User talk:Wikidea/Archive 05

Intro to Torts Article

Thanks for the support, Wikidea - coming from a veteran editor like you who has done so much for WP:Law, that means a lot to me. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I don't know if anyone has ever stated their appreciation for how much you've added to wikipedia's base of articles on common law. Therefore...

		The Original Barnstar
		For starting or substantially expanding a number of significant law-related articles, and helping make wikipedia a source of information for people interested in law. Thanks, mate. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis my pleasure. Personally, I don't do it for recognition or for cookies, but for love of the subject matter, and the desire to provide accurate information. The same would seem to be true of your work here. Keep up the good work. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama FAR

Hi there, I am just writing to inform you that we have apparently been conducting the Barack Obama FAR incorrectly. Your vote of "keep" or "remove" should be struck out and reinserted when the nomination moves into FARC (per the directions at WP:FAR). I was just notified of this myself; please see the bottom of the FAR page for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

With regard to your comments on Talk:Barack Obama: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'd appreciate it if you removed this comment. I'd be happy to discuss the question of whether Barack Obama ever attended a mosque as a child, and whether or not doing so makes him a "practitioner of the Muslim faith", but insults of this kind are unacceptable on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you've misinterpreted my comments, especially if you think I'm an Obama opponent. I've been trying to keep my personal views from affecting my editing, and if you think I'm a McCain supporter I suppose I must be doing a good job. To clarify the subject that provoked your "stupid" comment: No, Obama was never a Muslim in any standard sense of the word. However, as a child he did occasionally attend services at a mosque in Jakarta with his stepfather and friends. You may have thought that I was mocking Obama when I quoted HMS Pinafore, but that was far from my intent. I was merely trying to insert a bit of levity into the discussion. As the Doctor once said, I'm serious about what I do, but not necessarily about the way that I do it.

For the record, I am trying to keep the quality of the Obama page up, and if the FAR goes to FARC, I plan to vote "keep", because I think the article has withstood some rather malicious attacks quite well. However, as a Wikipedian, I have a duty to accuracy, and my comment about Obama having praised Allah was in that vein. I was not at all "trying to bring the Obama page down". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the retraction. (I've been busy with real-life stuff and only just got back to Wikipedia to see it.) Would you mind removing or striking through the comment on the talk page? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch — I really appreciate it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco

I realise that while most of these cases do not have BAILII references, they still need to satisfy verifiability policy. How is this to be achieved by a reader without a reference? By going to the Court and asking to see the papers? Also, what's wrong with using the Case citation template? It's a standard reference method. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I assure you I am not stalking and I am dumbfounded by the accusation. I am a lawyer so articles relating to legal matters are of interest to me. We can disagree over the edit I made to the Guth v. Loft article, but please do not make baseless allegations. Also you do not own the article you create, so please do not behave as if you do. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tort Reform

Wikidea: I'm not in denial about American medical malpractice, and I am not a supporter of tort reform! But the 195,000 figure is not "per year" - it was an average for three years, and it is not current. Actually, no one seems to know what the current numbers are (probably a Bush coverup), but like you said, the most recent data from the CDC puts it at 98,000 for '05. That would be a 50% drop if the numbers from '01-03 were correct. Also, there's no comparison for death rate by population. I think choosing that statistic, and putting in the sentence, "the American record is the worst in the civilised world" makes the article less credible not more, when it comes to dispelling the myth of tort --- err, providing the facts about --- "tort reform." I think we can make the point well enough without editorializing. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have an idea: to avoid NPOV issues, could we find some way of disclaiming the uncertainty about the exact numbers? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post at my user page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied

See User:Wikidea/The Burke Group. Bear in mind that these people have lawyers, and be very careful if you name names or mention personally identifying details. Yes? Guy (Help!) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke Group

I see Guy has already userfied the article to your user space if you want to use it as a basis to build upon. He also responded on his talk page. I'd have to agree with his assessment of the article as it exists: It is strongly POV and negative. These traits also seem embedded in the basic fabric of the article, making simple revision for balance difficult if not impossible without essentially starting from scratch. It's not that the Burke Group is non-notable (it probably is) but that there is no assertion of notability in the article. IOW, why is it a notable company? Generally, WP:V and WP:RS sources are needed. You've included a number of such sources in the article but all seem to be negative and others apparently may not be pertinent to the subject. I suspect your labour law background is part of the reason for your bias in this situation. I completely understand this but it ignores the reasons and rationale behind why companies would hire Burke Group in the first place to, um, monitor their labour force and preemptively sabotage union efforts. There must be news stories to this effect: the advantages of hiring this company and keeping unions out. Personally, I have little sympathy for these tactics or perspective but as WP editor, I'm also committed to trying to balance the views/perspectives in articles. I have no idea whether you are interested in trying to orient the article towards something a bit more NPOV. Unless such changes are made, the article will not stay up if reposted. It doesn't have to be a glowing testimonial to the company but it does need more balance to it. If you want some specific points of feedback, I'd be willing to give that a try but I'm not that interested in doing the development of the article. Sorry but I have some other things I'm working on and need to focus elsewhere. Hope this helps and isn't too discouraging. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Burke Group

