User talk:David91: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs)
Charles Peirce Template?
England and Wales
Line 53: Line 53:


Is that the right template for Charles Peirce? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that the right template for Charles Peirce? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== England and Wales ==

I saw your message to Francis Davey. It is the law of England & Wales, and strictly the jurisdiction is called England & Wales (with the other UK countries, Scotland and Northern Ireland having an entirely different legal system and jurisdiction). The courts are often referred to as the courts of England and Wales. However i've never heard of it being called "English and Welsh" law. Although it's probably politically incorrect, i have only ever heard it referred to as English law. I have also only ever heard it rferred to as the English legal system (never English and Welsh legal system). However, I have been careful in all my recent edits to refer to "practice in England and Wales", "the courts of England and Wales", etc. On balance i would say the re-direct is a Welsh POV. It would be correct and perfectly legitiamte to have "law of England and Wales", which itself could be redirected. [[User:Necessaryx|Necessaryx]] 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:25, 1 January 2006

I am retired and currently unoccupied (although I harbour plans for a magnificent return to commercial life, usually involving the conquest of one or more major market niches and untold wealth). I am therefore perfectly qualified to obey the instruction, "do not create an article to promote yourself" since death (whether real or through boredom) will soon claim me. In the interim, I may scribble or tweak material within my fading expertise.

This is my final post before going into hospital. The longer the silence, the more likely it is that the operation was not a success. David91 16:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first day home. The operation was a success. The infection by c-difficile was, well, an unexpected difficulty that I am only slowly recovering from. Since it is very painful to sit up, expect little effort over the next few weeks. David91 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am really happy it was a success and hope the recovery will be fast and complete. Wiki needs you! Quatrocentu 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to hear the operation was a success. Your article (Semiotics of Ideal Beauty) was most interesting, and I literally had the time of my life reading that superb debate on the discussion page! My very best wishes for your recovery, and it's good to know we might just get to see more of your writing. It's a pleasure to read your work - and your debate! - Rahul, 28 Oct 2005

Are you a lawyer, by the way?

I've neglected to ask whether you are an attorney - if so, you can put yourself in Category:Lawyer Wikipedians. Cheers! BDAbramson T 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicely done! BDAbramson T 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I've added Willful blindness to the Crim law template, thought you might want to have a look at the article, since it's rather stubby. Cheers! BDAbramson T 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think willful blindness is its own sort of subspecies - recklessness is throwing the stone over the fence without thinking about the fact that it may hit someone on the other side; willful blindness is thinking about the possibility, but then refusing to check so you can later say you didn't know. BDAbramson T 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article on manslaughter that covers this. It's here. I'd suggest combining the 2. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think works best. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your excellent contributions on the aestheticization of violence. So glad you made it (the operation et all). --Jahsonic 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to disambig Larceny

There's no need to disambiguate larceny - it has a dominant meaning, and the main article should reflect that meaning. BDAbramson T 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where one use of a term is dominant to the point that virtually all links made are likely intended to point to that term, there is no need to disambiguate at that page. If there are multiple uses, put a tag at the top (as I have) pointing to a Foo (disambiguation) page; if there are only one or two other uses, put a tag at the top pointing to those pages. See larceny now for an example. BDAbramson T 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - see edit history for detail. BDAbramson T 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy (civil)

Hi there - I'm sorry to hear of your recent illness, but I'm glad that you are recovering. If you know of any, could you add a few references to Conspiracy (civil)? We are trying to increase the use of citations so that other people can verify information in the wiki. Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crim Law Template

Computer crime is not really the sort of thing that I'm looking for in the categories of crime - we could just as well have articles on urban crimes, sex crimes, corporate crimes, etc. - but the category is really intended to encompass levels of crimes (from misdemeanor to felony). Cheers! BDAbramson T 05:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Peirce Template?

Is that the right template for Charles Peirce? Jon Awbrey 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales

I saw your message to Francis Davey. It is the law of England & Wales, and strictly the jurisdiction is called England & Wales (with the other UK countries, Scotland and Northern Ireland having an entirely different legal system and jurisdiction). The courts are often referred to as the courts of England and Wales. However i've never heard of it being called "English and Welsh" law. Although it's probably politically incorrect, i have only ever heard it referred to as English law. I have also only ever heard it rferred to as the English legal system (never English and Welsh legal system). However, I have been careful in all my recent edits to refer to "practice in England and Wales", "the courts of England and Wales", etc. On balance i would say the re-direct is a Welsh POV. It would be correct and perfectly legitiamte to have "law of England and Wales", which itself could be redirected. Necessaryx 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]