GSTQ

My thought was to make this Equity article a bit less parochial by mentioning the U.S. Equity is still alive here. Next time you just meatcleaver my words, please talk with me first. We'll accomplish more working together than we could working against each other. --Jrgetsin 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Anglo-X legal systems (Australia, India, New Zealand, USA, et al.) all received the principles of equity together with the common law, right? Only, when? America, I know, dates the reception of the common law from 1789 when the first written US Constitution was adopted. I know zilch about the history of the common law in the other Anglo-X nations. Can you fill me in? or suggest where to find out more?

What I'm thinking is that the development of equity looks like a tree, a big trunk up to the split off of America, then another branch, and another.

Did English equity develop sufficiently that all derivative systems must tend toward exactly the same set of general principles? Or were the splits in the middle of its development so that permanent differences resulted?

I have never made an academic study of comparative law. Any ideas how to handle this?

My working assumption is that the outline looks like this.

• Equity
• The Emergence of the Concept of Equity
• Universal Maxims of Equity
• English Equity to 1789
• Comparative Equity--Contemporary Systems
  • America
  • Australia
  • Canada
  • India
  • Kenya
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa??
  • et al.
• Prospects for the Synthesis of a Global System of Equity

• etc etc etc

--Jrgetsin 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've had a couple stabs at fixing up the Bohemia article, but I see there are still bits in not-quite-English. Thanks for helping out. :) Mak (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for alerting me to the recent activity on the Baron de Longueuil and Michael Grant articles. I think I'd cleaned them up before, but they weren't on my watchlist and I'd not see the recent nonsense. I'll keep an eye on them; unfortunately fake nobles and pretenders tend to be fairly persistant! - Nunh-huh 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not perform copy-paste moves. Moving the page can be done with the "Move" tab at the top of a page. Ryūlóng 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

But now it cannot be done because of your edits. Ryūlóng 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is all right. For the pages that you made, you can list them with {{db-author}} and then you can move the pages to the new title. Right now they are redirects, but I will give you permanent links to the pages so you can edit them. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magistrates%27_Court_of_Victoria&redirect=no and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magistrates%27_Court_of_Victoria&redirect=no Ryūlóng 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct form, according to the Tasmanian Court, is Magistrates (without the apostrophe). When you moved the files, did you link through? Thanks for the cleanup. MojoTas 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see you have removed the wikilink to shire which I added a while ago. You say there is no need for this link, and whilst this may be true, there is no need for any wikilink, but it is these links that make wikipedia so valuable. I added this to alert readers to the difference between Devon and Devonshire, which are often used interchangeably where this may not always be appropriate. In my experience, there is often confusion about which is correct - not only for Devon, but for other English counties. If this link transgresses any Wikipedia standards I am unaware of then fine, it should be removed, but I believe the link is of some value to readers of the article. What do you think? Regards Lynbarn 00:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talk page. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you are a conservative Wikipedian. Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123Reply

I don't like the american/english spelling rule at the site I told you about either :) Regional123 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123Reply

Thank you for your message about grammar and punctuation. We all make mistakes and wikipedia is great for picking up those errors, and I don't claim to be perfect. On the question of apostrophes in the names of courts, I have used the exact wording from the Act of Parliament which constitutes the court in that particular state or territory. If a state or territory government wishes to call a court a "coroners court" or a "magistrates court" without an apostrophe, then that is their call, not mine, as they are an elected government. That is why I reverted the changes and left notes on the Talk Page of each of those court pages to justify the revert. On what basis do you say that these courts should have apostrophes? Assize 10:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) From my understanding, an apostrophe either denotes possession or a contraction of a phrase. As it is not the latter, it must be the former. In the case of the former, a magistrate or a coroner does not own a court. They both constitute the court. The court is a prerogative of the crown and strictly speaking, is owned by the Queen, although in reality, they are owned by the people. Therefore, the use of an apostrophe is incorrect as it cannot denote possession. Similarly, we don't use them in Queens Counsel, Kings Cross and many other organisations. Yes, I did check each act before deciding whether to use an apostrophe or not. Yes, I did put a bit of research into doing the articles. They are not just one line stubs. In the case of the NT, their website uses it without one, so I followed that, and it also included a note from the Chief Magistrate which used it that way. I believe I entitled the NSW page with an apostophe as its webiste had one so I am not one-sided on this issue, and if you had changed this page I wouldn;t have reverted it. As this this ais an encyclopedia, all usages should follow what the documentary evidence is, not what we think it should say. Perhaps to resolve this, you could change the content to read "Coroners Court of Queensland, or more correctly Coroner's Court of Queensland, are a court in the .....". Assize 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

