User:David91/Archive - Accumulated stuff 2
duty of care / trading whilst insolvent
[edit]I hope you can clarify..... the reason I linked the two articles was that the TWI article used the term "duty of care", and looked as if it had been written by someone who's familiar with GB law. Should the TWI article have used some other term, and if so which one?
Not that I know that much about UK law vocabulary - the reason I touched the article was because it was on the list of articles that had no links to it.... --Alvestrand 10:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Have thought about it and your elaboration explains the point you're making well. I'm not sure enough of my differing opinion as to terminology to revert and in any case it is an interesting point.
Don't know if this is relevant but there is a controversy in U.K. law regarding renvoi relevant to whether a reference to another jurisdiction's private law includes reference to its own conflict rules, and if so whether that furth includes its position on renvoi. England applies the latter double renvoi system whereas it is unclear in Scotland. Does the characterisation of PIL as public law affect this, givin that the reference is to the private law of the state concerned?
Is there a published source making the same point as you?
--Lucifer(sc) 12:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I am at the other end of things. As a trainee solicitor in Scotland there is little that I just know and my library rather embryonic! Re. the other matter the fact it was 1 April had not occured to me.
--Lucifer(sc) 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello again from Rob
[edit]Hello David, I hope you are feeling well. I have taken time off from researching and editing space articles to expand a biogrpahy stub on Harry Samit. The person in question is a US federal agent. Since the article involves an arrest, I was wondering if you might have a look at it to see if it makes sense and flows well, if you have the time.
Just to update you, I have been spending time reading the Wikipedia help documents. I can't believe I jumped into editing without reading them! I should be reading them now instead of editing articles, but there is work to be done. Cheers, Rob 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with the Samit article. Your edits were spot on. Rob 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]David91- Thank you for implementing a creative solution to the zero tolerance page problem. You've made a significant contribution which I (and I'm sure others) greatly appreciate.David Justin 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- David- Thank you for your encouragement. It's apparent thay you have great experise in law, theory and criminology, all of which are invaluable assets in writing about zero tolerance. In addition, your status as a retired person gives you the luxury of time. And, of course, knowledge of education or North American schools is immaterial to writing on zero tolerance.
- Given your expertise, time and interest in the subject, you're almost certainly the most highly qualified and able Wikipedian to complete the task of improving or re-writing the zero tolerance page.
- I hope you will agreee to address the task and not let your fellow-Wikipedians down.
- Best regards.David Justin 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Law
[edit]Hey David, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I still am part of the Supreme Court WikiProject, and that's really my only area of any legal ability. So I figured I'd signed up for the Law project without thinking it all the way through. But I'm still interested in editing mostly articles about court cases. Right now I'm focusing on McConnell v. FEC. --Hyphen5 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
[edit]Just a quick note to say thanks for doing Template:Ptol as an example for me. It's certainly given me a few more ideas on how to present things. Carcharoth 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Public International Law
[edit]What do you make of para. 3 of the baove? Hmm.... --Lucifer(sc) 11:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on my talk page
[edit]- Right, I don't really care. We sorted this out already, so like, no more large essays on my talk page that I'm not going to read. Wickethewok 02:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
re: Copyvio?
[edit]Hi David. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I was off to bed just as I saw your message. As far as I can tell, no, that article is not a copyvio. It appears (and I am way outside my topical 'expertise' here) that the copyvio stems from an oft-quoted part of a judgement and not, actually, the text at large. It looks like Wickethewok is happy that this is not copyvio, even if he says so in a rather brusque manner. It is good not to remove a copyvio tag yourself; although in cases where you are sure you have resolved the matter, it would be ok to do so with a descriptive edit summary and talk page note.
I was looking at the /Temp page. It looks essentially the same as the pre-tag version of the main article. So you have a choice. You can either manually merge them and just redirect the /Temp page; I can merge their histories into the main article (takes admin buttons) so that there is single record of the article's development; or if they are the same, or you don't want the /Temp page, we can just dispose of the /Temp page and revert the main article to before the tag. Your choice. PS. I shall be away from the Internet from later today (UTC time) and may not be able to check back until Sunday evening. -Splashtalk 12:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I have merged the histories of the two versions of the article. I've left the most recent revision of the /Temp page as the current version, but of course you can merge/edit the various revisions as you like. It's unfortunate that you got a copyvio tag appear on your new article; I guess this is rather shocking when you know you just wrote the thing yourself! I think this was an innocent mistake by Wickethewok, although it might have been better if s/he had removed the tag themselves. At least the final message on User talk:Wickethewok approaches an apology. I think if the world were perfect, we wouldn't even realise that it was (depressingly). Oh, one note. If in future you should find a copyvio tag appear (unlikely, I think) then if you do not manage to resolve the issue locally and have the tag removed, it is worth finding the entry on WP:CP and making a note beneath it so that when an admin comes along, they have some pointer that things have been fixed and it's not needing deletion. In this case, the article does not appear ever to have been listed at WP:CP. -Splashtalk 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Semiotic dynamics
[edit]JA: The way I see it, a notion of dynamics is implicit in semiosis, or semiotic process, but that looks like a slightly different sense of the phrase than what the initial author appears to have in mind, which seems similar to what used to be called semantic drift, just from a cursory scan. But I won't get time to look at it again for a week or so. Jon Awbrey 04:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for the warm welcome. I will try to work as diligently as I can. --Andy123(talk) 13:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Shock and Awe
[edit]Hello David91, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).
In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?
Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?
I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi David, Larnue the dormouse (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by Jayjg (who has CheckUser power) as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). If you aren't familar with this long-term troll, please see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Zephram_Stark, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for details. Since he is banned, I'm going to continue to rvt all of his posts and edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi David, I would ask as a courtesy that you remove "Larnue's" (aka Zephram's) post from this page, which is a personal attack against me from a banned troll. (I guess I should have asked first, instead of blanking it myself). I'm just one of the editors that reverts his edits, I could care less about the definition of Shock and Awe. Thanks.--JW1805 (Talk) 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
'wish to raise substantive legal issues on the ytalk page under my last comment'- Done. I think you misunderstood my edit summary- *I* was referring *YOU* to my comment on talk page. I'm not particularly saying catagorically that you are wrong- but note that the responsibility for verifying and sourcing an unverified statement on Wikipedia lies with the editor contributing said statement, not with the editor removing it. All the best, Badgerpatrol 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)