Thanks very much, but what sort of picture do you mean? The ones in the infobox I usually just put in to relate to what the case is about. Or you mean another kind of picture? Wikidea21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You reverted my removal of a few thousand external links from this article... Firstly, I did attempt discussing this change on the talk page but given the lack of response just went ahead anyway.
I've never on Wikipedia seen an article with so many so thought it reasonable to remove them, given the guidelines on WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. The links are *not* for verification as 1) many didn't include this information and 2) they are first-party sources...
I'm of the opinion that all of those entries requires a source from a third party publication, verifying their establishment date, but that's a separate issue. I really don't see why a link to the official page is needed however, so will revert your change - as mentioned on the talk page, if a company truly is a few hundred years old, it should have a Wikipedia article all of it's own where a link to an official website is encouraged.
It just looked to me like someone had gone to a great deal of trouble to do that - and it seems to be someone from Japan. Did you try to ask them? It's more the list itself rather than the links that'd need verifying. Surely it's useful to go to those websites? I don't think the linkfarm policy is so rigid - or aims to stop this thing. Wikidea14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't imagine anyone browsing that list that would then fancy taking a look at a specific-entries official website and NOT their wiki-page... It appears to me that the links have always been included but I still maintain that there's no need for them being there, other than verification - for which most were unsuitable, as per the above. Nikthestoned14:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you're ready to take a crack at this FAR, please let me know - I'd like to help out. At the review, I asked for a roadmap for improvement and didn't quite get one - just a list of a few minor items. But I'm not going to ask again, for fear of triggering a rush of "Delist - no progress" comments. Suffice to say, let me know what I can do. Thanks, UltraExactZZSaid~ Did15:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'm hoping to do something before long - hopefully there's some progress with suggestions for what people want by now! Wikidea10:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Oh yeah, forgot that. :) Basically it was a list with the following tables "Place" "Journey(s)" and "highlights". Below that a small list of countries Palin visited more than once. Basically the AFD was correct, it wasn't really needed. Garion96(talk)00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Albania
Algeria
Antarctica
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
Egypt
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Latvia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Republic of Macedonia
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova
Morocco
Myanmar
Nepal
New Zealand
Niger
Norway
North Pole
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Qatar
Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Switzerland
Tanzania
Tibet
Transnistria
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
USSR (what are now Estonia, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine)
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Thank you for your recent articles, including United Kingdom immigration law. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Please can you clarify on the talk page where you found this name for the regulation and the justification for moving it from its previous title? Stifle (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Swiss referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
It does make a difference because the list you are using is the FTSE All-Share Index which has a different composition to the FTSE 100 Index. A possible solution is for you to move your table to the FTSE All-Share Index article where it would be more relevant. A better solution might be for you to select those companies that really are FTSE 100 Index (which are identified in your source): in which case you should delete Banco Santander Central Hispano, Virgin Media Inc, DP World Ltd, Yamana Gold Inc, First Quantum Minerals LD, easyJet, London Stock Exchange Group, Signet Jewelers Ltd, Travis Perkins and Mondi. You also need to include John Wood, Kazakhmys and Intu Properties. By the way neither index changes every day - they both have a fixed composition, albeit different, which is reviewed on a quarterly basis. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've understood. I'll get round to doing it soonish - but feel free to do it yourself of course! But any idea about market cap figures for those remaining companies? Wikidea22:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't YOU read some copyright law: here's what it says on the page, for instance, for the Shell logo. "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa."
