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 Vehicular_manslaughter#Motor_manslaughter|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)

Computer missuse act

David, please see Talk:Computer_Misuse_Act_1990. TomViza 02:25, 23 January 2006 (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)

To be honest, you shouldn't really be adding stuff from memory at all, as it violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Can I suggest just letting the offending sentence be removed from [state (law)? The contention that the UK includes the crown dependencies is flat wrong, according to the Department of Constitutional Affairs[1], who might be expected to know.

Morwen - Talk 09:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the reference you have cited is completely irrelevant to this topic and I am not wrong at all. It is a great shame that you do not take the trouble to inform yourself fully before making this type of unambiguous statement.

Template:CrimLaw

I have fixed Template:CrimLaw - the error was mine (a misplaced ":"). BDAbramson T 03:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Murder vs. Manslaughter

Following your removal of my contribution to the murder page, which removal is potentially justifiable on the basis that the article deals with murder not manslaughter (despite the close and arguably inseparable link between the two), I have proceeded to remove the manslaughter provisions from the United States law sub-section on the same ground. I trust this will meet with your approval. Dominic.sedghi 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I note your re-inclusion of the American state-law offences of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter with the comment that these are appropriate to the context. Given that the American and English law offences of voluntary manslaughter and (involuntary) manslaughter are, in their fundamental essence, identical, there seems no justification for inclusion of these offences in one sub-section but not the other. I have thus re-inserted my original addition. It should also be pointed out that causing death by dangerous driving is not a murder offence, as malice aforethought is not required. (Indeed, the offence is one of strict liability, so no mens rea is required at all.) This is only further supported by the description/likening of this offence within the article to motor manslaughter. Thus, if references to manslaughter are not to be included, this should be consistent throughout the entire article. I would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning for reverting back to the original format. Dominic.sedghi 14:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Automatism (case law)

A case law page is an interesting concept - I suppose it should serve as a survey page for noted cases in the area. As for spelling, Wikipedia has a solid rule that the author can use whatever spelling they are comfortable with, so long as it is used consistently throughout an article. Cheers! BDAbramson T 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

redirects

Hi. I had a look at this and couldn't see a problem - you seem to have done the move perfectly. Not sure I understand what you mean by "duplicated list of redirects" - where? Morwen - Talk 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be the database being confused - it doesn't handle redirects and page moves and suchforth too well. Morwen - Talk 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminology

I have just taken a fairly rigorous university course on social deviance and I have noticed that you've been doing a lot for the criminology articles here on Wikipedia. If you would like any help or if you need me to research anything to make the project a little easier on yourself, contact me anytime and I'll do my best to contribute as the material is still fresh in my mind. Boneheadmx 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also studying political economics at the moment and I have to say that I agree with your theoretical take on crime and deviance. I am a libertarian myself but I have to say that I disagree with Serge's point of view in that he seems to take an excessive assumption that all individual actions should be defined as occuring in the private sector, which is obviously not true in the current world since many states today separate private and public, and obviously the tragedy of the commons states that unintended consequences causes damage in both the private and public sector even though the intent to harm private interests was not the basis of the problem. I apologize for my "fellow" libertarians because I understand there are those radical "anarchists" who call themselves libertarians or classical liberals. Boneheadmx 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I have been working on social deviance and crime theories on Wikibooks. The link is here. I come from a discipline that separates the crime studies into 3 general, classic schools of study which are Structural-Functionalism (branches including Anomie theory and Urban Sociology theory), Symbolic Interactionism (branches including Labeling theory and Phenomenology), and Power-Conflict Theories (which include Marxist theory, power-conflict, and power indifference). However, I understand that other disciplines teach criminology in different ways and I am currently in a legal studies class that explores the theoretical frameworks of law and society as a way to mediate conflicts inherent in criminal or deviant activity. I will do my best to help out as I believe the modern general public is gravely misinformed of the nature of criminal and deviant activity in our world today. If I have any questions, I'll refer to you for help. Thanks, once again. Boneheadmx 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I've got down the main structure for the Deviant behavior article. I'll write some more after I get a good night's rest. Boneheadmx 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Human rights portal

--Lucinor 12:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Crime/criminology articles

Thanks for all your excellent contributions to the crime and criminology-related articles. It' a huge improvement and been on my to-do list, to improve the criminology and criminal justice articles. While I know quite a bit about theoretical criminology, my background is more quantitative criminology, policing, crime prevention, etc. On the crime article, I can do more to improve the "classification" section. Mentioning just the UCR classification is inadequate, as the FBI is moving towards NIBRS classification which helps address limitations of UCR. Furthermore, the FBI definitions just apply to the United States, and it's important to note differences in other countries. I'll keep working on that... I'm also preparing to improve the FBI article, its history, and explain more about its functions, including collecting such data. Thanks again for your work and keep it up. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. NPOV is really the key thing here. For me, I've been doing extensive background research on criminology topics, to prepare myself to go back to grad school. And contributing to Wikipedia along the way. I'm a geographer, turned criminologist so likely have a different perspective on the topics. As such, I'm also able to contribute maps, charts, diagrams, etc. Anyway, I'll keep working on the crime classification part of the crime article. At some point, it's perfectly fine to spin such sections off into separate articles, and leave a brief summary in the main article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Real estate contract in "See also" in Leasing better idea

I think that a link to the Real estate contract article in "See also" in Leasing is a better idea than in the header. H Padleckas 11:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

R v. Coney

Thanks for your support. I always like the idea of Wikipedia surfacing the connections betwen things so the fact that the case links to boxing and John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge makes it worthwhile. I've done a little editing on Coleridge, some of the "1911" allusions are very obscure, but it still needs doing justice. Entick v. Carrington is another case with a rich context and I must get round to Beatty v. Gillbanks.

Apologies for my soft spot for U.S. punctuation and grammar (but not spelling). Cutler 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Homicide Act 1957

Hi. Since you reverted back to your statement that constructive malice was preserved for those who kill while resisting arrest etc. I took the liberty of looking up the Homicide Act in Halsbury's Statutes of England & Wales. Section 1 reads, in full:

"1. Abolition of 'constructive malice'

(1) Where a person kills another in the course or furtherance of some other offence, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the same malice aforethought (express or implied) as is required for a killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence.

(2) For the purpose of the foregoing subsection, a killing done in the course of or for the purpose of resisting an officer of justice, or of resisting or avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody, shall be treated as a killing in the course of furtherance of an offence."

The combined effect of the two subsections is that constrcutive malice was abolished for both killings in the course of an offence and also killings in the course of resisting arrest etc.. This view was expressed by the House of Lords in the case of R v Cunningham [1981] 2 All ER 863, HL. (Lord Hailsham at page 866 - it's quite a long quote but I'll post it here if you ask.) In my view the article should reflect this. Let me know what you think. Richard75 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Social justice

Good point on the first sentence edit of social justice. In fact, the first sentence really needs work, since it talks about the importance and criticism of the term, without saying what the term "social justice" actually means. Care to take a stab at this? I defer to you. And glad to hear you are recovering nicely. Bruxism 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's much better now, thanks. Very hard to do, I think. Bruxism 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Hey, you're doing a great job! PS, I hope you don't take the WP:MOSDAB thing too personally. :) Gflores ^Talk 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand how you must feel. I had a debate with a person from WP:SPAM in which, I believe, he unjustly removed some external links from an article. It seemed like a whole bunch of them were grouping together against me. I didn't want to be frustrated and I just figured this is not a battle I want to get into, so I let it be. Anyway kids these days... I blame it on rap music. :) Gflores ^Talk 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for your excellent work on sociology and law-related articles. Gflores ^Talk 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

Hello David. Thank you for your input regarding {dab} tags, specifically gunpoint. I have found the style guide and read it. The very last section is titled "Break rules". And apparently, that's what I did.

My reasoning was, the US information in the Convenience_store was obviously written by a person who never lived in the US, and was egregiously incorrect. The person who wrote the article was not being mean, he did just not know about crime in the US. I thought I was helping to clarify things.

I've created some other {dab} tags, because a lot of specifics in my field don't seem to be defined with articles yet, and I do not want to forget something before I get a chance to write it or edit it. Also, In the course of defining acronyms I am familiar with, I have found many from other fields, and I am making connections I would have not have thought before.

Funny, when I started digressing out of my areas (engineering/spacecraft) into another (most everything else), I knew I might mess things up. Now I know better, stick to what I know.

Ironically, you are a lawyer, and my name is Rob 23:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Text of a US Law in Murder in English Law?

I didn't mention on the discussion page because it was blank, and I explained what I thought was fully in the edit summary. 18USC1841 is irrelevant to the article. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OIC. Thanks for explaining why you included the text. I still think that repeating the whole text was not the best approach, and it certainly was not clear to me why the text was there. A lot of the language is apt to be clear as mud to readers who are not legal technicians. I just got through replacing another lengthy citation of the text with a discussion. See Murder#Murder of a foetus. If that helps, great!Robert A.West (Talk) 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the difference between 2A and 2C is that a death by transferred malice (2A) is not death-eligible, whereas a death by direct malice (2C) is. Failing that, I cannot see much point. Do you think this distinction of interest to readers of this article? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I always try to follow the rule around here that we would always explain what we do. I am glad to have found someone new who takes the trouble to "find stuff out". Happy editing! David91 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello David. I was under the impression that message one inputs with the edit was sufficient. After a while it seemed redundant to make a small change and then put it on the discussion page as well.

I think the bigger problem I had was sitting here with 5 Firefox tabs open with 3 different edits and 2 other searches going on, thinking I have to fix everything now. I'm not sure what your field is like, but there are huge holes in aerospace/space/spacecraft her on Wikipedia. I was kind of shocked. I guess Wikipedia is heavier on the internet knowledge.

