Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. (Note: Sometimes, due to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to register.)
Administrators: This shared dynamic IP address, 184.108.40.206, is part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses and is registered to Kcom. Applying an indefinite block to this IP is not appropriate, unless it is a soft block, because the IP address will later be reallocated to a different, unrelated, and unsuspecting user, thereby impairing access to Wikipedia in an inappropriate fashion. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.
The best approach is to determine the CIDR IP numerical address range and make a higher-level decision to soft-block the entire range. http://www.arin.net/ (for approximately North America) and related sites can help to identify that range. Caution is advised when applying a range block as other Wikipedians, both registered and otherwise, may be affected.
Proposal to remove Order of precedence in Northern Ireland from list of hoaxes
Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Order_of_precedence_in_Northern_Ireland and response there. Your contribution is appreciated, I'm just not totally sure it should really count as a hoax. Dcoetzee 06:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
AN/I notice regarding unfounded accusations
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Civil recognition of Jewish divorce
The article "Civil recognition of Jewish divorce" was started by the then a 14-year-old Singaporean school pupil ((); ()), then in (secondary, or middle) school in England, but pretending to be a "retired "lawyer" " of 91 ((); (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive44#Searching_for_info_on_User:David91); (User:SouthernNights/Archive_5#David91); (); (); (); (); (); () (see the words "retired" or "memory" on the pages given at the last six links)), who somehow thought that he knew Law by getting hold and reading one of (probably his father's) academic (not legal) titles (the difference between "academic books on law" and "legal books" is that between books about "how the law should be like, and how they should be changed accordingly" and books about "how should you practise the law as it is, as the law currently stands") (by one John Greenwood Collier, who only used to teach (a very specific area of) Law, possibly as a jurist and a legal theorist; there is no available evidence to suggest that Collier is himself ever actually a member of the Law Society as a solicitor or a member of the General Council of the English Bar as a barrister) ((); (); (); (); (); (); ()) on the subject of Private International Law (Like his book, he even changed the name into "conflict of laws" after the title, and often wrote without even the article.), and started thinking that he had studied Law and could write about Law, when he had in fact neither—nothing, not even GCSE Law, International O-Levels Law, IGCSE Law, A-Level Law, International A-Level Law or IB Law (if the last in fact exists), as I had originally thought and opined accordingly, albeit upon a different page!
It was very unlikely that he was not giving out private legal advice, especially on divorce, perhaps by internal E-mail from his Wikipedia account (); and the whole article was his private "crackpot" theory—like me, as an outsider, not being a Jew—on how to procure a Jewish religious divorce with unreasonable, immoral or unlawful terms (perhaps secured with the help and co-operation of an unethical Rabbi or Rabbis) to the benefit of one of the parties, and how to make such terms somehow "stick" and enforceable as if they were valid in civil and secular courts of law and record without the need to secure a separate civil and secular divorce for the marriage to be lawfully dissolved in the eyes of both Jewish (Orthodox) religious law and secular law, based upon his own private theories on Private International Law. (He believed that even mere academic theories, purely on the drawing board, of Private International Law (that he mistook as actual law), can somehow take precedence, nay override, national and international law without so much as a signed and ratified (and enacted, for some jurisdictions) treaty or convention.)