I have nominated The Burke Group, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burke Group. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pensions & Investment Research Consultants Ltd

Danke, mir geht es ganz leidlich....and sorry for the belated reply; I had a look the deleted version, and there is nothing there worthy saving...if you really want, I could mail you the deleted edits. And just a little thing: the main grounds for deletion was A7 (which means notability not established, and G11 (blatant advertising) as secondary though (this is my way of dealing with sub-stub articles with a single link attached, and at least a certain possibility of WP:COI).

Let me congratulate you on your German, and cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Blue Arrow, Holborn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue Arrow, Holborn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Economics#Mess

Hello again, Wikidea. If you'd wish to add or revise anything on the above, I would not object. All comments there should of course be guided by Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, as stated or suggested in several of the above sections. If you choose to act on this, you might also consider consulting Talk:Economics & its archives, particularly everything I've ever written there... I would not anticipate commenting on the above prior to May 2 (or beyond if you can't get to it before then).

On an altogether different matter, please forgive the following personal note & possible presumption. I see that you live in London & like beer. I have enjoyed both (though not at the same time). Conspicuously absent in your listed likes was strolling (or jogging, as I did on my one & only opportunity) there pre-dawn. You're, I'd gather from your interests, a very active person, but if you haven't done that recently (or its equivalent), you might find it time well spent. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for replying. Concerning your opening point, the 2nd para. above was intended as a pleasantry (that & a little proselytizing for excercise), based on what you stated on your User page.

As written, at a minimum Talk:Economics#Mess is open to the criticism that it starts by violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages ("Keep headings neutral"). You might also consider taking account of Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Failed "good article" nomination in your Edit.

I believe that such differences in evaluation of quality of Edits as we might have are better resolved by making one's best case at the Edit summary or on the Talk page as to a specific area of the article and expecting others to do the same, rather than blanket value judgements. -Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a list of things that you have on my Talk p. Would you consider looking at my response there if I wrote one? Suppose the answer is "yes." It might still take me awhile to respond initially or fully, but I'd let you know when it was ready. There would be no expectation of a quick (or even any) reply. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your non-response as a "no," Wikidea. Have a good day. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick response by you (to my Edit on Talk:Economics#Mess), which obviously I consider an improvement. Your Edit summary was gutsy. You might ocnsider one other thing: an additional signature stamp indicating an Edit subsequent to April 28. If you can work anything in saying that you took out or edited materiel to which I was responding, that would be good. As it stands now, my 1st para. refers to a quotation ("various authors' snippets of anecdotes") not in your current Edit. My 2nd para. looks like I'm responding to non-existent criticisms. Your current Edit of course makes my 2nd para. unnecesary. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Paul Diamond (lawyer)

A tag has been placed on Paul Diamond (lawyer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RGTraynor 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond

Fine, but the onus is on you to make sure that the article is up to snuff, not on an administrator to necessarily give you the benefit of the doubt before you've done so. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever come across an administrator who deletes pages without reading them first, I'll let them know that. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal citations are done in an entirely different format from citations in an encyclopedia. Your citations use legal format, and violate our manual of style; this is not a law journal. Please read WP:CITE for more details. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be belligerent, since I walk a peaceful path; but the incivil, gratuitous and meretricious use of the false pejorative "frivolous" for a voluntary labor of some hours does leave me feeling rather resentful. Could you at least please conform these citations to one of the approved formats for citations in Wikipedia (presumably Bluebook would suit your professional needs best); and remove the honorifics and other lawyerly flourishes which violate our Manual of Style? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a plaintive plea for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.

I have replaced the line that talks about Paul Diamond being controversial (otherwise why would he be on Wikipedia :) As well as the line that talks about him getting the Times Online "Lawyer of the Week"

I still believe that he deals with political hot potatoes and that is one of the main reason for him not winning any cases. I will endeavour to find some evidence to support this conjecture.

