Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 9 February 2009 (→No personal attacks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave your thoughts and comments here.

Archives

Archive 1, till 01/07 Archive 2, Law article Archive 3, till 09/07 Archive 4, till 04/08 Archive 5, till 09/08

UK Agency Worker Law

I read your article and thought it was very good and thorough. It would be great if you could update it in light of the EU's adoption of the directive on Oct 20, 2008 and in light of the UK's agreement in principle to enact a modified version of the directive. If you did this, I think you could delete the article on the UK temp bill, after incorporating any parts of it that you deemed advisable in the main Agency Worker law.

Here are some cites to give an overview of the changed landscape.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/social-partners-hail-agency-worker-discrimination/article-176599

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20081020+ITEM-013+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/10/the-agency-workers-directive-to-become-eu-law.html

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/temporaryandagencyworkersequaltreatment.html

Best wishes. Rosspz (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Law

Hi, pal! Could you possibly have a look at this thoughts of mine, and offer your input? Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Wikidea, this comment was uncivil, and not helpful to the creation of the encyclopedia. Please review our civility policy and try to do better in the future. It can be more helpful to the building of articles, when editors work together in a collegial manner. Thanks, --Elonka 08:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea, apparently I was in error suggesting you removed the uncivil comment as well as my reply from Talk:Law. I saw it was gone, and assumed you had removed it, and there was no other indication. I apologize to you for my statement on that page, both here and on that page. I have also suggested there that Yannis and I make some accommodation, which will probably require your assistance. At any rate, I apologize. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving Keeble v. Hickeringill

Why did you move this page to a title without the period? I thought the title with the period was more grammatically/legally correct? --Eastlaw (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see...differing legal citation standards. I'm in the USA, and here, we use either the Bluebook or the ALWD Citation Manual (which are substantially similar in most respects anyway), along with a raft of local citation rules. I know that each country has different standards as to how cases and legal authorities must be cited, so I figure you are correct in leaving the period out (because this is a UK case, after all). But unfortunately, having a multitude of different citation standards can cause a lot of confusion. And, admittedly, I don't know jack squat about OSCOLA; in fact, this is the first time I have heard of it. You learn something new every day, right? --Eastlaw (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, perhaps you should consider writing an article on the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities, since we already have articles about other legal citation systems. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ανθρωποκτονία εκ προθέσεως=what?

Could you offer us your knowledge in terms of English legal terminology and proper translation of legal terms here? The problem is how are we supposed to translate the Greek legal term "ανθρωποκτονία εκ προθέσεως" which literally means "homicide with intent" (or "intentional homicide?!). But is there such a term in English legal terminology? Could we use it or should we tranlate is as "murder", although they are not exactly the same ("homicide with intent" covers in Greece all the cases of homecide with dolus directus and dolus eventualis, but not negligence). Bottom line, should we say "homicide with intent" ("intentional homicide") or "murder"?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, Wikidea. It is appreciated. I recently completed Detinue and Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Pass along any ideas you might have - included articles in need. A E Francis (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bank Charge Case

Hey Wikidea. Long time :-) The case on point of law was heard between 8th Oct & 5th Nov. I can assure you that this is accurate, but I cannot cite a reference, I am aware from conversation. Judgement has not been handed down, but we should not have long to wait for this. The High Court appeared to consent to the fact that the OFT may decide upon (un)fairness if within the ambit of the legislation. OFT appears to be reserving its opinion until after the Court of Appeal rules upon the ambit of the legislation. Last I heard, actions were only stayed until the end of Jan '09. Bamkin (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Detail isn't "cumbersome" whereas brevity is sometimes (and definitely in this case) misleading. It's ridiculous to give an example situation (paying for something in a supermarket) without labelling it as an example, and when the issue is far wider-ranging than that. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated on my talk page. MarkyMarkD (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

100 Worst Britons

Hi, please don't add the list to 100 Worst Britons. That makes it a copyright violation, since the list is the intellectual property of Channel 4. If it were an objective list of statistics, it could stay, but being a subjective list made up from a poll, it's copyrightable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Minimum wage

I just want to compliment you on your insightful and cogent comments at Minimum wage. Dlabtot (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:History of companies

