![](https://web.archive.org/web/20140226034736im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/WinslowHomer-West_Wind_1891.jpg/500px-WinslowHomer-West_Wind_1891.jpg)
|
||
contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
![]() Archives |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 |
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cheers AKS 20:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cheers AKS 21:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Contents
- 1 Files missing description details
- 2 Thanks
- 3 LIAT
- 4 dead links / red links
- 5 Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
- 6 Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
- 7 Japan-related criminal law
- 8 attorney-client privilege and duty of confidentiality
- 9 Statute of limitations
- 10 Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company
- 11 restoration of article sugaspott
- 12 Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics
- 13 Deletion of the Overwolf page
- 14 Deletion review of Waldo Vieira
Files missing description details
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Thanks
Hello Postdlfm just dropping in a line to thank you for your guidance on the various AfD nominations I made yesterday. Your point very well taken and understood and I will ensure in future that it is followed. Cheers AKS 09:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate you saying that. I know it's not easy to hear "you're doing it wrong." postdlf (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
LIAT
What you said in the regard to the edits I made on the LIAT pages were false. One source was dead while the other said nothing about the staff, baggage, departing without passengers, and baggage. Obviously this section cannot stay because it's obvious the claims are from someone's experiences and not from a source. Drewax11 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewax11 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
dead links / red links
Sorry! Will do. :) Carpalclip3 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
I hope I'm doing this right. I'm an editor at the boating magazine Soundings, interested in publishing your photo of a swordfish skeleton taken at the National Museum of Natural History in D.C. and posted on Wiki (without a background) on Aug. 18, 2006.
Please contact me if you are interested (or not interested) in having that image published in our magazine.
Rich Armstrong Managing Editor Soundings 10 Bokum Road Essex, CT 06426 www.soundingsonline.com
Email: arms99@comcast.net Cell: (860) 884-7732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.47.226 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
As a magazine editor, I'm interested in contacting Postdlf regarding a photo of a swordfish skeleton taken at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., and posted on Wiki on Aug. 18, 2006. Please contact me at arms99@comcast.net or (860) 884-7732. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legweak99 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- What's your offer? postdlf (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry; I'm almost through with move requests on case titles. This time, I am becoming more interested in law because... law is a shaky, complex topic. I went back to college to study criminal procedure in the United States. Outside class, I am researching criminal justice system of Japan, and I heard criticism from editorials about Japan (I mean Japan) defense's ineptitude and prosecution's abuse of power ([1][2]). Another thing is lay judges in Japan. Also, the Japan section in "lay judge" article is blank. If merger is impossible, I would assume that you can work on that blank section instead. Criticism of law enforcement in Japan is barely mentioned there ([3][4]). Since you're an expert on Law, perhaps you can research law in Japan to improve articles related to law in Japan, including crimes and trials. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding attorney-client privilege, there is almost none (or some) in Asian countries, especially Japan: [5][6]. But I'm not sure if the privilege is well-practiced there. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know anything about Japanese law. Never studied it. I don't even remember touching on it in a comparative law class. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your knowledge limits to United States system? Probably I should ask WikiProject Japan to participate in WikiProject Law? Besides, if you are the video game enthusiast, the Ace Attorney should teach you that (in original Japanese language) the whole video game series mocks the Japanese court system. From what I've heard, conviction rate is 99% in trials headed by pro judges only, and 99.9% in lay-judges trials. In fact, Japan law system may shock you and be the last place to practice, unless you want to prosecute with flimsy, circumstantial evidence and confessions. --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
attorney-client privilege and duty of confidentiality
I don't see similarities and differences between them. Would a lawyer be disbarred for disobeying the "duty" law? --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- (Note: the following is generally true, subject only to exceptions I'm not going to get into here...) In American law, confidentiality is broader than privilege, but offers less protection. Confidentiality covers information an attorney learns from his client, but does not protect that information from discovery or subpoena by other parties; it just operates to restrict the attorney's disclosure of that information. Privilege covers communication an attorney has with his client that pertains to the representation, and not only restricts the attorney's disclosure of that communication but also protects that communication from discovery or subpoena.
