User talk:Legis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This editor is a Veteran Editor IV and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.
When leaving messages on this talkpage, please remember two basic things:
  1. 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.
  2. Remember the three most important of the Five pillars of Wikipedia before you post.
    1. Assume good faith.
    2. Don't be an angry mastadon (even if you are right).
    3. No personal attacks. We're all just trying to make Wikipedia better, even if we don't always agree.

Your efforts concerning Insolvency Law in Australia...[edit]

Just a little voice from the middle of nowhere, (read Australia.)

Beyond appreciative of your endeavours to summerise so succulently, an overview of Insolvency Law in Australia.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to make the Internet, more so what it should only be; A place to freely seek a higher understanding, of any academic specialty, (or otherwise passing curiosity), previously unattainable.

Three Barn Stars or not, well done, as you're easily five stars in my book...

220.233.132.194 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I may be the only person in the world who finds insolvency law interesting and fun! --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 14:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Estoppel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laches (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) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category[edit]

Please see my proposal to rename Category:17th-century British politicians to Category:17th-century English politicians Hugo999 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Lawyer magazine.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Lawyer magazine.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Years in British Overseas Territories post-1980[edit]

There is some overlap at present, but it appears that post-1980 (???) individual years in Category:Years in British Overseas Territories should replace Category:Years in the British Empire. At present it goes to Category:1999 in the British Empire, The earliest year category in British Overseas Territories is Category:1967 in British Overseas Territories. What do you think? Hugo999 (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Not quite sure how that happened. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Seealso[edit]

Reads- The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page).

There is also this talk page discussion[1] from December 2015 concerning an editor who was continually putting Seealso redlinks into law articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. I was not aware, but now stand corrected. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lord Clyde and Lord Hobhouse (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) 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan[edit]

I have removed your addition to the above article. From what I can gather, it is subject to Crown copyright. The webpage http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1985/2.html states this in their copyright information, and our article on the topic says the same. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but intuitively, I think that must be wrong. Judgments may be technically subject to crown copyright, but they are widely reprinted in full. For example BAILII, also a non-profit organisation, republishes every single judgment issued by the senior courts in the UK in full to widen public accessibility. And of course for every judgment there are multiple printed law reports (in addition to the official reports) all containing the full text of the judgment (All England Reports, Weekly Law Reports, PICR, BCLC...) If multiple non-profit and for-profit organisations can reprint the judgments in full, reprinting an excerpt of it is unlikely to problematic. Of course if it is, then we desperately need to go through all the Wikipedia articles relating to English judgments and redact such quotes, because they are pretty liberally strewn with them. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
On their copyright page, BAILII states "BAILII's understanding is that Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context, and provided that where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material is identified and the copyright status acknowledged." So here's the problem: This license is not liberal enough for Wikipedia's purposes, which under the terms of our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License requires that the material can be "remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose, even commercially." — Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I follow your argument, but if that is correct, then surely we have a mammoth task of going through all the Wikipedia legal articles and stripping out the quotes. If for example you look at Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (not one of mine, I hasten to add) it is pretty much nothing but quotations from the case report. And if you take an article like Undue influence in English law (which is one of mine) that is pretty liberally punctuated with quotes from cases to illustrate the points. How big is this issue? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:NFCC is the policy page on the use of non-free content. Selectively quoting is okay, within reason. Articles should as much as humanly possible be written in our own words. Massive quotefarms is not what we are looking for. I don't think you should take it upon yourself to undertake cleaning up our suite of existing articles. Just please be much more selective in the future in your own use of quotes and try to paraphrase more and quote less. — Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Will proceed on that basis. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foley v Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust (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) 10:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Omar Amanat[edit]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/aman-resorts-nasty-battle-for-luxury-hotel-chain/, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:British Virgin Islands news websites has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:British Virgin Islands news websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

wiki article deletion issue[edit]

Hi, Legis can I ask for your help on editing an article I created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Y._Du the article is marked for deletion, but it's in the right category, written from a neutral point with relevant information from reliable sources, links of references are provided and cited, and are from acknowledged well recognized news sources, such as China Daily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/18/content_18435219.htm

Sinovision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SinoVision

http://video.sinovision.net/?id=23755&cid=121


All information on the wiki article were pulled from the news sources cited. Would be great if you can advice or edit to improve the article. thanks. Audreylomberg (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like the deletion of that article has already been completed. Reading the entry on the deletion log, it seems that the main reason for deletion was that the subject was not sufficient notable, so nuetrality and reliable sources were not an issue. Take a look at the guidelines of when a person is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article at: Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Painting of QW Osborne.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Painting of QW Osborne.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Act 1996[edit]

It appears that you have added material to the above article using content from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/99 and elsewhere. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed wikis, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Legis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)