I have to admit I was being a git earlier today. Look at the NEHS {dab}. To make up for it, I'm putting together a reasonably good Mullard Space Science Laboratory article. But I'm writing it offline, instead trying to write something "on the fly". I hope that last expression translates properly. Rob

Techincal articles

It is funny you should say that. I have my own idea for the minimal standard for excellence in technical articles in my field, and they are a little higher than what I'm seeing most of the time. But I think I need to get a little more experience before I assert myself. Rob 04:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Trek fan?

"going boldly" "prime directive"

I think I throw in the towel too quickly. On spacecraft, a fine individual made a couple changes that are just plain incorrect. I dropped him a line on his talk page, but I haven't checked back. He made changes to only two words, but it kills where I want to take the article. I want to write a spacecraft article that is applicable to all planets and all atmospheres, else what is the point?

It's a grey areas we're talking about. Yes, spacecraft launch from Earth, but what about Apollo 11? Yeah, spacecraft leave the atmosphere, but they don't, it's just really thin. When he changed transit to leave, my head exploded. Well, I'm sure glad Aqua (satellite) left the atmosphere. I guess my coming in at 08:19:34 UTC to fire the thrusters was just make believe. Sorry to vent. Haven't been sleeping at all. You're up early.

UK Copyright Law ?

Hello David, I hope you are well. Since you are the only lawyer from the UK I have ever corresponded with, might I ask you is this: Is information present on the web site of an educational establishment in the UK public domain? I'll continue to look for that information, but I considered that you might know that off the top of your head. Cheers. Rob 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a sufficient notice? The content of this article was adapted from the MSSL Online site, or would I need to contact MSSL and try and get expressed permission somehow. Rob 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just try and get their consent tomrrow then. I'd even send the what I have and let them post it. I just thought it was a pity that they had no mention on Wikipedia. I guess I should look for a public affairs officer, eh? "Phil at MSSL said it was OK" probably won't cut it. Rob 02:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of speed, and because the MSSL site is already written in British English. I suppose I could rewrite it a little bit better, but basically MSSL is a group of function areas with projects under each area. I think I could rewrite what I have to be a paragraph under each area, and cut out some of the detail. I'll just think about it some more before I do anything. Thanks for your help. Don't you ever sleep? Rob 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the web page? I haven't posted anything on Wikipedia yet, but I can do that and point you to it. Rob 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure if you meant give you a web address or post it here somewhere. Back in a minute. Rob 04:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been out of touch...

I've been busy with other things in a million directions! BDAbramson T 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate red links too

Couldn't sleep. I fixed the read links. A lot of the info was not on Wikipedia, I hope a lot of external links in the body isn't bad form. You're right, it does read like an ad. Research instituions world-wide are always selling themselves. Not that I'm cynical. Rob 07:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and moved

I reverted the edits to Battered person syndrome and moved our article to Battered woman defence to make it clear that it is on the legal aspects. Cheers! BDAbramson T 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heard from MSSL

Hi David, hope you are well. Not to flood your Talk Page, But I heard back from a friend at MSSL:

In my spare time I have taken to editing articles on Wikipedia, the open source encyclopedia. Naturally, I enjoy editing space related articles. Much to my disappointment, there was no article on MSSL. I've put one together based on information on the MSSL site, but my article could use some improvement.

Excellent work. I've mentioned it already to one of our outreach people. Maybe we can quickly get some interest.

I suppose rocket missions are totally/mainly Sounding rocket missions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounding_rocket (we have a real Skylark rocket on the ground floor).

"MSSL is approximately 35 minutes by train from London Waterloo." 35 minutes by train then 20-30 min by car. We'll write text I'm sure. Need photos? Lat long? Rob 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Project Orion

Hi. Thanks for describing Project Orion as "facinating", it makes a refreshing change from the usual responce of: "Agggh you'll kill us all!!!!" The discussion board I talked about is at Nuclear Rocket Board and there is a very good introduction to the subject here Project Orion including an explanation of how it won't kill us all. Quarkstorm 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Private International Law

Forgive me, but I simply do not understand how private international law can be described as forming, to an extent, part of public law. I've not re-reverted but I'd be grateful for your thoughts.

17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Lucifer(sc) 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I cannot speak for the USA but I do not understand PIL to ever be described as part of "public law" in Scotland or England.

Inevitably due to the issues it raises concerning the scope of jurisdiction over territory and subjects/residents/etc., non-recognition of foreign penal or revenue laws, etc., PIL has a public element but I can't see how this fundamentally differentiates it from other areas of private law (e.g. contract and public policy). An argument could actually be amde that there is less ancillery public law content to IPL due to the narrower doctrine of public policy that operates (at least in the U.K.) and the penal and revenue law exceptions which reduce the occassions when the U.K. courts would be required to adjudicate on the acts of foreign states. Matters concerning double-taxation, extradition, etc. are usually seen as discrete areas of law and not part of PIL although they may sometimes raise similar problems, because they are overwhelmingly public law matters.

Alternatively, if your description is correct, if it is important enough to include then I would suggest it is important enough to explain, because the comment as it stands appears contradictory.

Lucifer(sc) 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)