedic, just like the prose throughout the article, as it has been correctly mentioned above) More definitions of law can go to a seperate "Definitions and etymology" section as I wrote it. And what is the problem with Rousseau?! Of course, it is not an official definition of law. It is not even a stricto sensu definition. But this is a quite interesting short analysis with historical value. I know it may have "flaws", but all the definitions of law have flaws. Even those you mention No legal scholar has offered a satisfactory definition of law. And I added "Rousseau" not as "definition", but as a "quote". It is something parallel; it is something different; it offers what IMO and in other people's opinion constitutes the "human element", which is something very useful for a FA. But I'm afraid why are not there yet, are we?

• And did you read one of the last criticisms: "I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles." Why, on earth, should we have the whole criminal case here?! What matters is the reference of "necessity". For anything else, for more details, the reader can go to the case's article. This is the essence of WP:SS.

• Anyway ... I don't know if it is still worth working on this article. Obviously, ten hours of work went for nothing ... --Yannismarou 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! Robth has left a comment in the FAC page of [[law], and has left some questions in two sections. I took care of one of them, but I haven't worked on the "Trust and Equity" section. I don't have specialized knowledge there; could you take care of that?--Yannismarou 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about the photo of the TV section in "Bureaucracy". It is fair use for the show's article, but its use in other articles seems problematic. Read the details of the photo. Anyway, I don't think this can be an obstacle for FA status, but we should try to have everything in order. Cheers!--Yannismarou 13:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am in a wikibreak, I saw the article became feautured. I am happy I helped. Let us nominatr itfor the front page now!--Yannismarou 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your work on the Law article. May you please work on the justice article? It is a true core topic related to the concept of law that is in a very sorry, ironic state. bibliomaniac15 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses and helpful changes to the Law article! Brainmuncher 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui! (talk · contribs) reverted the improvements you made to this article. Please see talk:Law of the United Kingdom, thank you. Tim! 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guilherme, I like the new navigation box, but I want to change it so that the side column is bigger, and doesn't squash the titles onto two lines. Can you do this, or tell me how to? Also, the subjects were split onto different lines before because of the groupings (e.g. "Commercial law" should be the start of a new line, under "Further disciplines"). Lastly, it'd be nice to have the old colours, because this fits with the portal. Please get back to me soon, Wikidea 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think now it is ok... check you first. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A few years ago you created the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 article. About a month after you created it I split one part of it off into its own article, Wage Regulation. While I technically created the article, the content of that article is entirely what you wrote on the National Minimum Wage Act page. It has now been proposed for deletion. Unfortunately I am too busy to rewrite the article and anyway am not an expert in the field. I wondered if you would like to have a look at the article and see if it can be improved/saved. Thanks. ^Tom_Phil 09:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: this revert -- I rarely do such, but yours was unhelpful to say the least. I'd also added a fair bit of whitespace and a few word selections, iirc, which much improved the article intro. When I went to school, paragraphs were supposed to be on the same topic. Different topics were not written as parts of a larger combined construct into some sort of pseudo-paragraph. If all that was needed was a single sentence, that was sufficient to being an honest stand alone paragraph. When the topic shifts, new paragraph. Not complicated.

• Try looking at the page using more than one browser, and make sure you zoom-in and zoom-out over several levels of magnification different than your default "view", which is, after all customized by user on each computer and browser combination. All such 'appearence' factors are realative, and vary quite a bit in some ways, at least when a graphic or other floating element is on the rendered screen. I consult and test such things using four different browsers: Firefox, IE6, IE7 and even Netscape more or less habitually--I even, once in a while, check on my sons Macintosh, and if you see my talk in divers discussions, many browsers have display irregularities and differences that need overcome. (There are any number of technical discussions around that sort of issue there in the last two weeks.)

On the TOC, these are direct quotes:

• "In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}". ({{TOCnestright}} is derivative of 'TOCright' which does the same task if given the proper switch. The TFD discussion on that is on record, but obviously it survived -- which is because it's easier to apply, and should generally be usable by a wider part of the population of non-tech savvy editors.)

• "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other." -- This technique was devised specifically to avoid doing that AND to eliminate the excess and ugly and unprofessional looking whitespace as appears in many zoom levels on the several browsers in your alledged "standard position", by creating the conditions for wiki's HTML generator to flow text around the graphics. Note the flow occurs on the left, and not in between, unless someone puts a small image on the left, which should be moved and the whole adjusted. Just like adding pics on both left and right as recommended by several guidelines including our MOS.

• In short, so far as I read it, this method is in compliance with the manual of style, though not yet in widespread use. Even Kirill Lokshin gave me that, and that it did in general, improve the look of a page! (email- He's looking forward to the community discussion on this technique. See for yourself in links: Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history), the appearance gains are usually pretty nice.

