User talk:Wikidea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please leave your thoughts and comments here. But please do not leave automated messages.


Question on abortion topic ban[edit]

A POV-pushing anti-abortion editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" has continued his POV-pushing in the Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton articles. While I don’t typically think of politician articles as "abortion-related pages, broadly construed", Trump is a Presidential nominee polling at around 50% in the polls who has provided a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and (according to the Political positions of Donald Trump article) The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Given this situation, the Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton articles are likely the most abortion-related pages on Wikipedia with regard to the future of US abortion policy. Shouldn’t they be included in the “broadly construed" topic ban? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on how the administrators conjure all their policies, but if an article concerns abortion policy, it's certainly arguable that its within the ban "broadly construed" - I expect the purpose is for him/her to stop writing any material on abortion. Wikidea 19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#broadly_construed for the precise definition ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Confidence inspiring! Wikidea 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Statute of Artificers year?[edit]

I see you created the Statute of Artificers set of pages (Statute of Artificers, Statute of Artificers 1562, Statute of Artificers 1563. From what I gather, the law is usually known as Statute of Artificers 1563 (although I did find a usage in a book chapter by Simon Deakin of the 1562 date). Is there some reason for believing 1562, under which the article now resides, is more correct than 1563? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're right - should be moved. Wikidea 16:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll request the move (page histories prevent me from doing it). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

United States labor law[edit]

Please keep the pictures on the standard thumbsize in the article United States labor law. Especially for people with small screens it is annoying to get pictures at 400px. By clicking on the picture you can make them bigger anyway. The Banner talk 15:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images - this must be something (relatively!) new that I wasn't aware of - so my apologies if I'd been mistaken. What about charts, where it's difficult to see detail without it being larger; does that count as an exception? Cheers, Wikidea 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
When you click on a thumb, it enlarges to its original size. That should be enough to make all details visible. The Banner talk 21:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd[edit]

Wikidea, you removed a unreferenced tag from above article, thereby stoping the article being picked up by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles process. You may think the article is notable, but it still needs inline citations to prove it. You seem to have history of doing this. Don't. It's deeply uncool. I'll need to escalate it next time.Scope creep (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, you mightn't be familiar with Case citation in law articles - the reference is to the law report. Wikidea 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
So in this case "AC" in [1894] AC 535 refers to a very big dusty book of "Appeals Cases" from the year 1894, which you could find in a library. They come from private reporters who provide a headnote summarising the case text, editing submissions, etc, etc. Wikidea 11:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bednash v Hearsey[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bednash v Hearsey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —swpbT 19:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bednash v Hearsey for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bednash v Hearsey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bednash v Hearsey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —swpbT 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been preferable if you had simply asked politely instead, but I've added some information in any case. Wikidea 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Wikidea. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Speedy deletion nomination of Re Brightlife Ltd[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Re Brightlife Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Re%20Brightlife%20Ltd. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 09:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tag obviously placed in error, since the url relied upon to show copyvio specifically says that it is re-using material from Wikipedia. BencherliteTalk 09:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Capital Requirements Regulation 2013[edit]

You could've at least consult me before making such a change. Both the directive and the regulation were in the same article because they are considered a package, CRD IV package. And then you create a new one about the Directive which is just a blurb. Before reverting I prefer to obtain a proper explanation. Thanks Triplecaña (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My sincere apologies - usually nobody cares and I just get on with it! Thanks so much for the work you've put in. It's fantastic that you've been working to develop these pages (much of which is obscure to non-experts). The first main reason is that we just need separate pages for each Directive and Regulation. (Sometimes there are pages for packages, but ideally there needs to be separate pages as well for each instrument, if not breaking up the main page). Second, the CRD has really become the Credit Institutions Directive 2013 - it's title, of course, doesn't include capital requirements anymore. That's in the Regulation. So there's an accuracy point. I've added some notes to the content of CID 2013. Wikidea 09:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Enterprise law for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enterprise law is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise law until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)