He certainly could not have been a "lawyer" (When was the English, Northern Ireland, Irish and Scottish distinction between solicitors, barristers, Scottish advocates and notaries public abolished?) in the United Kingdom and Islands or in any of the jurisdictions within any of the most other major Countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations and also retaining the use and application of the English Common law, if he thought that the Law Lords in the House of Lords (He simply described them as "the House of Laws", a layman's term, instead of "the Law Lords".) somehow had appellate jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey—when the House of Lords did not, on almost all things since probably the last 200 to 325/350 years; the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey were treated as autonomous private fiefdoms of the English and British Crown, or, the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and the Parliaments of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not usually have jurisdiction over them, and it was long considered (by an extension of the legal principle—from the ruling detailed in the enrolled (with the Master of the Rolls) Memorandum from the Lords of the Privy Council for the King-in-Council, on the 9th. August 1722 ("...Acts of Parliament made in England, without naming the foreign Plantations, will not bind them ...")—to cover the Isle of Man and the Two Bailiwicks) that Acts of the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not apply or extend to the Isle of Man or to the Two Bailiwicks unless they are specifically named; hence their "Supreme Court" is (a Committee of) the Privy Council (originally a body of advisers to advise the King or the Queen exercising his or her Royal Prerogative independent of Parliament), not a few members (the Law Lords) sitting in a chamber (House of Lords) of the Legislature that is not normally supposed to have jurisdiction over those Islands) (A person who had actually been brought up in a British Colony when it was still a British colony would also highly unlikely to mistaken the Lord Laws/House of Lords with the Privy Council's Committee (JCPC), bearing in mind that Colonial capital cases in the 20th. century were sometimes referred to the Privy Council/JCPC, and were widely reported locally.); or even to think that the Isle of Man, Jersey or the Guernsey were ever a (constituent) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—an unforgivable mistake that he would not had made, if he had even watched so much as the FIFA World Cup, or even the Commonwealth Games! (User_talk:Morwen/11#English law)
He lacked competence. He was a charlatan. He was a fraud. He was a pretended "lawyer" who had only read one (wrong) book, and too lazy to decide whether he wanted to be a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. I have not yet even gone into his amateurish way of mixing American and English cases—something that only academics—but not usually actual practising or retired solicitors and barristers—are allowed to do (because English cases after the year 1776 are not usually considered "persuasive" in American Courts, and American cases have almost never been considered persuasive in English Courts)! And if he were an American attorney and not an English (or a Singaporean) solicitor or barrister, then why was he even giving out commentaries on English law in the first place? An American attorney who comments on post-1776 English law (but without also qualifying as an English solicitor or barrister), in the same way as what "David91" did, based upon his record of edits ( ), would definitely fall under the Competence rule!
I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned, yet I am a faithful believer of "calling it what it is", and I also faithfully, earnestly and sincerely believe that, by "role-playing" on Wikipedia like some kind of a game of Second Life, he MUST be considered to be partly acting in bad faith, and all this has to be said. All his misguided support ((); ()) did not in any way serve to refute my case, my allegations in any material way—playing the man (me) instead of the ball.
Supposing that I were to believed, if he could lie about his age, his education and what his did as an occupation, what else could he also not lie about? And could a 14/15-year-old really write in the way, manner and style that he did? Can it believed that his works was his, and his alone? I know that I could not, when I was at that age! It would be highly foolhardy and reckless of us to think that none of his words were copyright violations, either from any of the works of this John Greenwood Collier, or from some other source.
The evidence of his other glaring and unforgivable errors, unbecoming of either a solicitor or a barrister in England, include the following: ((); (); (); () ("Northern Island"? "Guerney"? Pull the other one!); (); (); (); (); (); (); ()) The fact of the matter is, in England, barristers and solicitors are not—and probably never, unless the trial was supposed to be wholly conducted in Latin—supposed to throw Latin legal terms and phrases about in Court as liberally as our "David91" and also a lot of our cousins in the American sister profession do. There is probably never a tradition in England for it (see the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730, Chapter 26 (4 Geo. 2.)). — 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please DO NOT speculate like this. In my original report at AN/I I mentioned, as circumstantial, having consulted with an admin who had "had a number of dealings with David91". The admin in question was not the person on whose user talk page you have just left the above note. A wholly different matter is that this morning, having noticed that the latter has legal training, I did indeed leave a note requesting him to check the AN/I. --Technopat (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Circumstantial? There are none so blind than those who refuse to see! With the greatest possible of respect, and with no undue disrespect to Americans (or even Canadians), but a licensed New York Attorney (having personally confirmed his record of license, I have no reason to question that), practising or otherwise, is no more qualified to judge who is a "kosher" and "legit" English solicitor or barrister than my neighbour's black cat! The legal professions of England and the State of New York are far from identical, and the legal traditions of the two respective jurisdictions are even less identical, and so much so that all this is a little like an American telling me that there is nothing wrong with a counterfeit English one-pound coin with "dodgy" indentations, or with a forged twenty-pound note, and that I am somehow being rude for refusing to accept either of them. --- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce removed
I've stricken your comments -- incidentally, the same comments found on this talk page -- from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce as a personal attack. Regardless of the veracity of your accusations about this user, attacking contributors rather than content has no place in an AFD discussion. If there is incorrect, uncited, or miscited content on the page, you are welcome to bring those up in the discussion. However, attacking the contributor himself, especially one who has not edited the page for the better part of a decade, is not at all constructive or conducive to forming meaningful consensus. Remember: Discuss content not contributors. Thank you for your understanding. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conflict of laws 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 my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Private international law|Conflict of laws|discuss=Talk:Conflict of laws#Split|date=October 2013)}}
Hello, I'm Jguard18. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with to London Citizens, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jguard18 Critique Me 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.