TheLogster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelogster (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I feel that the BA case about the Sabbath worker needs it's own case entry, as it is not relevant to the BA Cross case, which is about uniforms and cross wearing, and not about working on Saturdays. Cheers --TheLogster (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely reverted my changes without responding to the possibly of discussion, I have therefore reported the change.--TheLogster (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, you comments have been taken aboard. The BA Cross case entry is about the defendant refusing to cover up her cross, when BA changed it's uniform. It is not about a man not want to work on Saturdays as he is Jewish. I understand the it is relevant to Paul Diamond, and wholeheartedly support it's addition. However, I am sure will agree, that is not relevant to the BA cross entry, as it is not about wearing religious symbols. It really needs it's own entry. --TheLogster (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like were getting nowhere real fast, I have asked for advice from the wikipedia admins --TheLogster (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to communicate

Okay, now I'm officially totally lost. "You're wrong, and if you spent half a second clicking on any of the links on the end of the cases that I put up on that page you would see why." Regarding what am I wrong? What links am I supposed to click, and on what will they enlighten me? I'm highly confused. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No problem with the case citations; I defer, of course, to your professional knowledge. I am actually more concerned about the seemingly petty stuff, such as the "See also" (implicit, and to be avoided) and the rest of the formatting of references to articles in the press; and the aforementioned furbelows and fustian: the use of honorifics, the use of judges' and litigants' names, etc. (I'm an editor by trade; can't you tell? Anal-retentive must be spelled with the canonical hyphen!) I would also appreciate it if you would check me out as I attempt to wikilink the names of the various courts and jurisdictions correctly. (There is at present no article on the Administrative Courts, for example, so I linked to Queen's Bench; is that correct?) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond.

Orangemike said he'd try to polish the article a bit, don't want to edit conflict him. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor v. Connex South Eastern Ltd

With reference to the quotefarm tag I put on the above article, I'm inclined to agree with your comment on my talk page :) Best wishes, Poltair (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco

You're right, of course - I was looking for a ref section. Acroterion _(talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Tesco litigation

I ripped them a Tardis sized new one. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redfearn v. Serco Ltd

Redfearn v. Serco Ltd is much clearer now - good work! -- Chzz ► 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:ECHR cases with the UK

Re: image on Corporation

Hello,

I was not watching the talk page of Corporation and was unaware of your challenge to put up a replacement image. I would like to challenge you in return to find a more neutral image to represent corporations that is not gray and looming. I will find something neutral to represent corporations if you kindly remind me. Right now I will find and put up something to show corporate sponsorship to see how that sticks. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the caption is quite useful. It's just the image did not fit NPOV, which was the sticking point. Go see what I've put up now. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition

Thanks for the recognition! I have had a very successful wikibreak for the last 10 weeks and so am now convinced that I am no longer addicted. There will be no harm in a little casual "using" now then will there? I think that the strength of Wikipedia is that it embraces all perspectives and disciplines. There is a real opportunity to set the legal articles in their historical, political and cultural context but there is so much to do and, I fear, too few of us engaged on the task. Still, thanks again! Cutler (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond

I can't really just reverse it - it was deleted based on an AfD debate that showed a general consensus to delete. You could use our undeletion process at WP:DRV. Or you could simply start the article again, this time working better from secondary sources that talk about Diamond and explain the apparently important work he's done - the main problem with the previous article was that it didn't really clearly assert his significance in any sort of definitive way. I'm perfectly willing to believe he deserves an article, but the previous article didn't do anything to convince me that he did. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable copying that page into userspace, sorry. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion tangentially, I've got to agree with Phil that its not the sort of thing that could be put into userspace or disclosed by an admin, since its a BLP we really aren't allowed to give out what is in deleted contribs, even if you were the creator of it, since giving it out could result in harm to the reputation of a living person, even if it was unintended. I saw the article before it was deleted and would agree that almost all of the cases should not be in a biography of the lawyer, so like Phil suggested, you might try re-writing it focusing more on Paul Diamon the individual, where was he born, where did he go to school, what firms did he work for, awards he won as a professional, famous newspaper articles about things he did as a lawyer, etc and then either take that new version to WP:DRV or run it by Phil/Daniel to see if they think it is different enough from the original to be ok to recreate. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, while I welcome a new version of the page that asserts notability, the old page cannot simply be recreated as it was. Doing so would be considered disruption. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion debate had clear consensus. If you want it undeleted, take it to WP:DRV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bracton and Trover

Thanks for your kind message. I have written a response on my discussion page. A E Francis (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competition law

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Competition law, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to respect WP:CITE in another competition law articles too. To my sorry your edits have been reverted again.--Kozuch (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke Group