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You haven't explained what the issue is with Wikipedia policy. There is none, and don't use empty threats to make your point. Wikidea15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to say what it is that you object to. There isn't anything there that's inconsistent with displaying these logos. Wikidea15:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our non-free policy is much stricter than you think. We do not allow non-free content in lists and tables (WP:NFLISTS) because the content is nearly always used as mere decoration. Non-free content when used is supposed to be the subject of discussion within the article, and these uses do not meet that. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring in a clear violation of WP:NFCC#10. WP:NFCC#10 requires text in each individual image file that includes "the name of each article ... in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." If you can add an individual fair-use reasoning to each of the 100 image files, you can then add them back to the article. If you restore them again before updating the licenses, you will be blocked. If you have a question as to what WP:NFCC#10 requires, feel free to ask me.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - As you will see above I congratulated you on your great work enhancing the FTSE 100 Index article with a market capitalization table. However the article is now a mess as a result of various editors insisting that you remove most of the icons. WP:ELNO also discourages the use of external links and in this case you have inserted very few of them so the article is now a mess in that regard as well. What however what I am really disappointed about is the fact that, despite the fact that I think I am the sole supporter of your work on this article, you have chosen to remove the whole of my efforts to providing a new table which shows the new position after the latest quarterly changes in the index. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies, I didn't get that that's what you'd done. Anyway, it's all back now from someone else's reversion, and I've opened a copyright discussion. If we can get the logos back, and the website, of course your improvements are great and should be retained. Wikidea16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, an article must go where the reader will look for it. This name you made up for it is not used by anybody; and my preferred name for the topic, the more truthful "right to work for less law", is used primarily by worker advocates. The fact is, the name "right-to-work law", however specious, is the name used in common discourse; and the true NPOV violation would be to ignore that fact in order to make a point about the falsity of the term. --Orange Mike | Talk19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the dilemma. But I'm still not sure it's right to follow the misrepresentations of the laws' proponents. Its almost Orwellian: no right to work in any shape or form. Maybe scare quotes - or some other idea? - is the lesser of two evils. What about the formal name under the Taft-Hartley Act itself? Wikidea06:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Loreburn Report (in this case, the publication itself is cited)
They usually include very large quotations from a judgement, and presumably you are getting this from somewhere - could you please try and cite your sources in future? Without a source, in many cases, it's impossible to tell whether these are notable cases or not - for example, Berezovsky v Abramovich suggests that it was important because of the barrister, not because of any legal importance (or public notoriety), and doesn't even give the context of who Berezovsky or Abramovich were! Meanwhile, articles like the Belmont and Cheyne pages don't tell us if the judgement sets precedent or if it was completely run-of-the-mill.
It's the official case reports, which you can find in any university library. I was trying to get a template like the ones for American cases: Brazee v. Michigan, 241U.S.340 (1916)
Thanks, but I was hoping for the more sophisticated template that I described, one which also links to the Case Citation template. Any chance one could be made up? Wikidea11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how to use the Article Feedback Tool on the talk page for the editor's help page. About 6 months ago the mechanism was changed from including a category to something else. The instructions for using the category was removed but the replacement instructions where not added. I put in some instructions that work for me; please look them over an see if I missed anything or if what I said could be said in a better way. Nutster (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found your user page because I got a notification you'd linked to a page I'd created. And it looks as if you might be able to help me with an entirely different matter. Some time ago Jarndyce and Jarndyce was unilaterally moved to Jarndyce v Jarndyce so I, supposing there was a legal technicality regarding the two different ways of citation, made a request to move it back at Talk:Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Whatever the outcome of this rather unimportant matter, I'd like to put a footnote in the article. Is there a reliable source saying that a case written as "A v. B" is spoken of as "A and B"? And, a real long shot, do you know of any source discussing Dickens' usage of the term? Thincat (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on London streets are paved with gold, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
A10 - the article merely repeats part of the Dick Whittington article without adding any new information
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party Rule Book 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. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm sorry I didn't want to upset anybody! Most of the time nobody seems to be interested, because I create hundreds of case pages and often realise they need moving. The reason I gave in the move for this was that the name now matches the report, and in fact if you look on scholar.google.co.uk, about 500 to 100 articles appear to call the case Somerset v Stewart, as seems to be correct. Wikidea11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was wondering about your recent recategorising of Scottish case law articles as United Kingdom case law. As Scots Law is a separate system to that used in England and Wales, would it not be better to leave them as "Scottish" and make the Scottish category a subcategory of United Kingdom, as is the case with Category:English administrative case law? -- Teh CheezorSpeak08:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - yes, good question: I'm doing it with the English ones too - merging them all into one category. This is partly my fault from previous edits, but in fact UK administrative law is a whole system. Differences in judicial review do turn on Acts of Parliament where their geographical scope differs but in principle all these cases are the UK cases first. Wikidea08:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your colourful warnings - hopefully you don't mind the main changes I was making: the article's formatting. Yes, it does need some work because it's very messy, and so I've left your tags up this time. Perhaps the best thing is to state what you want on the talk page of Thoburn v Sunderland CC? Wikidea10:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tony Blair may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
of 1998, British workers gained a statutory entitlement to paid holidays.<ref>{{cite book|last=al.]|first=Nancy Falchikov ; with contributions by Margo Blythman ... [et|title=Learning together : peer tutoring in higher education|year=2001|publisher=RoutledgeFalmer|
tax and National Insurance, restricted to couples earning not more than £43,000 per annum. The [[Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000[[ extended a legal right to walk to about 3,200 square miles of open countryside, mainly in the
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Company union may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
for the [[Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995]] (known as the "TEAM Act").<ref>See the [[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:H.R.743 Text of the TEAM Bill]</ref> The bill would
Your recent editing history at Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It is not unreasonable to ask that, rather than keep adding the same material, you simply show on the talk page that it should stand because here is the source and this is where it says it. It is exactly the same test that applies to every editor of every wp article.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of viewing the idea of accusing people of being sockpuppets is that it is offending two or more people at once, and should prob be avoided. But no worries. Wikidea09:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do a content fork for the purpose of perpetuating a BLP violation. That material is of dubious relevance and as it is it's a violation of BLP policy and reliable source policy. Blog stating what somebody else supposedly said is not reliable certainly not for living person. if you don't believe me any number of noticeboards will tell you the same thing. And it doesn't matter whose article it's in.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Salvatore Eugene Scalia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
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 "Click here to 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is very strange idea that it's an "attack". That is absolute nonsense that my intention is to disparage or threaten a dead person. Such things are entirely unfounded, and frankly, Bbb23, I am unimpressed with you for suggesting this: surely that is an "attack". This is the rest of my reply:
This page should not be speedily deleted because... First, isn't this ground for deletions for BLP? The person here is no longer living.
(1) SE Scalia is notable as the second reference showed, because he was a professor at Brooklyn College and by being the father of a notable judge, Antonin Scalia. Two easy examples of people who are notable by their association are Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham. Why are they different? Here the case seems even stronger for notability: SE Scalia was a professor of Romance languages at a notable higher education institution: Brooklyn College.
(2) How is this an 'attack' exactly? Factual information, backed up by the references, cannot amount to an 'attack'. This simply cannot be regarded as accurate. If the sources are not deemed credible, this surely justifies deletion of those references, not the page.
In short, I'm very confused about why this raises an issue. Is it because some people are uncomfortable about who Scalia might have been? That would be a very significant precedent to set. Wikidea22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean it won't animate, yeah, large GIFs don't load entirely on wikipedia pages, to keep bandwidth and memory usage low. There's no way to get it to happen, people have to click through to animate it. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one is a lot smaller; fewer colors, more jagged lines, less information, etc. Yeah, there's not much to be done on this one, and that's fine. We can direct people to click through. --Golbez (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Gbawden (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of University of Oxford v Humphreys
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.
Is there anything to show that this case has been treated by subsequent court decisions and / or by legal journals as significant? Quoting extensively from the case itself doesn't prove it is important. BencherliteTalk15:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bencherlite - usually if it's a Court of Appeal case, it's significant in itself simply because it's the second highest court in the UK. A quick search shows that there's about 12 cases citing it since. I'd only really put cases up that were discussed in textbooks etc. Do you want more references? Wikidea17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was intrigued by the encyclopedia article links displayed on your User page. Unfortunately, when the links are visited a message is displayed that states, "Thank you for visiting the 1911 encyclopedia. This site is no longer available". I simply wanted to bring this to your attention in case you were unaware. —Godsy(TALKCONT)03:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've made a number of edits to Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (my favourite ever case!). I've uploaded a photo of the actual ship, but I am not entirely sure if it's out of copyright, so we'll have to see if it stays on Wikimedia Commons. I do quite a lot of Wikipedia editing on English law (inter alia), so no doubt we may meet again! Arrivisto (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm slightly confused about the Treaty on European Union article you created, partly because the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 is also called the Treaty on European Union. However, that original treaty has since been amended. Is the point of the "Treaty on European Union" article to have an article on the current standing version of the treaty, as opposed to the other articles, which are about the treaty as it stood in those points of time? Harej (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harej, yes, that's pretty much it. We wouldn't call the TEU the Maastricht Treaty anymore, like we don't call TFEU the Treaty of Rome - although that was the original. Wikidea10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, categorization reads- "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist."
Second, NAVBOX reads-"Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates."
Therefore I reverted your edits. If you disagree with these very clear policies, take it to their talk pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist eu executive
Sorry William, I should've explained - there's always links in these template boxes, and rightly because it's an important way to access materials. The policy you pointed to is only a guideline, and in many cases, it's right and useful to have links. Wikidea12:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus, no external links in templates. Editors have been told so in multiple talk discussions, here[1] and here[2], are just two examples. You want to change consensus, start a new discussion.
