User talk:Legis

When leaving messages on this talkpage, please remember four things:

If you start a chat, talk, or discussion, or make comments here, I will respond here and not on some other talk page. Similarly, if I post on your talk page, I'd prefer to continue the conversation there. Thus, we can avoid incomprehensible disjointed threads spread over several pages.
If you are complaining about an edit that I have made, just pause to consider the Five pillars of Wikipedia before you post.
No matter how much I may have p*ssed you off with my edits, please assume good faith.
Nobody likes an angry mastadon, even if they are right.

Every so often I clear out and delete all the messages on my talk page. I do not keep an archive, I simply delete them on the basis that no one will ever care. I make no apologies for this. I am a caveman.

<--Last wiped on 15 July 2010-->

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Tax haven. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. Sandstein 08:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this concerns this addition by you. To include these people in the list, you would need to provide references to reliable sources, as with the other entries. (I have now, though, removed the entire "celebrities" section as trivial and not germane to the topic, and for causing too much potential for WP:BLP problems as people move around etc.) Sandstein 09:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (that it is trivial and ought to be removed), although I cannot see how pointing out where a celebrity lives could ever be construed as libellous. I agree I should have sourced it, but the debate goes away anyhow as a result of the removal. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Avoid

A tag has been placed on Avoid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Wicked Lady Pub.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wicked Lady Pub.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I must get the blame for bringing it to Wikimedia's attention by copying the image to Commons. Your photographs were very good so I copied a few of them to Commons; those on Nomansland, Hertfordshire. (Did you live in Herts before decamping to Road Town?)

I accept the point made on the relevant Commons discussion page that the photo tiptoes on someone else's copyright (I could hardly deny it as protecting clients' IP is part of my day-job) so I wrote to the owners of the pub. They confirmed that the sign was painted by their in house team and they were happy for the image to be used (e-mail quoted on the discussion). However I did not include all the long spiel about allowing the image to be exploited commmercially etc etc; I know how I would react were I to receive such an e-mail.

Do you as the photographer want to take it up and e-mail Paul Smith of The Wicked Lady in more detail to save your image? The wording is suggested in a link on the above page.

Hogweard (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Supreme Court case drive

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK case based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.

Complete that template and add it to existing cases.

Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.

Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking

Create new articles for UKSC cases

Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on proposed rationalisation of scuba articles

Hi Legis, Please note that there is a proposal developing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scuba diving#Rationalising decompression articles which may be of interest to you. Your input is invited. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - sounds like an interesting project; I'll try and plug in. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New attempt to sort out old problems on DIR

Hi Legis, I am trying to improve the DIR article, See Talk:Doing It Right#New attempt to sort out old problems. You have previously contributed to attempts to improve the article and may be interested to comment or contribute. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJ's pic

If you haven't used OTRS, it can be a little opaque. Essentially you'll need to supply a trusted volunteer with evidence that the copyright owner is willing to release the image under the licence you used. If JJ's email to you clearly says that, then just forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and give them a link to the image on Commons. If you're not sure, drop a note on Harry Mitchell's Talk page - who's an OTRS volunteer - and ask his opinion. He's indefatigably helpful. Mention my name as I'll be seeing him on Saturday and I can try to fill him in if needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forwarded the e-mail from JJ to the volunteers saying that I was happy to revert to him, but I thought it was pretty clear implied permission to use it on the site (the photo was solicited expressly for the purpose of the Wikipedia article). Hopefully that will sort it out.

BTW, I started a thread on Scubaboard in the DIR forum inviting people to come and assist on the re-write of Doing It Right, but got not much except grief for my pains. Very snippy about non-DIR divers re-writing the article, but no one else wanted to step up (I was asked if anyone involved was a DIR trained diver, and I said that I didn't know but I didn't think so). Here is the discussion if you are interested: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/dir/404058-wikipedia-article-doing-right.html

Thanks again, --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarWind Software Page

Dear Sir! The whole idea about creating dedicated page for SW company is to back up Wiki users and keep them with a link to Wiki page when they come over SW stuff referenced on Wiki in a different places. Right now they need to use Google or whatever. Company page itself is not valuable as a spam source as only people who're familiar with SW products do read it. Hope this answers your COI and notability questions. Thank you very much for cooperation!

P.S. How SW is different from say DataCore Software created by DC staff and having much less independent links? It's not "pointing with fingures" I just want to understand for myself. Thank you!

AK47

213.238.8.10 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami

The above AfD has been nulled due to sockpuppet-related issues. You're welcome to comment at the new one - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). Cheers, m.o.p 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Tick Salcido

Hello Legis, I am a new contributor and thanks for being fair and understanding to my article. Also I saw you're profile and respect you're decisions. I hope to become a better author and my original Latch Brothers article was approved. I am hoping this being my second article, not be deleted. I strongly believe and you said it best "if there is a feeling that better notability could be established with time". -I could not have stated better. I am seeing a growth within this individual through tons of research that outside of the group he has worked with other Wiki inductees ie, Wiz Khalifa and discovered him. However I am also seeing current write ups as of only a few weeks ago which show me that his story will grow and only add to my original story. I failed the first draft a few weeks ago in this article and with his first paragraph firmly stating now what I think feels like better notability will establish with time for other contributors as well to help add on to, I am excited to have been apart of this early.

I am hoping that this is Stay if possible and I am working hard to be a better contributor in other subjects and genres coming soon.

Sincerely Kurt Narodone Kurtnardone (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]