For example, if my client tells me his business kept a fake ledger book for tax auditors, confidentiality would restrict me from telling IRS agents the fake ledger book existed, but would not restrict the IRS from issuing a subpoena directly to the business or client for the ledger itself if they somehow independently learned of it or suspected it existed. Privilege would restrict me from telling IRS agents "my client confessed to me he keeps a fake ledger book" and neither I nor my client could be compelled to testify that he had told me that (or produce any e-mails or letters if the attorney-client communication was written rather than oral—privilege covers communication regardless of medium).
An attorney could be sanctioned or disbarred for violating either confidentiality or privilege, depending on the circumstances. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is Legal professional privilege also similar to and different from attorney-client privilege? George Ho (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- That article covers the whole of the common law, which is the legal system of England, the United States, Canada, Australia, and several other countries associated with a period of British rule. It appears that attorney-client privilege is the name primary used for the privilege in the United States. The particulars of the privilege differ from country to country. bd2412 T 02:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is Legal professional privilege also similar to and different from attorney-client privilege? George Ho (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Statute of limitations
I want to add information about Japan's statute of limitations on crimes, like murder, but I can't because... the whole article is messy with too much detail about American system and too little about overseas. --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law or Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company
Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
restoration of article sugaspott
hey how are you i was hoping i could reach out to you about creating or restoring the article sugaspott i could work on it and ask you to approve it before publishing it
since the time you deleted it the sources that where not available to prove notability have slowly emerged over the internet and i suppose maybe i can request the making of the article
thanks
Wikispott (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Would love you to look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikispott/Sugaspott and maybe leave some feedback which i will put into use or even go ahead and apply any changes you see fit. I will really appreciate any form of input so much. regardsWikispott (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics
Hi, there was another article (Albania at the 2018 Winter Olympics) that was included with the discussion and should be deleted. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed that; looks like someone else already took care of it. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of the Overwolf page
Hey there!
My name is Ari Cashriel and I'm the Community Manager at Overwolf.
I wanted to write a Wikipedia page for my company and when searching I saw that there existed a page, but was deleted by you in 2011. I'd like to write one, but was advised to contact the admin who deleted it first before hand.
Some relevant information as I saw that one of the reasons named for deletion was that the software is not notable:
- Overwolf has reached over 6 million installs.
- Overwolf is the official overlay for Teamspeak. Teamspeak Source
- Overwolf is official partners with multiple large companies such as Wargaming.net, Webzen and gPotato providing them the in-game social media for their users. Webzen Source, gPotato Source
- Overwolf won StartTWS (a convention that holds competitions for startups) in 2012. Source
- Created multiple programs such as Twitch Streaming that are rival to OBS or XSplit Broadcaster
- Has an open SDK for developers to create programs and applications for direct rendering inside games. Source
- Overwolf has raised more than $5.3 million in funding to design our software. Source
This software that we have designed is similar and in the same genre and popularity as Raptr and XFire
Please contact me at Ari.Cashriel@Overwolf.com as I would like to write a page properly without running the risk of it getting deleted.
Thank you very much for your time. --Raif1989 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The best advice I could give you is not to edit this topic yourself, because you have a conflict of interest that would impair your ability to write about the company in a neutral manner. If it is worth covering in Wikipedia, then it shouldn't take a paid employee to do it. Beyond that, you need to read through WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:NSOFT to understand what our inclusion criteria are. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Deletion review of Waldo Vieira
Hello Postdlf!
I see you've evaluated the deletion discussion for the article mentioned above and wanted to say it was maybe a hasty decision. Since the article was covered by reliable sources (not mentioned and the on the discussion) and besides that the supporters of the deletion left many unanswered questions. Furthermore at the end there were at least 3 notability criteria being discussed and people couldn't judge which one was being used for argumentation.
Please tell me your opinion about that! Should I plead for a deletion review? Cheers!! -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by your comment above, possibly in part due to typos. Are you saying that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, but what those reliable sources were was "not mentioned" in the discussion? Why on earth not?
