User talk:Vanished user fweflklkaskwi4r592uofmoaihr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:19, 16 October 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Vanished user fweflklkaskwi4r592uofmoaihr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Footnotes and style

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Footnotes and style. Does this correctly reflect your opinion? --Edcolins 10:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common law

Dear fellow editor: Some material that I believe you introduced a while back in the above-referenced article has been chopped up by an anonymous editor. I don't agree with the anonymous editor's changes, but I would also argue that the original material also has some problems. I just wanted to let you know that I have been commenting on this on the talk page for the article. Yours, Famspear 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Common law

Please do not blank talk pages. See WP:ARCHIVE on how to archive past discussions. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The method by which you attempted to archive the common law talk page has created two divergant copies that will need to be re-merged and then archived. IMHO, it's best to actually move the page (which keeps the edit history intact) and then create a new talk page with the archive headers than it is to cut and paste (especially if you forget to remove the portion you pasted). I'll try to get around to fixing it later tonight. I'm always available at your service if you'd rather have a more experienced editor take care of archiving. No hard feelings. ;-) /Blaxthos 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EECavazos

Nonrecourse debt

Always glad to lend a handEECavazos 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Common Law

What I meant was that only certain aspects of Roman and Islamic law influenced common law. In the latter case, I was referring more specifically to the trust and agency institutions, which were introduced in common law during the Crusades. I 'll try to mention them in the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to move the Islamic law paragraph to a seperate section if you wish. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Boundy. I've taken your advice and just moved the Islamic law paragraph to a seperated section myself. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon; I meant "after", so I just changed it. I now see that the following section says precisely what you did (I think copied from an OU webpage) about Henry II. When I glanced over the article before, I didn't see a straightforward definition at the start, so I just added that in. Really though the article needs a bit of work, and rewriting, with some real academic sources. Till such time, all the best. :) Wikidea 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Precedent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 03:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
-== Reversion ==
-Please see [[Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Reverting_drives_away_editors|Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary]]: reverting drives away editors.  I noticed that on [[common law]] you [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Common_law&diff=516894124&oldid=516841567 reverted] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Common_law&diff=516894523&oldid=516894124 three] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Common_law&diff=516894694&oldid=516894523 edits] in a row.  While the second is a valid reversion of a typo, the other two are not.  The first is a reversion of pointless links to the beginning of sections from the beginning of those same sections.  The third is a reversion of edits per the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]], including removal of multiply redundant links.  Perhaps in your eagerness to address vandalism you became conditioned to reverting.  Please be advised of the hazards to the greater good entailed. [[User:ENeville|ENeville]] ([[User talk:ENeville|talk]]) 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-:Agreed; as a general rule, don't undo, do! :-) And I have (re-)removed the said links- [[User:Nabla|Nabla]] ([[User talk:Nabla|talk]]) 10:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-::Nabla, your "general rule" just ain't so.  When an article has been as stable as this one for several years, and has a rating, most change is in a negative direction.  Change for change's sake is called entropy, and it has the same generally-unfavorable result here as it does elsewhere.  Any change makes maintenance difficult, and it has to be an improvement greater than that cost.  As one very acute example, if you couldn't bother to look up the original of one of the most famous documents in the world before you edited a quote from it to ensure that your edit meets barest minimum correctness (let alone "style"), I have limited faith in anything else you do.
-::ENeville, the extra links are not pointless -- they're part of the scaffolding that helps keep the rest of the article correct (folks are less likely to mess with the section titles, which have multiple internal links, if they see the links in the immediately following line).  True, the "point" may not be as visible to some as to others -- but that's a failure of the observer, not of the links.
-::ENeville, you removed several context links from the first ten words of the article -- yet your edit note cites the "preserve context links" note in the Style manual.  Umm?
-::I notice you both overlooked the admonition against trivial punctuation changes.  That rule has a real reason -- it makes it hard to maintain real changes when they're buried under trivial ones.
-::The tippy-top of the MOS says it's just guidelines, and that judgment and exceptions arise.  Don't turn it into proscriptive text.  Don't give me crap over MOS, especially when you're in glass houses.
-::Gratuitous edits by nonexperts drive away the caretakers that keep things correct.  [[User:Boundlessly|Boundlessly]] ([[User talk:Boundlessly#top|talk]]) 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)