Infobox Court Case

The bot didn't 'screw up' in the sense that deleting the image field was exactly what it was supposed to do (see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Bot0612_4). Per this bot request I programmed the bot to strip the wikicode from the image= parameter and, if a valid court was specified in the court= parameter, remove the image parameter entirely. I assumed that this had been agreed upon and was non-controversial. User:Magioladitis requested that this be done, so you'll have to ask him about the motivation behind having a default image; I'd rather not have to revert all the bot's edits and then go back and undo the reverting, so would you mind talking to him first to see exactly what is going on, that way we don't end up with a bigger mess! If the removal of the image= parameter was wrong and without consensus I will obviously reverse it. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point about it not being discussed on the talk page. I will revert the removal of the images, but I take it the technical modifications (removal of wikicode from the image= parameter and removal of underscores) still stand? Once that is clear I will revert all the edits as appropriate. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification, it was actually User:Jacklee who asked at BOTREQ for this to be done, I got confused as Magioladitis was the one commenting at the BRFA. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is intrinsically wrong (except the issues surrounding the wikicode in the image= parameter). I will start trying to undo the mess now! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think I got them all! Now that the FUBAR has been fixed, shall I rerun the bot fixing only the technical issues with images and underscores? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem exactly is. As far as I understand the infobox works in the following sense: If the court is in the list then the image is automatically set unless another image is specified. If no image is specified then the default image is shown. The bot was supposed to completely remove the image only if the court was in the list. Didn't that happen? :S PS The discussion about the bot request can be found in Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 4 -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of the technical issues can be seen here. As the template does not require the ], just the filename, the extra bits show up in the infobox. Also, if the date decided parameter has an underscore: date_decided, it is not displayed. This is what the bot will fix. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

new articles AFD

Several articles you apparently began, but never did substantial work on have been challenged by another editor for deletion at AFD-- see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scottish family law. You may want to comment. DGG (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• These articles are less than stubs. They are purely definitional. Why not Albanian property law saying that Albanian property law controls property law in Albania and about 1000 others; if smaller swaths of law are taken into account (such as technical marking of consumer products or how many parts per million of various contaminants are permitted in canned tomato juice, say) and subnational rule makers are involved 1,000,000 others; all little different than creating an article Scottish house saying that a Scottish house is a house in Scotland or that Perth weather is the weather in Perth or June 9, 1833 was the day which fell between June 8, 1833 and June 10, 1833. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OSCOLA

Standardisation is good as it saves thinking and helps searchers. I am happy to adopt. Not doing much editing at the moment owing to demands of pupillage but still have some plans. Always up for a beer though. Cutler (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:OSCOLA

Will do; sorry, finishing the prose was the main thing on my mind. Thanks for the expansion work you've done; I'm with you on the contract law resource work (per your userpage); it is the area of law that interests me most and I was shocked at how appalling the wiki is as a standard law resource; wrong info, half complete info, info that seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the area of law and just half-quoted off a website, we have the lot. I'll try and get some work done on contract cases when I have a bit of free time; I actually have a Contract Law exam on Tuesday, so while I could probably quote most of the cases verbatim at the moment I have more important stuff on my mind :). Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, cited everything I can find cites to; if you could go over it then I'd be grateful :). So yes; I can help in the areas of criminal and contract law mainly; some of our criminal law is dire too. R v. Cunningham and the cases overturning Caldwell-style recklessness are, from memory, in the recklessness article rather than kept as standalone cases. At the moment I'll focus on adding the case infobox to the articles we do have. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Exam done; easy as pie (although I forgot the year for Stilk v. Myrick, a case I need to write up for WP). I was planning on writing a history of the development of English contract law for WP; do you have any advice on article title? I was thinking 'History of English contract law' or something simple. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