On the downside

1. Your reversion is creating well over a screen-full of whitespace occupied only by the TOC really breaking up the article flow, and probably making us a laughing stock. I resent that, on behalf of myself and fellow editors who care about how good things look... and bother to check in multiple ways to make sure of it.
   
   
2. That wikimarkup HTML rendering has problems is well known and documented in many places (see: Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links). I'm trying to fix some of that kind of issue which has far greater scope than this article. This method is a work around that can get us past that problem, one I expect to put to the community on the VP soon... having someone come along and break it for poor reasons (care to match my MOS quotes, perhaps? Even so, then we have editorial license, and the MOS is contradicting itself if there is something else on some sub-page, perhaps.) is certainly unhelpful to that or progress of wikipedia on the whole.
   
   
3. This article has darn few of the common problems many long pages have-- it has no infoboxes cluttering and dominating on the right. It only had the one huge gash of ugly whitespace, which is why I decided it made a good test bed (simply because it presents a related but different problem than the standard infobox dominated page.) when I wandered in from Salic Law. If you don't like me putting the TOC up where people can actually access it, move the blind justice pic down a screen and put the TOCright per the MOS.
   
   
4. If you don't like the picture I added as 'filler' or the caption, then feel free to substitute or revise and extend as may apply-- I wasn't particularly happy with my own caption, as I thought it was a bit lame, but it was also headed in the right direction. If you're clever, perhaps you can improve it. (I can even live with that small swath of whitespace if it's removed, iirc, it was only about 200-250px wide and square. That minor glitch depends on one's zoom-in/zoom-out at a given moment, as my fix does NOT!)
   
   
5. But reverting the entire painstaking time consuming edit because you can't be bothered to be diligent (nor polite) and make an incremental change is not only rude --it's tantamount to an aggressive slap in the face, as is any reversion, being a total rejection of another's edits. At it's at best, it was very unprofessional (a violation of the governing spirit behind WP:CIV in my world view--I'd rather have you swear at me and call me names than put up with any reversion behavior. They are intolerably inflammatory.) and at best, being kind (if I really stretch), quite juvenile.

• It took me at least a half hour and 10-12 previewed iterim looks to make that all work together, not counting searching for an appropriate image in the commons, so please exercise some professional behavior, and consider the way this reflects on you. IMHO, this fix, now tested in many articles is far superior to that unprofessional looking rendering you restored.

• My edit is also superior as it breaks out the titles of the different types of laws so the lead words in each paragraph introducing the topics all line up pretty much so the reader can get their head around the classifications--aiding comprehension and readability. A victory for clarity and easing our reader's difficulties in reading each in your more garbled context.

• I'm not sure what statement I added needs anything supported beyond common knowledge. Or are you somehow unaware that weights and measures are set by statute law back to antiquity? Some of our articles here even cite some of the codes, there were about six articles in all, and were pretty well cross referenced, but it's been a good year and a half since I contributed to those and things could have changed. At least take a look at a few those starting here, which cites legislation high up in the page. If you can't run them down, try this reference, which you can cite to hearts content in whatever sentence you meant (I may have guessed wrong--but this is all I came up with beyond the image caption--mea maxima culpa on that stinker! <g>).
  
  (I wasn't aware an uncited sentence based on common knowledge, custom, and established fact was eligible for the firing squad and considered a 'deletion offense'... so and but perhaps you're too legalistic?) Submit using {{fact}}, {{unclear}}, etc. is a much more respectful and professional way to go. It'll certainly make YOU look better. // FrankB 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You need a life or something-- what do you do, sit and wait for a change? Sheesh! And you started the hostility. Reverts are for vandalisms. PERIOD DOT END // FrankB 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for improving the criminal law article! I will devote some more time to this myself in future. --Matthew Proctor 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you moved Company (law) across to Company law, which is fine and well and good, but Company is a huge redirect to Company (law), which has now created a double-redirect; I think if you are going to do the move, you probably have to prune all the double redirects too. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for the greeting. I'm mostly spending my editing time on trying to bash the pages relating to US Securities regulation into more sensible form, which appears to be a lengthy project but which does of course interact with what you Commonwealth types call companies law. I haven't seen Anatomy of Corporate Law yet,but will have a look at it. Thanks for the pointer.

Does 'Business Organizations' have any special meaning to a Brit lawyer? For a US lawyer, a 'company' would be an imprecise way of referring to either a 'standard' corporation (Inc. or Co.), or a limited liability corporation (LLC), the principal difference being that an LLC is supposed to be taxed similar to a partnership, while a 'C' corporation pays income tax at the corporate level. Conant Webb 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikidea, I saw your name at the WP:UNION page, and I thought I'd stop by and say hello, and welcome. A legal minded editor is exactly the person we can use at the project! Do you have an opinion on the best way to organize the Labour law category? I was planing on talking to Tim1965 this week and proceeding with his sugestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Labour law of country, but more opinions on the matter are always welcome. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that's all I have to say. You've done a ton of work on that article, and it shows. (Although I have to agree - that's one cheesy picture. :) --Bookandcoffee 17:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Labour Party Constitution, by Kwekubo (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Labour Party Constitution is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Labour Party Constitution, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Labour Party Constitution itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beland, I don't some of the changes you've made on the page I'm afraid. First, I'm removing the long tag, because it's a big subject, and it warrants length. There's zero waffle, it's all referenced. Second, that's kind of you to change some of the syntax in the neo liberalism section, but as for the facts needed post, I'm removing that too because the discussion goes on to substantiate what I've said. If you have a read of some of their material at a library, then you see it all there. I don't really understand, lastly, what's spammy about the ICN's website in a footnote - I don't work for them I promise, and I'm not promoting anything! I'm putting that back in. But cheers for taking an interest, come back and see it develop (I'm afraid it will get bigger) and perhaps you can contribute from some of your own knowledge on the topic. Wikidea 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Talk:Competition law. It sounds like there were some changes which you agreed with but reverted anyway, which seems odd. In any case, I've given my rationale for all the changes. Thanks, Beland 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Am I not a man.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Labour Party Constitution. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.labourcounts.com/constitution.htm in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Labour Party Constitution with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Labour Party Constitution with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Labour Party Constitution saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. Kwekubo 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil personal attacks like this and false accusations of vandalism are entirely inappropriate. My only agenda on Wikipedia is enforcement of NPOV standards. Each of the other three editors to look at it this week find legitimate problems with the competition law article. May I suggest WP:COOL and that perhaps not everyone is conspiring against you personally? Per WP:OWN, please edit collaboratively and discuss on the talk page instead of reverting wholesale. If you believe that I am violating Wikipedia policies by virtue of the fact that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to US antitrust law, feel free to report it to the WP:COI/N board with reference to specific edits instead of cluttering the talk page of articlespace with personal attacks, but I suggest you don't want to actually have administrators reviewing your conduct. THF 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikidea. You are off to such a great start on the article European Community merger law that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk:Competition law: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. THF 10:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:competition law, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. THF 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested in the wikt:epic saga from this "last warning" results, please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Competition_law Wikidea 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It's possible that some administrators could interpret these four edits as a violation [1] [2] [3] [4] because they all involve removing a neutrality tag, and they all occurred within a 24-hour period. This particular case is somewhat moot, since the tag has been restored and the edit war has stopped. Personally, I try to avoid reverting reverts without at least trying to discuss the change on the talk page first. I've found that merely changing things back and forth doesn't change people's minds, and often annoys them. Thanks, Beland 04:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously involved in agenda-pushing and COI issues with User:THF; I've alerted CoolHandLuke as well that I feel this has been a continuing problem, and raised it on the COI noticeboard here. --David Shankbone 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikidea: I left a comment in your discussion of criminal law. I think that your reversion has undermined much progress. I think that you should undo it and work with the article as it was revised. Best, --DRTïllberġ^Talk 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left another comment. Yes, I applaud your color scheme; the most elegant and attractive solution. I think we used slightly different colors, but close enough. As for the criminal law article, I think we have different ideas for how it should look. I encourage you to look closely at the earlier changes and to compare the article to other subarticles referenced in the law intro. The pre-reversion version was closer to the goal, IMHO. Best, --DRTïllberġ^Talk 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:THF, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. THF 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review also WP:HARASS. Do that again, I will complain to the appropriate administrators. THF 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reply on the talk page of Competition law. That way others interested in improving the article and resolving the issues can gain some insight. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ne pas problem. Mais, je préfère communiquer en anglais parce que mon Français est limité. :-) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCSE_Grand_Canyon_Raft_Trip and the associated article NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip. Happy Couple 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article English criminal law, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--DarkFalls ^talk 06:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for your message. I don't know if I will have time to complete a bit more the article, I will try. I think a good idea would be to review the case law and make some new pages with them. I also have some more information in the version in spanish which I created, particularly on regulation 1/2003, if you understand spanish and wish to take a look: es:Derecho de la competencia. See you around and good job with the article!--Jorditxei 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well you have Law of France, Law of the United Kingdom, Law of Germany and so on. It seems to be the convention so it seems to be the logical title. Don't think it is that bad. Any by redirect, there actualy wasn't one from that title before. Is that what you meant? - J Logan ^t: 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]