Wikidea hello. You asked me to take it to the talk page and hopefully I have found the correct place. You also asked me to register but quite honestly I thought that I was registered as "rgcroc". Is this not a registration? What else do I need to do to be registered? I recognize that you are a veteran and I am new so please feel free to guide me to the correct places. I also recognize you are a fellow "beer" drinker and it would certainly be more interesting to chat at The Audley or Red Lion in Mayfair....both places you will find David Burke when he's not at the Reform Club. Wikidea, the changes I have made are unbiased and not merely deletions. I suspect you may not have taken a close look at the changes I made or perhaps you would not have said that. The Burke Group is a legit corp in the U.S. with Articles of Incorporation and a place of business etc etc. for over 18 years with a healthy reputation to unions and non union. You and your labor portal colleagues may disagree with what they do but that does not give authors license to make things up that suit your sensibilities or fuel your anger. You'll note that The Burke Group has never written or published anything negative about unions or a person's right to join a union. TBG maintains no blogs, does no marketing, authors no newsletters, and has written no case studies for publication nor do they print information about their case results for public consumption. They run no anti union seminars either. All labor relations consulting firms are not the same and TBG stands above the fray. Please note that Martin Levitt in Confessions of a Union Buster never mentioned David Burke or The Burke Group in his book....NOT ONCE. There is a reason for this. He knew them well and TBG was quite successful in 1993 when Levitt penned his book. So why did he leave them out? The reason he didn't write of them is that they were not like the so called "union busters" he described and he therefore chose not to include them in his book. Levitt had a healthy respect for David Burke because Burke helped him when he was on his knees at one period in his life. Several of the citations used in your article to describe TBG are taken from John Logan's article for the TUC which used Levitt's book as a source. Levitt never refers to TBG so it is impossible to cite that book as a descriptor of TBG or David Burke. Logan refers to Levitt's book to describe TBG in his reports but Levitt isn't describing them...rather he is describing generic firms. You could no more lump every union together such as CWU or Teamsters or IBEW or SEIU and say they are the same than you could lump together every union buster to describe Burke. Factually incorrect sentences include: Chinese Daily News: TBG was hired for NLRB work connected to CDN's union elections. CDN had other problems not connected to TBG work. All Corporations have all sorts of lawsuits and issues but it is patently unfair and untruthful to try to connect dots from CDN's civil case with Lynn Wang and the Dept of Labor to The Burke Group. If you check my citations you'll see that no article about the case mentions TBG. Why? They are not involved because it was a civil legal issue litigated in courtrooms by lawyers and TBG are not lawyers nor do they litigate. The NLRB is not a part of the Dept. of Labor. It is understandable that John Logan or you as Brits may be confused on some of these nuances but TBG had absolutely no part in any of CDN's civil issues. Also....there is a sentence that says TBG was paid for Larry Wong's work etc etc etc. TBG and LIS are two separate corporations. TBG was not paid those amounts. The information is available in the DOL online site. It is untruthful to refer those payments to TBG. As for FlyBe....this is easy. John Logan wrote factually incorrect data about the Flybe case in his TUC report. I have no idea where he got his info....probably hearsay. You insist that your article is not biased and offers a neutral point of view but it is not so. The article relies entirely on information provided by union organizers, John Logan, Martin Levitt or TUC....all biased in one direction. But if you go to client sources or TBG's website you will get different information. Also, you can find some client information at the CAC that corrects some of the info posted by John Logan. The changes I've made are researched and correct. I found statements in your article that were attributed to TBG that, in fact, were not. They were actually statements made generically about union busters and not specific to TBG...and should not have been in an article attributable to TBG. I tried to make this clear in my notations when I made changes showing clearly what was TBG and what was not. Generic "union buster" descriptions belong in the "union busting" post. Do you see where I'm going with this? If I wanted to be a nuisance I'd have deleted a lot more but I did not. I have respected your article and your very obvious legal experience and I've left the post almost entirely intact save changes that were in most people's opinions biased and non neutral. I am not doing this alone. There is a team of us who know union busters well and we've conferred on this. YOu know little about US organizers and union busters or you'd have focused on other firms more notorious in the US. There are firms in the UK that have done far worse than David Burke or TBG. There are unions in the U.S. that actually request David Burke be the one to sit at the bargaining table during negotiations because they know him to be of high integrity.....and they all go out after a hard day of negotiating contracts and slogging it out at the bargaining table and have a cigar then return back to the table as professionals. But you Brits wouldn't know of that. TBG has NO unfair labor practice charges after 40 elections in the UK.....check this with the CAC! Yet your own home grown Andrew Cook of Mar-shall James in the UK took part in the GAte Gourmet case and summarily fired hundreds of service workers in a case run by Brent Yessin of ERA (www.betteremployeerelations.com) who was fired by TBG. If TBG had that case it would have never happened. it is not how TBG operates. Burke won't employ those who break rules. Cook sought to be associated with TBG and they wanted nothing to do with him. It's my belief that you have attacked the wrong firm. TBG may be the most well known......but not for the reasons you want to attribute. It speaks volumes that Martin Levitt didn't attack him. When Levitt (see YouTube) talked about TBG earning 40 mil in a case it was a lie. The IBEW pressured Levitt to speak of Burke so he made up a story that was so preposterous he figured no one would believe it. Levitt called Burke and apologized...said he was under pressure. Levitt never forgot Burke giving him a helping hand. If you want that story I'll provide. Not here. Yes, you've guessed right....I am a veteran in this field and have been both an organizer and a consultant. I know a great deal about this business, and knew Martin Levitt personally. And I know Burke as well. What I write is correct. Feel free to dialogue. I am open to chat.--Rgcroc (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)rgcroc--Rgcroc (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mercantile Companies