–Thanks for the reply. I think we have to differ on this issue. I propose to revert the names back to what the statute says. If you disagree with this course, then this issue will have to move to Australian Law discussion page for the community to come to a consensus.Assize 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was lost with the "Trying Again" edit summary :) Brian | (Talk) 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware of the above WikiProject? If so, are you a member? If not, please join!--Vox Humana 8' 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just read your discussion bit on the malay language page and responded to it. Please tell me what you think. Syedhusni (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks like some distant Longueuil relative is trying to "astroturf" the article in such a way that it makes his claim look reasonable. This is clearly a conflict of interest, and they shouldn't be editing the article. Since there's no good way to prove who they are, though, perhaps what is needed is to purge the article of every statement unsupported by a reference, and insist that if any statements are added, that they only be added if accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. - Nunh-huh 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If they won't talk, then mediation is not really an option. You could request page protection to encourage discussion - though this will only work if it's not the user's preferred version that's protected (I shouldn't do this myself, as I'm arguably "involved"), or you can ask for a "checkuser" to see if the "two" users are actually one user with a sockpuppet - perhaps a trip to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets first. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Spam filters wouldn't let me post the link to the actual site. Just remove the spaces and it should show up. Or, google the myspace page for amy lynn best and click on her top friend Mike Watt. It will take you there too. Hope this helps.Poyoyloar (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Poyoyloar. I did try it, but it didn't work the first time, which is why I asked why a link couldn't be supplied. Anyhow, what about refraining from goading MikeWatt & Dwaltzwriter? You've made an accusation and backed it up with evidence, now just let that speak for itself. You're not helping by inflaming anybody's temper. Incidentally, I've read some of your posts. I think you're wrong in seeing any connexion with sockpuppetry being proven and the non-notability of the subject of the contentious articles. Something backed up with citations from reliable sources is just that, and it doesn't matter how few or many Wikipedia editors happen to have the same opinion, it's their neutral assessment of the evidence that matters. Perhaps you should leave others to make that judgement about the articles, since you yourself appear to have a less-than-neutral stance on this.GSTQ (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

While you're dealing with this, might I encourage you to also take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Poyoyloar? I'm fairly certain we're dealing with two sets of sock(meat)puppets. Cheers, Nsevs • Talk 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Nsevs, I had noticed the other case, I just haven't had a chance yet to have a proper look at it.GSTQ (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, if you're interested, perhaps you could look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd)?GSTQ (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In regard to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VIVID, I really don't understand. WP:GHBH states: 'The use of alternative accounts for deliberate policy violations or disruption specifically is proscribed' i.e. not allowed, could you clarify? Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I thought you were arguing against... Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

City status in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. MRSC • Talk 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

So I'm not sure what your involvement in the article is but out of courtesy I'll leave you a message seeing as you addressed me in your last edit. The name of a city is entirely relevant to the article because otherwise people won't know what the article is referring to. It would be like insisting on calling say Swansea exclusively Abertawe— I'd know what was being referring to but most people wouldn't. Judging by your user page you no doubt have some "unionist" sentiment(or whatever you want to call it), but bear in mind neutrality is key to wikipedia. Thanks.ʄ!•¿talk? 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This discussion was continued here.

I think that's done now: though i haven't properly got to grips with the cite web template.

Lozleader (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was preemptive -- we had a vandal who was serially moving all the geography Featured Articles to nonsense titles. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article Burger King legal issues is undergoing a featured article review and I would like some assistance in insuring the Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited ([2001] NSWCA 187). Searching through the WP:AUSLAW project I came across your page.

Your page states that you are a lawyer in Victoria, so I am wondering if you could assist in helping to insure that the article is factually correct and properly cited. If I am incorrect in you qualifications, could you possibly assist by pointing out an editor who could help?

Thank you, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi GSTQ,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lady, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Melbourne Meetup Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus Previous: 25 November 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

I have suggested changing the name of page Orders, decorations, and medals of New Zealand to New Zealand Royal Honours System and see that you've edited this page in the past. Do you have an opinion on this change? Talk Page

Karl Stephens (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian peers and baronets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunshine Coast (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) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

W.D. Rubinstein says in "The Biographical Dictionary of Life Peers" (St Martin's Press, 1991) at page 368: "Sir John Forrest .. was granted a hereditary peerage by the Lloyd George government, the first Australian to receive a peerage. Forrest died on the trip from Perth to England. Although he is referred to as 'Lord Forrest' in Who Was Who, 1916-1928, his peerage is not mentioned or included in Burke's Peerage, The New Extinct Peerage, the Complete Peerage, or any other standard reference work on the subject."

I have, however, found Forrest mentioned as "first Baron" in another standard reference, Debrett's Peerage (1920): see https://books.google.com/books?id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y. As far as I know, prior to Rubinstein, there was never any doubt about the validity of Forrest's peerage. It should be noted that even if the peerage was not legally created, there is precedent for such titles to be used perfectly correctly as courtesy titles. For instance, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Frederick, Prince of Wales were both styled 'Dukes of Gloucester' without peerages of that name being issued for them.

My feeling is that we should move Forrest from the section on abortive peerages to 'Barons'. He was so styled in the last few months of his life. All reference works from his death until Rubinstein always styled him 'Lord Forrest'. And I've shown that Rubinstein failed to consult all the available standard references, an omission that has been taken up by contemporary writers on Forrest.

Perthboy (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I acknowledge there is precedent for referring to people as if they were peers even if they had not had the title legally created. However, with your examples those were by convention and during their lifetime, neither of which applies to this case. Do you actually have a source for saying that people referred to him as "Lord Forrest" during the last few months of his life? Or are you assuming that people did so?

You're making a pretty huge claim saying "all" reference works refer to him in a particular way. Are you able to list them? The point is that, even if you can find a reference that makes a claim, that doesn't make that claim correct. Even almost-universal claims which are not correct should not be accepted if they are demonstrably incorrect. And I fail to see how you can argue that this is not correct in this case, except by analogy to the Duke of Gloucester cases, which I think is a false analogy.

I'm not saying you can't make the edit, but I believe it fits where it is, and that you shouldn't.GSTQ (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

GSTQ:

• I accept your argument that that "Even almost-universal claims which are not correct should not be accepted if they are demonstrably incorrect." My contention is not that we should accept an incorrect fact, but that in traditional British practice, it is perfectly correct to ascribe a courtesy title to people even when that title has not been officially created. This has also been the traditional Australian approach until Rubinstein, Bolton et al started arguing in the 1990s that Lord Forrest should not be called a Baron because they think the title was not officially created. I venture to say that some of these writers were not familiar with the myriad uses of courtesy titles in Britain.
• Beyond courtesy titles, I take my argument further to suggest that Forrest's title might have been validly created. Rubinstein and Bolton state that Forrest was not mentioned in any of the standard references. Here, Rubinstein, Bolton et al are patently wrong as "Baron Forrest of Bunbury" is most clearly mentioned in at least one of these standard references, Debrett's Peerage (1920): see https://books.google.com/books?id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y. I suspect, but have not confirmed, that Forrest's widow is mentioned in probably all these standard references as "Widow of the First Baron". There is probably sometimes a short lag between the creation of a title and its appearance in the standard references.
• Finally, to this day, the Australian dictionary of Biography has not changed its online entry on Lord Forrest. Lord Forrest also continues to be referred to by his peerage title in a string of recent publications, among others:
  • 'Great Moments in Australian History' (2010) by Jonathan King:https://books.google.com/books?id=XHSUXwtZ8c4C&dq=%22baron+forrest+of+bunbury%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  • 'Explorers of the Southern Sky: A History of Australian Astronomy' (1996): https://books.google.com/books?id=XoeiJxMmXZ8C&dq=%22baron+forrest+of+bunbury%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  • Jim Hewitson's 'Far Off in Sunlit Places: Stories of the Scots in Australia and New Zealand':https://books.google.com/books?id=buRFQMXpQCEC&pg=PA80&dq=%22baron+forrest+of+bunbury%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi96OzT2ILbAhUIRo8KHbW2AQEQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=%22baron%20forrest%20of%20bunbury%22&f=false

Perthboy (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy titles are a red herring. This is not a courtesy title in any sense. The argument stands or falls on whether it is correct to refer to him as Lord Forrest of Bunbury, or not. The references which refer to him as such are not doing so out of courtesy, or even (as in the Gloucester cases) out of convention. They are clearly convinced (rightly or, I think on balance, wrongly) that his claim to the title was legitimate. I take your point about Debrett's. Debrett's is good authority, but I think in special cases like this where letters patent were not issued prior to his death, Debrett's can be identified as being incorrect. I will make the point that Rubinstein and Bolton being incorrect as to the details of their citation does not, ipso facto, make their contention incorrect. And if his title didn't go in the London Gazette, Burke's or a number of other standard references, then it seems to be the natural conclusion to draw that Debrett's was wrong. Finally, recent Australian publications as a class are not known for their authoritativeness on British peerage titles. Some of them can't even distinguish between correct style for a knight's wife and correct style for a daughter of an earl, marquess or duke.

I acknowledge the confusion over this point, but if you look clearly through all the confusion and misinformation I think the clear answer is he never rightly held the title. But regardless of what you think of this, there should be consistency both within this article and within other Wikipedia articles. There's no point in adding a peerage to the substantive list if you're not going to delete the section on the peerage in the abortive list. And Sir John's article and his wife's article are a jumble on the point.GSTQ (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply