User talk:David91

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Nicely done! BDAbramson T 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject International law

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)

Death by dangerous driving

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)

Whatever you think works best. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Aestheticization of violence

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)

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)

• 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)

Common assault

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

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)

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

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)

• Perhaps another section is in order on special types of crimes? International and computer could both go there, as well as Corporate crimes and Sex crimes. BDAbramson T 05:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles Peirce Template?

Is that the right template for Charles Peirce? 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. Necessaryx 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

copy and paste moves

Hi. I am happy (or ambivalent) to see the move to English law. However, copy and paste moves should be avoided because they destroy the page history. Please see Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page for stuff about pagemoving. In this case it appears that you could simply have moved the page back using the 'move' function - if this isn't possible its preferred to put it at Wikipedia:Requested moves so an administrator can delete the target of the page, and then move it there. I shall fix up the page history, though, so no need to worry, but just a note for the future. Morwen - Talk 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it's not much more than a handful of clicks.

I'm confused by the claim that "The United Kingdom is divided into five separate states, namely: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey." though.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Man and the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom (which I understand they are not - in the usual sense), and whether they can be called states (which I've never heard England and Wales described as), I can't see how to count the entities listed as five, unless you count Jersey and Guernsey as one (which would also be unusual). Is this formal legal terminology? Morwen - Talk 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that from memory? Morwen - Talk 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely they have seperate legal systems, not questioning that, just quibbling with terminology. Footnote 7 on that page notes that "[...] England and Scotland, which are not seperate states", and also it excludes the Crown Dependencies from the UK (but includes them in "British Islands") Morwen - Talk 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But it is the fact that they have separate legal systems that distinguishes them as units for these purposes. What Collier and I say is that Scotland, Northern Island, and the Isle of Man, and Jersey and Guerney being the "other British Islands", are treated as though they are "foreign countries" i.e. when England and Wales as a state has to reconcile differences in the laws, it will use the Conflict of Laws system. Thus, they are separate states with their own legislatures, independent courts and, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to a unified system of laws. In footnote 7, Collier is discussing the different question of what name should be given to the academic discipline and he is saying that the use of the word "International" in "Private International Law"is confusing in that it usually refers to nations or states in the general sense of those words. But, Conflict deals with the relationship between states and their independent legal systems and laws because not every nation state (in the political de jure sense) has a single system of laws, e.g. as in more formally federated nations like the U.S., India and Australia. If the relevant chapter in Collier's book was available on the net, you would see that I am correct. David91 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)