FYI, templates consisting entirely of redlinks or having very few links have routinely been deleted via TFDs. Here[3] and here[4] are examples. Simply put- Navboxes/Templates are for navigation from one WP article to another and what is there to navigate between if there are no links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's different in this case from other templates - there's been no discussion about this. I see your point, but there is no consensus on this. On the contrary, the consensus is just as it was. I've seen you've made a list of deletions to important information: this is needed for a good encyclopedia, so you need to kindly stop deleting. There's no case for that. Wikidea18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a consensus for no external links in templates, no redlinks in See also sections, no links to nonexistent categories, and no using wikipedia articles as references per WP:CIRCULAR. All of which you are doing. An editor was recently blocked for violating several of these. You think the policy or guideline should be changed, bring it to the talk page of the policy or guideline involved as you have been instructed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's completely mistaken - and I'm also amazed at what you've been doing generally. You simply cannot take away important information. You can discuss this further, but it's not acceptable to delete those links, or the extra information in see also sections. This is a different case to what you've been reading in those policies. Wikidea19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, I can see that on some cases you've done some positive things - you're obviously intending to clear away the "dead wood" of various links, bits of info that seem superfluous. And that's good: but really it's super important to keep those links in the templates, and also references to other cases (even if the links are red, because we haven't written those pages yet). I know it's not immediately obvious, but I hope my explanation is enough for you. But please don't patronise me with telling me that I "have been instructed". Wikidea19:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mistaken. @Sphilbrick:WP:Seealso says "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)" WP:Navbox says 'Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates.' The guideline is very clear and if you want to change them, take it the guideline's talk page. I just summoned an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
William, that's just not right: those are general policies, which always admit exceptions. Look at this also Wikipedia:Red link. "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.[1] Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2]"
So you need to be creating those page, not making life harder by deleting them. I can see you're doing this on other pages, apart from law, but it simply isn't right for law. This is a different topic, different subject matter - and so it need flexible interpretation of the rules. Wikidea19:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here also: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Wikidea19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from Wikipedia. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.You can not remove deletion templates per WP:DELAFD which says- "If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page."...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about Wikipedia. WP:DISCUSSAFD* says "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." You did this not once but twice, once in each of the templates for discussion I opened.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Maybe google the judgment first! If it's from the ECJ, then it's almost always going to be notable. In this case, the judgment has been described as "legendary". Wikidea10:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing employment status with HMRC for four years, as a result of the uncertainty arising out of the IR35 tax measures. When the senior UK judge said that "Employment Status is a matter of law", he/she went on to say that in most cases the decision turns on the facts of the case, as established by the fact-finding tribunal of first instance. Unless the tribunal misdirects itself, or draws conclusions that can be established as perverse, the original decision made on all the facts of the case should stand. It seems to me that a contract of employment is better described than defined. What can be defined is the process for legally establishing employment status - this can only be done by having a disputed case heard by properly constituted tribunal or court. I have argued with HMRC that they need to withdraw the threat of penalties if a tax tribunal determines employment status differently to the view that I have taken as a taxpayer, particularly since the tax tribunal are ruling on the employment status of a hypothetical contract. Anyway, thanks for creating the article on Ready Mixed Concrete - and I hope that Wikipedia decide to recognise the importance of Judge McKenna's carefully reasoned decision. Regards A Fraser (redalasdair@gmail.com) 92.237.13.56 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Clist eu judiciary
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please don't restore the racist/fascist addition to the Donald Trump article without consensus on the talk page. Doing so is almost certain to earn you a block or topic ban. 23:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Woo, so you like using threats too do you? I bet you're a really good person in real life. Wikidea02:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement: try to stay in the top 3 tiers.
A little more advice (no threat here). Try to stay in the top 3 tiers when you are responding to others on talk pages. Your tendency, judging by your response to me here, and to DrFleishman on the Trump talk page seems to be to go straight for the ad-hominem. You've obviously been around the block before, and will do as you see best. ~Awilley (talk)22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice chart - I think that the central point was that the article on Trump is completely bias, because it's airbrushing his racism and sanitising someone who's calling for killing judges today. How much "top of the pyramid" engagement was there in response? Wikidea22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly up-to-date in recent events surrounding Trump, but I'm sure one could find any number of "sources" calling many famous politicians bad things. I don't think there's a hard rule for determining when something rises above partisan bickering and media spin and becomes "notable" enough for Wikipedia, but my own guideline is to wait for stuff to reach the NYTimes, WaPo, Guardian, or similar major newspapers. ~Awilley (talk)23:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two in two seconds. Are you going to support me now against the blockage on the page?:
I don't see anything in those two sources that supporting your edit that "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist",[293][294] "racist",[295] and "fascist".[296]" [5] I wont try to stop you from trying a case on the talk page, but you might want to slow down and make sure you're not trying to twist sources into saying what you want to hear. ~Awilley (talk)00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed File:Abbey National logo.svg from Abbey National Building Society v Cann because it does not have a valid non-free media use rationale for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline if you want to address the issues. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
