Blanked page up to its 4th anniversary 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For fixing errors recently forced into Common law. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks, Bearian, for awarding this distinction to....Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Droll
Very droll, Q. Thewikibeagles (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Common law
Thanks for all your work on common law. However, I don't think edits like this [2] should be marked as a minor edit. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps a shade more than minor, but no more than tidy up trim. Please tweak or otherwise rectify or query any of my previous, or later edits if any. I think we agree the article needs to be crisply written and balanced, and free from waffle, and generally in encyclopedic style. The structure, as shown in the contents box, seems about right but there may still be some text which needs revising. Qexigator (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- +Diff showing further edits to date, mainly subsection "Records and literature" for middle ages.[3]] 09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly agree the article badly needs to be cleaned up, and I was not objecting to the substance of your edits. Just pointing out, however, that Wikipedia policy states that "Any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not" is not a minor edit." I just wanted to point out that your edit certainly changes the meaning of the article and shouldn't be marked as minor. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Diff showing cumulated revisions, 5-17 June.[4] 17:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Revision 30 May to 20 June
I am listing here my series of edits to the text of Common law, from 30 May to 20 June 2016,[5] not including minor corrections etc., or "See also" and other links.
0 Lead
- necessary to include a concise description of origin[6] (this later moved down to 'History')
- restore (with c/e tweaks) as was up to April 2014, before IP edit[7]
- restore first sentence as at 22:28, 5 April 2014[8]
- rmv verbiage unsuited to lead, and clarify[9]
- law reports[10]
- restore wording as of 17:53, 5 June and end December 2013[11]
- trim lead, reducing repetition[12]
- c/e with links to "legal case" and Lists of case law[13]
- concise summary of part of present version[14]
Contents
1 Primary connotations
- c/e prose, rmv imposed typology[15]
1.1 Description
1.2 Common law as opposed to statutory law and administrative/regulatory law 1.3 Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems 1.4 Law as opposed to equity
2 Basic principles of common law
- rmv insufficiently sourced, both too general and over detailed, not peculiar to common law, and not descriptive of any distinctive
"principles"[19]
2.1 Developed to meet changing social needs
2.2 Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law 2.3 Overruling precedent—the limits of stare decisis 2.4 Common law as a foundation for commercial economies
3 History 3.1 Development of common law before 21st century
- 2 merging to History section[22]
- 3 + minor copy edits[23]
- outline[24]
- historically, all common law systems from England until end of appellate jurisdiction of JCPC[25]
- interstices of procedure[26]
3.2 Records and literature
- Records and literature[27]
3.3 Archaic
3.4 From 11th century
- Bracton[30]
3.5 Medieval English common law
- year books[31]
3.6 Influences of foreign legal systems
- trim out rambling text, inaccurate or adding nothing[32]
- rmv digression about Becket's murder, add legal year [33]
3.6.1 Roman law 3.7 Propagation of the common law to the colonies and Commonwealth by reception statutes 3.8 Decline of Latin maxims, and adding flexibility to stare decisis
3.9 1870 through 20th century, and the procedural merger of law and equity
- rmv chatty but uninformative reference to a 19c.novel, first intruded by an IP August 2009, and errant source link[34]
3.10 Common law pleading and its abolition in the early 20th century
- rmv (longstanding, 29 Dec 2008) unsourced waffle about "the legal academy"[35]
- some trimming and sourcing[36]
4 Contrasts between common law and civil law systems
- mention Corpus Juris[37]
- writs[38]
- acts codifying parts of common law in England[39]
- no criminal code[40]
- + penal code[41]
5 Common law legal systems in the present day
- trim out, better put in section "Contrasts between common law and civil law systems"[42]
- law reports and the body of a jurisdiction's case law[43]
- refs for "leading case" and "landmark decsions"[44]
5.1 Scotland.... 6 Alternatives to common law systems
7 Scholarly works
- add Pollock & Maitland, 1898 in Scholarly works section[45] (now in 'History: Development of common law before 21st century' )
Qexigator (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/logo-international-red-cross-and-red-crescent-movement, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please restore, you should have noted that the text I inserted was a paraphrase, not a quote. Thus:
The official logo for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement that was published in April 2016 consists of the red cross and red crescent emblems side by side, together with the words "International" and "Movement". It is for use when the ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies communicate or raise funds together for a humanitarian emergency, theme or campaign of global concern. The words of the logo are in any one of the official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.[1]
...or what rewording do you propose? Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
My revised version here.[46] Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gëlle Fra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of the Marne and Battle of Artois. 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) 11:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- The links were made with reference to the inscription which refers to the battlefields (plural), hence these can be found on the disambig. pages in respect of all the battles, not in the single articles. If you kow a better way to do this, suited to that particular text, please advise. Qexigator (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged both those two because I couldn't easily tell in which of the battles Luxembourgeois troops had taken part.