Hi. Sorry for ignorance, but, unlike its name, the title for the above is "Chartered company". Is there a difference between a mercantile and a chartered company?
Also, the companies included seem distinctly historical, so was the intention to create a "Historic mercantile [or chartered] companies" template? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. Yes, I was thinking of recategorising and perhaps renaming it, but realised I wasn't sufficiently informed. I'll rename it "Chartered companies" as you suggest and place it in Category:Company templates. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just expanded the template (now Template:Chartered companies) using the lists from Chartered company -- hope that's okay -- and, while doing so, realised at least one nation seems conspicuous by its absence: Spain. Or were chartered companies not Spain's method? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request to read WP:CIVIL

I respectfully request that you read Wikipedia:CIVIL and Help:Edit summary. Thanks. -84user (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion, law

I have looked at the conversion article, and I think it won't take much to bring it up to speed. I have started to do this on my computer, and will paste it to the article when it is done. Just thought I would let you know I am doing this. It should be done in a few days. Please edit as you see fit. A E Francis (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Constitution

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have had quite a month. Anyway, thank you for the Roman Constitution template. I going to replace the sidebar that I currently use with your template. I am in the process of making Constitution of the Roman Republic into a Good Article. In the future, I may try to do the same with other articles in the Roman Constitution series, or even attempt to turn them into Featured Articles. What do you think of Constitution of the Roman Republic at this time? I am still editing it, but I am not too far away from a stopping point. When I complete the process, do you think you could review it for GA status? RomanHistorian (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL--:)

That was a ba-a-a-a-ad edit summary. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidea, please cool down.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want my advice, rt yourself here.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competition law

I've also placed a clause in the lede that might be helpful in balancing things out. See the talk page for more of my reasoning. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK legislation template

Hi Wikidea! Fraid this has bothered me too but I don't know the answer. I lack any profound systematic knowledge of template syntax and just tend to plagiarise. Largely distracted by other stuff at the moment as I am moving to London finally to become a lawyer. As a former physicist I must buy you a beer once I land.Cutler (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiduciary

Hi Fbarw, I've noticed you've been doing some really good work on the fiduciary page, and I just wanted to drop a line to say, well done! Why don't you give yourself a user page? And if you wanted to be ambitious, I think that the English trust law page (I'm assuming you're British, or maybe from the Commonwealth) wouldn't mind some attention at all! But keep it up, and drop me a line if I can help. Wikidea 14:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. Hate to disillusion you, but I'm not a lawyer, only an American (but thanks for the compliment) in New York City, and a retired editor and writer for a large intergovernmental organization. I'm developing procedures allowing me to edit articles on almost any non-mathematical topic without knowing much about the subject. I try to be conservative, so as not to mess up a perfectly good text. What many of the articles need is modest reorganization so that one paragraph follows logically upon another, as well as a few definitions and a hefty dollop of external and internal links. I intend to do a little more with fiduciary and, taking advantage of your offer, I hope you watch closely to pick up any errors.

While I have visited London twice already (in the previous century), I don't think I'm ready to tackle English trust law. Fbarw (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fbarw"

Wikiquette alerts

If you wish you can respond to this. -- Vision Thing -- 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Wikidea, you did (and are doing) lots of good work--don't mess everything up by snarling at people who also want to contribute. VT is clearly no "moron", a fact which it is best to acknowledge sooner than later.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Hello--I'm curious about your plans for Economics. It's going through a whole lot of changes now, some good, many bad. I'm trying to avoid wikistress by not getting into fights over it, hoping that I can take part when you aim to re-work the article. Are you planning a serious enough re-working that we can let current bad changes slide until then? Cretog8 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O yeah, also... I'm not sure if your note about Deirdre McCloskey was intended to mean, "when it's presented like this, nobody can tell why we should care about McCloskey", or whether you really meant, "why should we care about this McCloskey woman?" If the latter, she's a prominent economist--an economic historian who's largely known for her criticism of some practice and rhetoric in economics. (Some stuff at McCloskey critique) Cretog8 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive editing

The image is copyright, hence it is fair use. To be used on a page it needs rationale, which is given only for two. I did not know of a better image, but it was not vital to the article hence it has not hurt it by removing it. Complying with copyright law does not mean I am not constructive, I just don't have the time to look for more decorative images to use - if you really want one, you can find one - just make sure it complies with Wikipedia's copyright policies. Regarding the EU, follow the link on that userbox for the rationale.- _JLogan ^t: 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly I do not believe that the rationale would apply to those pages. Fair use is more strict than the practice that is carried out and we can't just say that we want to use it on 5 million pages because, it actually has to be necessary and add real value. Showing the signing of the Treaty of Rome hardly adds anything to those pages I removed it from, no doubt it was put there for lack of any other image which is what happens o so often on Wikipedia - when we see a page of text, editors seem to think "Oh! we can't have all that useful information without some kind of decoration! I must add an image!". And eventually we spend so much of our time looking for, uploading, tagging, categorising, spreading, updating images that hardly anyone thinks to work on the actual text anymore. Decoration is one thing with commons images, but the Rome image is copyright, not free for us to use as we please.

EU thing, the point of the text is not to argue that the EU is a federation, but that it is comparable to one and hence federalist language can be used to help people understand it. It is not a general federalist argument.- _JLogan ^t: 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?

Did you just sent me a "welcome and thanks" template? I know my page says templating me is ok, but the one you sent seemed pretty rude. I am, in fact, aware that I can contribute to the sum of wikipedia's knowledge on the subject. The template I placed on the history of economic thought serves two purposes. One, it alerts the reader than this section may not like up to wikipedia's goals, two, it alerts the editors that someone has raised a concern on a subject that might be easily fixed. Is there anything else I can help you with? Protonk (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other peoples' userpages

Hey - please don't edit other peoples' userpages to indicate that you disagree with them, as you did here. It's pretty close to vandalism, and not the way to resolve issues. If you're having a problem with this particular editor, consider using the dispute resolution pathway instead of tagging their userpage. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR listing

Law has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to SandyGeorgia

I warned you not to make personal attacks before, and this comment, your follow-up, and your statement here to SandyGeorgia are utterly inexcusable. It's one thing to kick around supposed POV pushers by calling them "troll" (not that it's right—personal attacks are never justified, and I'm slapping you with the trout on this), but these comments to Sandy are very, very far from the mark. You will rarely find an editor as neutral and as focused on articles as Sandy.

I want you to appropriately redact your comments and apologize to SandyGeorgia on her talk page. Don't ever do this again. Cool Hand Luke 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sandy is capable enough of defending herself on her own, and does not need wiki-lawyers going aroung sending warnings. If she wants to warn Wikidea about what she perceives as a misconduct, or if she wants to point out possible infringements of Wiki-policies by Wikidea or any other user, she can do it herself, as she has already done it once in the FAR in question. Any other non-asked interventions like the one I read above are not helpful at all.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia shouldn't have people speaking on her behalf, but you need to speak for Wikidea on his own talkpage?

This was a warning. Civility warnings are generally more credible when they aren't issued by the target of the attack. Anyhow, it seems that Wikidea has stopped making attacks on SG, so it's moot. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the above comment, or something else? Incidentally, I appreciate that you haven't attacked SG since. Cool Hand Luke 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law FAR

Hi there Wikidea, and thanks for the note. I will review it when I have a moment. I have been slammed with real-life work (so many motions, so little time!) and my on-wiki time has been hogged by a very annoying situation at pro se. So I promise I will add my two ~~cents~~ pence worth as soon as I can. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008 - Block by Gutza

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You're a lawyer, you should know better than to take the law into your own hands. If you have a problem with a user's behaviour ask for a third opinion, report them or whatever, don't go calling them names.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gutza ^{T T+} 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikidea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Quite frankly, if you think that I deserve being blocked for 48 hours, ban me. I'd love to see that. I didn't get the reason (which I surely you should've provided?) but I'm guessing it's because a certain user is a troll. And I am happy to say so. I will keep on saying so. My fault, which I freely admit, is that I didn't pursue that on a complaints page. My reason is (despite me being one of those nasty lawyers!) I don't like putting people into formal processes. I expect people to act better after a while, and after being told a few times. I think you should help me with that. I think if you're adjudicating in a dispute (which is what you are doing with your block), then you should be a bit wiser, more nuanced, and probably help the productive editors like me, against people who just want to mess things up. Can I please refer you to this, this and for the fifth time with the same revert, this. Look around these examples, you can identify a clear pattern of troll behaviour over these three pages. If you agree with me, then please help, and I'll get on with the constructive work I do on Wikipedia, that you all value.

