User talk:Gerry Ashton

Please place new communication at the bottom. I will respond on this page unless you request otherwise.

MOSNUM

Simple. I was adding the {{pp-dispute}} tag to the page to make it clear that the reason it was protected was because of a content dispute. Did you actually look at what my edit consisted of before you left your question? _Gb^T/c 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. When I first saw it, it seemed the tag was disputing whether the merge that is described immediately below your edit should occur or not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mile

Just seen your edit summary and wanted to say the we in the UK use the mile too! Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is used informally, and is lawful for certain selected purposes. The USA is unique (with the possible exception of Burma and Liberia) in that the mile is a lawful unit of measure for almost all purposes (I'm sure there are a few laws or regulations that dictate some other unit of measure for long distances in some very specific situation, though I can't name one). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

About "experimenting with page Transformer"

I don't know why you say the information I added was incorrect. The formula was a simplification of the one previously being on the page, and the one still being there (apparently). I still don't understand why the formula is formatted the way it is; having a $2$ in the numerator, and ${\sqrt {2}}$ in the denominator, just makes no sense to me. I think the information is verifiable, and if you need me to cite my sources, the information comes completely from me. --79.136.62.214 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are vandals who like to change numbers and formulas so they are incorrect. Since the people cleaning up after vandals don't always understand the numbers or formulas that have been changed, it is very helpful if there is a citation to a reliable source so that those repairing damage can easily see which verision is correct.

In the case of your change, I see that the new version is indeed a correct simplification. I happen to believe that the earlier version is better, because those familiar with electromagnetism will instantly recognize 2πf as the angular frequency, and that recognition will make the formula easier to understand. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then it makes more sense to me. And thank you for your answer. What I wanted to say was just that I didn't think I was experimenting with the page, just trying to help, and didn't deserve the response i received. But I will take more caution in the future. And I highly respect that all wikipedia articles have to be looked after. --79.136.62.214 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you delete the Notary additions, you should of did some research

You should of researched notaries before deleting what I wrote. You are trying to tell me this is not true? "Some notaries in states where they are banned from drafting wills continue to carry on the tradition by selling attorney prepared legal document forms then notarizing the signature." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.17 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not my job to research claims; it is the job of the person adding the claim to research it and provide citations to the reliable documents that show it is true.

It may very well be true that some notaries may sell blank will forms, but who is to say if the blank forms were prepared by an attorney? Even if it was, is it fair to say they are "attorney prepared legal document forms" when the important parts are blank?

Also, it is difficult to say whether the notary is selling the forms; the notary might just work in a store, like a UPS store or stationery dealer, that sells blank legal forms and also has a notary working there. It's really the store that's selling the form, not the notary. Without some kind of published survey, who is to say which situations are commonplace and which are rare? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are speaking to what you know little about. Besides, almost all the facts on the entry are not cited.

Most certainly notaries in all states could draft wills before the introduction of unauthorized practice of law statutes in the 1930s. See *http://baradmissions.com

As far as who says the forms with blanks must be done by an attorney, it is the government. Below is from a state government notary page:

"Now, exactly what services can you provide without engaging in the unlicensed practice of law? Generally speaking, a nonlawyer may only sell legal forms and then type those forms which have been completed in writing by the customer. As an example, you could sell a will form to an individual. The customer would have to fill in the blanks" *[1]

I assume you are acting in good faith. I do not want an edit war, but I believe the UPL statutes are an important event in notary history—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.17 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. I will be happy to discuss this further after you have read that. Anyone is free to delete any information that is not properly cited, whether the editor doing the deletion is well-versed in the subject or not. As it happens, I am a notary, and would never consider selling blank will forms, because doing so would encourage the purchaser to screw up a document that cannot be corrected, because by the time the need for correction is discovered, the purchaser will be dead. But that's beside the point; the issue is whether or not notaries outside Louisiana, Florida, and Puerto Rico actually sell blank wills. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole section on Iran is not cited, why did you make a decision not to delete that? And what about Maryland? Should I delete the 90% of the entry that is not cited?

Above I have a quote, with a link from the State of Florida notary website saying notaries can sell legal forms with blanks that they fill in, then notarize.

What is the difference what you do? The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that notaries can sell legal forms with blanks, the customer fills it in, then it may be notarized. Here is a *link to a Florida notary that sells legal forms. A simple web search will bring up a multitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.17 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we now have sources that tell us that at least in Florida it is legal for notaries to sell legal forms (just like every other person in the State of Florida can). It is also legal for Florida notaries to use a typewriter to fill in the blanks in those forms, following the directions of their customers. We have an example of one Florida notary who offers to do so. Of course, any typist could offer the same service, except for the notarization. Since the sale and typing of blank legal forms is independent of being a notary, should it be mentioned in the article? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it is important to mention that notaries are selling legal forms then notarizing them because it is the return of the notaries to their traditional role that was disrupted by the UPL laws of the 1930s. The UPL laws was the greatest single event impacting notaries in its history, that is the reason it should be mentioned in the history. For over 2000 years wills were done by notaries, then the UPL laws of the 1930s was an attempt to suppress their traditional role.

As far as sources of notaries selling forms then notarizing them, a quick search will find thousands of notaries doing this all over the US. The Florida government website writes much about this, mostly saying what notaries can and cannot do with the forms.