- The better way to do it is to link through the disambiguation page (e.g. Battle of Artois (disambiguation)). DPL bot doesn't object to that. If I do so, I usually add a hidden note after the link like <!--intentional link to DAB page--> to show that it was a conscious decision, and not a cop-out (I've seen enough of those...).
- It's more problematic when there have been several battles in one place over the centuries, with two or more within a single campaign where the same personnel were involved. My WP:IAR solution is to make a page something like Battle of Gaza (1917) (disambiguation) and link to that. (a) DPL bot happy (b) readers happy, they get pointed to the relevant articles only. Yrs:) Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Common law
I replied to your explanation of "inadvertence" on the common law talk page [47]. This follows up the long list of edits at [48], most of which reflect lack of competence, many of which can only be characterized as vandalism. This also follows up comments throughout the Talk page commenting on your 16-month pattern of misinformation.
I see that in order to have you permanently blocked, I have to give you notice on your talk page. Please consider this to be that notice. If you edit further (for anything other than typos and the like), I'll request the block.
DCLawwyer (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know if the sort of conduct you have been exhibiting would be acceptable in any US jurisdiction, but it would get short shrift in England. Qexigator (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Qexigator --
- Stop. I suggested that you confine yourself to typos -- but then you removed all links to "stare decisis" every single one. It's apparent that you can't exercise any discretion responsibly.
- As discussed by multiple editors on the common law talk page, your edits reflect no meaningful knowledge of the topic (much of what you think you know is just plain wrong), and even less judgement to know what's important and what isn't. Your prose is often gibberish -- "circular word salad" as Coolceasar characterizes it. You refuse to answer questions about your edits -- "evasive nonresponse." You accuse others of "untruth" when the facts are right there under your nose.
Your latest post at Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Replicated from Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Replicated from ANI, 22:14, 13 August 2018[49]
- "... I concur with Roxy's common sense advice... The other editors of the article evidently accept that the complainant's edit was not an improvement, and reading the entire series of comments in context and in sequence will make it self-evident that the complaint is groundless, there is no case to answer, the complaint should be re-closed, and there should be an end to the complainant's trouble-making conduct in further hassling the party complained of namely...." Qexigator
- "Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)"
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Australia's head of state, again
Howdy. A new Rfc has opened up at Monarchy of Australia, concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Qexigator. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
US admin. law
US admin. law
Hortatory or hortative, [50]] and [51]? Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Hortatory." What's the basis for the question?BostonBowTie (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your revision there answers the point. Cadit quaestio. Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Qexigator. As we discussed in Talk:Common law, you really don't know the first thing about law, philosophy of law, or history of law. You're an ignoramus and a nincompoop. You don't read carefully, and you don't write precisely. Much of what you think you know just ain't so.
- After you edited United_States_administrative_law, I came behind you to edit again, but only to correct error that you introduced. The old text wasn't perfect, but it was correct. You made it incorrect. Your incorrect statement prompted a fix to make it better than it was originally. But going backwards to force someone else to move forward isn't the best of approaches, is it?
- Can I suggest, once again, that your pattern of introducing error and then asking a knowledgeable person to clean up your excrescence, could be better directed? Maybe ask questions in Talk pages for articles, or individuals' Talk pages (as you did here) first. Wait (as you didn't do here). Don;'t edit. You're s nitwit. You really have nothing to contribute as a writer (at least not to law topics). In particular here, if I recall, you're a UK national -- WTF with your editing a United States topic? I do welcome your questions -- if something isn't clear to you, I'm happy to make it clearer.
- But your edits (at least on law topics) never move the ball forward. The best that can be said is that sometimes you manage to move sideways, without damage. It takes a hell of a lot of time to clean up your messes. Please stop.
- BostonBowTie (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your revision there answers the point. Cadit quaestio. Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)