Decline reason:

We have processes for a reason. If you're having problems with another editor, there are plenty of acceptable ways to deal with that; personal attacks, however, are not acceptable under any circumstances, no matter how well you may feel they are deserved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To answer your question: I have blocked you for personal attacks; it's true I haven't said it explicitly, but you've been warned enough to understand my rationale (which you did). I have already helped you -- I only blocked you for 48 hours despite some really nasty attacks, in the context of you having received plenty of warnings. A couple of days does not make any significant difference in your contributions, but will hopefully allow you to see the greater picture.

Regarding the person you keep calling a troll -- people don't react well to being called names, regardless of how well deserved they may or may not be; I assure you that a genuine troll will push you into making precisely the mistakes you made, and will not be deterred by your irritation (on the contrary). So you basically have three choices: (1) keep on attacking people, and you will get blocked again, no matter how right you are; (2) avoid the topics you're currently disputing with the other party, and you will fail to make your point; or (3) if you have accumulated enough evidence of bad faith edits, trolling or whatever other pattern of disruptive behaviour, go through the formal process and you will get a fair chance at resolving the matter in a more satisfactory manner, if only because the matter will leave your hands (if you don't find the solution satisfactory you can blame the obtuseness of the Wikipedia administrators instead of blaming yourself for getting blocked for personal attacks).

My advice to you is to stay off Wikipedia until the block ends -- don't come back here every 30 minutes watching pages and getting annoyed. That always helps put things into perspective, and hopefully you'll have a more balanced view when you return. Cheers, Gutza ^{T T+} 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't answer my question, and I think that you should be providing links about what exactly you are referring to. That would seem to be good practice in this situation. You have also not said how I made any personal attacks. When I use the word "troll" that is a comment on the contributions, not the contributor. To paraphrase you, you are an administrator and you ought to know better. You may notice that the troll has for the sixth time made the same change on the HOET page. Well done in encouraging vandalism. I think you both ought to see the bigger picture. You should also leave out your silly sarcasm when you put up block posts (that, by the way, is a comment on your contributions, not you as a contributor). Wik idea 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When I use the word "troll" that is a comment on the contributions, not the contributor." That's just disingenuous. "I'm guessing it's because a certain user is a troll. And I am happy to say so. I will keep on saying so." Keep on saying so, and you'll keep on getting blocked for personal attacks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it is not your place to tell me I am disingenuous. And don't threaten me. Answer my question. Which part of WP:PA says that using the word troll is a personal attack? The word WP:troll is nothing but a comment on contributions. And I still don't know what I have been charged with. After the Spanish inquisition civilised societies came to the conclusion that it's a good idea to tell people why they were put in jail. With this mild Wikipedia equivalent, it is not different.

The only personal attack is the one in this spurious block tag, my friend: using the fact that I'm a lawyer against me. I haven't even seen the original complaint that leads to this. I think that administrators should be exercising the highest standards, no matter how righteous you feel your enforcement action is deserved. Wik idea 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be sarcastic -- I have a few lawyer friends and I genuinely respect them. I was trying to convey the message "you're too good to be doing this", I'm sorry if it didn't get across properly. Regarding your other assertions, I'm positive your position is not conform to policies, but feel free to ask for a second (or in this case, third) opinion. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't mean to be sarcastic. Do you see my point? I could troll you both through an administrator complaints board for this little thing. I could easily paint you as someone who doesn't respect lawyers. But what you're complaining about against me is the same thing. I have never said the troll is a bad person. Everything that I can think of has been comments like "go away", "you contribute nothing whatsoever", or "get lost and stop vandalising" as the latest.

You still have not referred to anything that I have done wrong. Where are the links both of you? Show me the beef. You are not doing your job properly as administrators. Even if this is not what you normally do, it should be. And even if it shouldn't be, I think I've earned a bit of decency. Wik idea 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might add, Gutza, it seems from your talk page that a few people seem to have complained about your own editing. How on Earth did you reach the decision to block me? Where was the warning? Have you seen the featured article review of the law page? Wik idea 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you actually couldn't troll us both though anything, that's precisely the point. Anyway, if you really want to go through this useless exercise, here's the beef: troll, dirty, ugly troll, [Vision Thing] is a real jerk, he is a disruptive, disingenuous pest, you're a moron. Judging from your replies above you already knew that, admitted to being aware of your actions and even defended them -- so please don't compare me to the Inquisition.

Your second paragraph is fallacious. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a pleasure debating with you, and it looks like I've got 10 more minutes (unless you feel in your unfettered discretion to go for another block). I hope you've learned something from today. Tell you what, I won't compare you to the Spanish Inquisition, if you pick up your game and tell people first what they've done wrong. Also, you have my solemn word that I'll use complaint boards instead of calling someone a troll. But you know what, I think you should both be ashamed of yourselves for bringing this to me, rather than helping me out a bit. ~~I think you just jumped in because another administrator, who is no better, reported me, and you did not have a clue.~~ Wik idea 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Gutza

Good, then I did help out. For the record, I jumped in (which I don't typically do, by the way) because I have had first hand experience with personal attacks going out of hand for rationales similar to yours. Long story short, my conclusion is that PAs should always be a losing strategy -- and yes, even an unfairly losing strategy. We're not policemen, nor investigators; we shouldn't delve into several weeks' worth of history between two users to decide why exactly one of them decided to call the other names -- it should be simple, as per policy: you offend, you lose, period. At any rate, I assure you I hold no grudge against you (even after your last inflammatory message), and if I happen to see your ANI complaint I will do my best to offer a neutral opinion. Take care. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You have been unblocked, in light of your solemn promise. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm positive he had a good laugh -- I have already made that very clear in my original reply above ("I assure you that a genuine troll will push you into making precisely the mistakes you made, and will not be deterred by your irritation (on the contrary)"). The complaint is here. I'll reply in more detail shortly, I assume you're anxious to check out the complaint so I won't keep you waiting while I write. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this -- that is honest of you, and it shows your good faith. But it doesn't make your PAs any nicer.

Please take the time to read this through, I took the time to write it specifically for you. You say "that was after a long build up over a long period of time" -- precisely. When an outside party (read "newbie", "visitor" etc) reads your PAs in the talk pages (or any other PAs for that matter), what do you think they figure? You already know the answer -- "oh, ok, so name calling is fair game here". Nobody takes the rules seriously if they see people get away with breaking them -- I've been there, and I'm sure you understand what I mean, what with your legal background. Your assertion that the other party is a troll is a much more nuanced matter -- it builds over time, as you correctly point out (I'm not saying the man is a troll, I'm just making an argument). As such, an outsider doesn't acknowledge the trolling aspect -- they need to get involved in the matter and/or investigate it before they reach a conclusion; by contrast, PAs stick out like a sore thumb. That's why, in my opinion, it's ok if PAs lead to an unfair advantage for the party at the receiving end, clean hands or not.

On a personal note, I fully understand where you're coming from -- I've been there, I've been utterly frustrated with other users (some of whom have complained about me, as you previously noted, just as some have complained about you -- I hope you understand one of the fallacious aspects of your argument in this context). But I didn't call them names, one just must not do that, no matter what -- and I mean that literally, no matter what, not even if they call you names.

Anyway, I hope I have clarified my position, even if you don't fully agree with it -- hopefully understanding my rationale will at least lessen your frustration with my actions to some degree. Cheers, Gutza ^{T T+} 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't leave it at that -- if my experience is worth anything, dropping the matter will lead you right back to frustration and so on. If you have indeed identified a pattern of disruptive editing, I encourage you to make a coherent and neutral presentation at WP:ANI -- if you ever intend to do it, do it now, before further frustration gets the better of you again. Of course, this is just a recommendation, and I'm not making it as an administrator but rather as a fellow Wikipedian experienced with conflicts. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. For the record, your presentation is neither very coherent, nor very convincing. I understand that you're sick and tired of the whole thing, but I think you should make a more concerted effort at presenting your evidence, right now it looks like a content dispute which went wrong on your side alone. Feel free to think I'm a moron if you wish, but I'm just offering a mirror. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is better now: for anyone who wants to contribute to helping Wikipedia be better. Wik idea 11:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better, but you will need to wait for someone familiar with the topic to notice your complaint (I suggest reading WP:CANVAS in the context). To my eyes, it still looks like a content dispute -- but since I'm not familiar with the topic it might well be that one party is indeed making preposterous propositions which I'm unable to identify. I know it's a tedious and frustrating process, but we haven't found a better one. --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Hey, Wikidea. Frankly I havn't read all of the FAR so I'm not aware of all the issues, although I notice it has spilled across a few rooms and has become unplesant and heated. But either way I'm not a good person to align with in these situations as I tend to overreact and flame myself. So maybe best I keep out of it, and stick to rewording only. Talk later. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision Thing issue

I'm sorry I couldn't comment on the issue with Vision Thing. I had terrible internet access, but mainly I didn't comment because I wasn't sure I could add a lot. I have a ton of respect for your contributions, and I think Vision Thing tends to be a bit trollish, but those points had already been noted, and I don't really have that much experience with Vision or you. Please be careful and restrain yourself from nasty words. You might've heard the cliche that civility costs nothing and buys everything. It's true. II | (t - c) 06:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also having problems with Vision Thing at Economic Freedom. Would you mind taking a look?JQ (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]