on that subject... Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

John Baker= a genius. I did a lot of work on the Court of Common Pleas article and his books helped me immensely (although I do have to integrate some of his theoretical stuff into the creation section. Him and Holdsworth together are an unstoppable legal history resource; kind of like if the Power Rangers were honorary QCs. I've never had much time for Pollock and Maitland's stuff; pretentious dross that can be found in greater detail in other texts. An under-appreciated guy outside the academic domain of legal history is Edward Foss; his Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England and his nine-volume expanded set of that (along with the Tabulae curiales, which has helped me immensely in putting together lists of judges) are absolute masterpieces. I was lucky enough to find first editions of the Tabulae and Biographical Dictionary in my uni library (along with Haydn's list of dignitaries). You just breached the dam on an obsession of mine, I'm afraid; I've actually been invited to submit a paper to the Journal of Legal History on the CCP (although with uni work it keeps being pushed back). Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. You wouldn't happen to know where I could get the judgement for Hartley v Ponsonby, would you? Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, they don't have it. Maybe they don't consider it a particularly important judgement, I don't know. I couldn't find it in the Queens Bench records either (although Byrne v Van Tienhoven was an important case too, and that isn't mentioned in either the CCP reports or the AER. So much for decent law reporting.) Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: just to confirm, in cases where it is written as 'X v. Y' rather than 'X v Y' I should move it? Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed a lot of case articles you have created don't use the standard infobox template, and have reference bits missing; is this a deliberate omission or do you not have the information to hand? Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of the OSCOLA page if you're in doubt. It's without the period; yes I've been moving cases. I use that infobox in all, because it's much better that the other ones. When there are things missing, I suppose that's just because I haven't had the info to hand. Cheers, Wikidea 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; I'll add them in where/when I can. Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't disclose my practice area

Sorry, I can't disclose which area I practice in because it's highly specialized, which would make it too easy for people to guess who I am.

As to the US tort law and US contract law articles, I will look at them when I have the time but it will be difficult for me to add anything of substance to them until I visit a large academic law library and look over the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Most law firms and local law libraries don't carry the Restatements (or subscribe to the online versions) because (1) they're quite expensive; (2) most sections in any particular Restatement have not been discussed or adopted by the courts of one's state anyway; and (3) the sections that have been adopted by the courts as representing the general state of the law would be expressly discussed at length in the case law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry (again) at The Burke Group

You may find this of interest:

Talk:The_Burke_Group#Jbowersox.2C_please_respond

thanks,

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question at the german Wikipedea

See this judgement of the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen or this judgement of the Bundesarbeitsgericht.78.94.118.219 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

English contract law

The page is currently a bit.. dire? odd format, big chunks missing, no theory behind it.. Since you are the main editor of the article would you mind if I worked up paras in userspace, asked your opinion of them before transcluding and then moved it? Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's a paste job from Contract law: I've been doing cases mainly until there's enough to write up properly. Happy to read what you do. Wikidea 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. My thoughts exactly; write up all the cases and then you can use them to illustrate the article. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quaint photograph

There is a photograph in the infobox of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd which at first sight claims to be of the King's Bench Division but looks more like the Cosey Corner cafe! I see you included the Geograph photo (which is really of Tulse Hill station) and added to the article that this is where the block of flats was. Later someone else removed the Tulse Hill information but left the picture. So all this now looks rather quaint. I rather like the Cosey Corner image and can imagine Lord Denning sitting there having a cup of tea but here's a heads-up in case you think otherwise. Thincat (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to find the revision with the Tulse Hill info (spot on, that's why I put the photo in: a tube station didn't seem so good) but couldn't see it. Can you put it back? You don't live near Tulse Hill do you and feel like going and snapping the appropriate block of flats? :) Wikidea 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't live anywhere near. There seems to be a (modern) High Trees Estate at Tulse Hill. Is this the same area? Even if so, Geograph doesn't seem to have a photo. By the look of Template:Infobox Court Case, the intention is to have a photo or coat of arms of the court (but I see you have been editing on its talk page). I still prefer things as they are! Thincat (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, me too! Wikidea 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove the Article for deletion tag

RE: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd

Not because I agree with it, but because those who oppose you will happily block you. Ikip (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Use sources

RE: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd

I would suggest adding the sources I provided on the AfD to the article. That is the best way to avoid deletion. I tagged the article with {{rescue}}, which means my friends will probably be here to help you add sources. Ikip (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Ikip (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in the outcome of this AfD, so consider me neutral on the matter. What I am bothered by, however, is your tone. It is entirely inappropriate to make comments such as "What would you know", "Stop wasting everyone's time and do something useful", "That's really a very stupid thing to say". It doesn't matter how expert you are on the matter or how "unexpert" others are. Personal attacks and other such personalized comments that focus on the contributor rather than the contribution are among the more egregious policy violations on Misplaced Pages. If you can't discuss issues without verbally abusing other editors, perhaps you should reconsider whether you should be editing on Misplaced Pages. If you continue in this manner, a WP:ANI report is inevitable. I have not templated you because you've been around for a while. But that's all the more reason you should know better. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I appreciate that my tone is scorning. You can see the message I just put up. It is inappropriate that people go around and shove up these tags without even following the guidelines for nominating in the first place. It is even more inappropriate that if the tagger changes his/her mind, then the nomination page shouldn't be deleted straight away. This is what I tried to do, and then I'm told I'll get blocked. If you believe that is appropriate, then we're going to disagree. I think it was clear from a moment's reflection that deletion was not appropriate. I really have no time for people who won't simply say "woops, I take it back" - so maybe my tone will alert people a little more starkly to the pointless endeavour, and change their approach. The point is, actions can be just as uncivil as words. Wikidea 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone else's behavior is appropriate or rational. What I am saying is that your behavior and tone are inappropriate. If others do things incorrectly there are acceptable procedures for dealing with it on Misplaced Pages that don't involve personal attacks and inappropriate tone. It appears that this is not the first time someone has brought this to your attention. I hope you learned something from your earlier block for this kind of behavior, because a second block will be for much longer. You should know better, and even worse, you're not helping yourself or Misplaced Pages if you keep this up. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Common Law

You added this sentence to "History of the Common Law" inthe "Common Law" article: "The term "common law" originally derives from before the Norman Conquest." I am not an expert in this area, all I know is what I once read in Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. He attributed the unification of the law throughout the realm to Henry II (?) in the mid-late 1200's(?), at any rate well after the Norman conquest.

The later discussion in this section gives this explanation. Thus, if "common law" derives from before the Norman Conquest, the body of the discussion has to be changed to track your introductory sentence.

Do as you think best - I assume your expertise on legal history, and willingness to look it up so you're right, is greater than mine. I only have expertise to contribute to the top part of the article, how common law works in practice today.  :-) Boundlessly (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law

A tag has been placed on Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 the guidelines on spam as well as Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Business 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Corp gov reports

Hi Wikidea, when looking through the reports I think I only added the ones which appeared to be government commissioned reports and did not add the category to those such as Turnbull Report which appears to be Stock exchange commissioned. I hope I didn't make any mistakes! The one you mentioned on my talk page, Greenbury Report, says "The Greenbury Report released in 1995 was a UK government report on corporate governance." Or am I missing something?

As for expanding UK to United Kingdom in category names, our category naming policy (Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories)) is against using abbreviations. I know typing that is longer, I find it a pain myself, sorry!

Tim! (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem let me know when you've done that :) Tim! (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tort reform

Well, count me as well. "Tort reform" is a term and concept that has much more relevance in the United States than commonwealth countries, yet the article gives them equal weight. A merger of the two articles should help correct this imbalance. Until then, I think the tag should remain. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of those tags are based on Socratic passages like the first paragraph here. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not cited. I notice that you discuss Atiyah several time in the article. I also notice that the only US figure cited is Mike Huckabee, who was apparently talking about health care reform, not tort reform. The article does not cover Tort reform at all in any general sense. Looking forward to merger. Cool Hand Luke 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources suggesting the he was talking about tort reform? That's an OR problem, specifically WP:SYN, and it seems there are other example.

Incidentally, I'm warning you about personal attacks. You're way over the top here, and further attacks may result in block (but not by me). Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've warned you about this before for particularly outlandish attacks on User:SandyGeorgia. You should refactor your "crawl back" remarks toward THF. Cool Hand Luke 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've told you that I was not going to take lessons from a partisan editor, harbouring old grudges. Don't pretend you're being noble; you've just gotten more sly at pursuing your grudges. Wikidea 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not harboring old grudges, as I've told you before. You have your own POVs, and I wish that you and THF could edit collaboratively on this topic. Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What a lovely sentiment. Wikidea 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

This comment was entirely inappropriate. You should not be making remarks like that about your fellow editors. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for more information. Civility is not an option, it's a requirement.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)