The only comment of yours in the deletion discussion that went unanswered was your last one re: WP:AUTHOR, which you didn't support with reliable secondary sources; yes, we'd need secondary sources establishing that "the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", because citing to nothing but the primary source by that author cannot alone establish that the concept, etc. is "significant." I'd consider a relist if you made a case, but I'm not seeing a basis yet for reading the consensus any other way or for leaving it open any longer. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the typos. Please let's make an effort to overcome the idiomatic difficulties, because the subject is pretty much complex. I'll try again to make my point clear:
If you take a look on the article's page (not the discussion page) you'll find 3 reliable sources that support the article:- the Journal of Parapsychology with the statement Vieira is known on the fields of "consciousness research"
- a Brazilian spiritist magazine with the statement Vieira has relevance as spiritist author and "medium" and also known for his co-author activity with medium Chico Xavier
- two sources, one of the Brazilian goverment, other from a reportage showing the statement Vieira was the founder of a international non-profit organization for out-of-body-experience research. This institution have (at least in Brazil) a recognized level of public utility
- On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo Vieira:
- I mentioned the entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century and another user said this would be a "pay-for-space arrangement", but this is pure speculation (isn't it?)
- Another user mentioned, in some cases, the "best-seller status" and "number of translated books" could be used to presume notability, and this comment was totally ignored;
- Another user mentioned the article by D’Andrea (Italian sociologist) which tells the history and impact of the "field" Projectiology (by Vieira). There was no objection against this article and still nobody counts it as a valid reference??
- We had more to come, but unfortunately it was too late. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- One of the issues in the discussion was that many of the participants were expecting the subject to clear WP:PROF rather than just WP:GNG. As these are guidelines rather than a strict hierarchy of rules, there's nothing prohibiting deletion discussion participants from preferring one set of criteria over the other for a given article. But I don't see a consensus there that GNG is satisfied anyway, and many of the sources mentioned were dismissed as fringe and not relevant. That's their prerogative. It's also long been observed on Wikipedia that most of the Who's Who publications are pay-for-space, because no one has rights over the title "Who's Who". The ones that do count as reliable sources are the exception, not the rule.
If there are more sources to come that weren't presented even in the full week the AFD was open, I suggest you wait until those sources are gathered, make sure they are clearly identifiable as reliable sources, and then present that case at WP:DRV on the basis that new evidence has come to light. Work in your user space on this for now. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- And I've just confirmed that Who's Who in the 21st Century is one of the unreliable ones; it's published by the "International Biographical Centre", which has been widely identified as a scam entity ('A publication, only available to those who pay to be in it, is similar to other directory schemes. Internet blog site users describe them as “phone books with fake leather covers” and a “Who’s Who of gullible people”.'). postdlf (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the rapid answer. So, you are using a unreliable source like a blog to tell another source is unreliable? Besides of that there are many publications called Who's Who. How do you know this is the bad one?
- What about the other 5 items I mentioned above? AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- "How do you know this is the bad one?" Because I confirmed that it's published by IBC from their own website. And that's not a blog I quoted from above (as should have been obvious from the URL alone, if not the content of the page itself); that's an Australian state government website warning the public of this company's scams. You're not giving me a lot of faith that you've done any due diligence yourself in evaluating these sources. I'm going to stick with my advice to you above. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks for advice. --- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- "How do you know this is the bad one?" Because I confirmed that it's published by IBC from their own website. And that's not a blog I quoted from above (as should have been obvious from the URL alone, if not the content of the page itself); that's an Australian state government website warning the public of this company's scams. You're not giving me a lot of faith that you've done any due diligence yourself in evaluating these sources. I'm going to stick with my advice to you above. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- One of the issues in the discussion was that many of the participants were expecting the subject to clear WP:PROF rather than just WP:GNG. As these are guidelines rather than a strict hierarchy of rules, there's nothing prohibiting deletion discussion participants from preferring one set of criteria over the other for a given article. But I don't see a consensus there that GNG is satisfied anyway, and many of the sources mentioned were dismissed as fringe and not relevant. That's their prerogative. It's also long been observed on Wikipedia that most of the Who's Who publications are pay-for-space, because no one has rights over the title "Who's Who". The ones that do count as reliable sources are the exception, not the rule.
- Sorry for the typos. Please let's make an effort to overcome the idiomatic difficulties, because the subject is pretty much complex. I'll try again to make my point clear: