Hi, and nice to see a new member of the taxation wikiproject. Is there anything in particular you're planning to work on? Any articles that made your fingers itch to correct when you saw them? (that's what got me started here!) Winklethorpe (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
Hi. I will get to have a look at your peer review request in the next few days - I'm a bit bogged down at the moment. Anyway, having some time to deal with the first set of comments may be beneficial. Winklethorpe (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review added. Hopefully it won't seem like I'm pulling your article to bits - all comments intended constructively. I find long lists of critical points rather daunting, myself (check out my roasting at Wikipedia:Featured article review/United Kingdom corporation tax if you want a laugh). I'll happily revisit the article after you've had a chance to work on it. All in all, it's a good piece of work. Winklethorpe (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started cleaning up the article, but need some help. Keep an eye on it and watch out for the users that just revert everything. CarlosRodriguez
Nonrecourse debt
Thanks for taking this on. I took a first crack at it a year ago, and I'm glad you're cleaning up some of the stuff I forgot from 10 years ago. Boundlessly20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from preceding: You are on a roll. Go with it. It is great for WP to get the benefit of the concentrated attention of someone knowledgable in an area to clean up multi-article problems (overlap, contradiction, etc.). Lesser lights can fill in gaps, polish, criticize (and, yes, mess up), and protect. Thanks again. DCDuring18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Partnership Enterprise Law, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ielaw.com.cn/english/article.asp?id=193. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website listed in the bot did not copyright the text. I imagine the Chinese government does not allow foreign companies to copyright the text of Chinese laws. My source for the sentences in question is on a Chinese government website, which I cited, and then I made references to the particular sections from the text originated.EECavazos06:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article assessments! :-) Morphh(talk)5:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Hi. I believe the external link I placed in the above pages was appropriate. Please check out our blog, www.bankrutpcylawnetwork.com. It is not outwardly commercial. Rather, our mission is to educate the consumer. Is there any way that we might reconsider this issue?
Thanks,
Steve
Stephen M. Otto, Esq.
409 Broad Street Suite 260
Car Barn Shops Building
Sewickley, PA 15143
412.741.1200
Steve, I've left a welcome message on your userpage that gives you some links to Wikipedia policies related to your concern. Hope this is helpful! EECavazos, you might find {{welcomespam}} useful for new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's external links and conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers! --Foggy Morning21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Unit price, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. CO03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two minutes after I started the page, you applied the speedy deletion tag for lack of context. Certainly it takes longer than 10 minutes before substantial content may be contributed.EECavazos03:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you started an article on this Act. I added the statutory references. I have a casebook with a few articles on this law, and I will try to add some info to the article when I have time. --Eastlaw (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article assessments
A well reasoned article assessment is *good*. What you have given is little better than your own opinion, and you are sparse with that. I assess your article assessment as very poor. See this but also the WP policy on assessments. Doubtless you know where to find it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get it! It matters very little what I think. Just as your article assessment should not be a purely *subjective* one (which is what it is without supportive argument & reasoning), neither should you give way because of *my* passion over the issue, but because you recognise I am, perhaps on this occasion only, right! What is important is that you follow WP policy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies. If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
I wouldn't mind a little help if you have time. :-) The FairTax article (FA) was listed on the main page, so it received its share of comments this week. I don't know what your position is on tax reform nor do I care if you support or oppose such a bill. I've always found you to provide good discussion and you know taxation the wikipedia policies pretty well, which is what we may need there with many new users making comments (we get the extremes). I'll warn you that it is a controversial subject, so like many of our tax protester articles, it could get a little heated. Thanks Morphh(talk)16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The productive contributions you've made do include fixing those links from India to law articles, and certain tweaks you've made to the language in certain parts of the dept. page - those changes are appreciated. However, some of your changes have been significantly controversial which is on the other hand, not impressive, and these have been reverted.
By controversial, you mean improving the assessment department and reopening it and making it available to WP Law participants. What is controversial is that an editor who is not a participant of WP Law removed the assessment department from WP Law project page and the WP Law participants and then spent several months squatting it. EECavazos (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cycle was bold, revert discuss - it appears that you are the only user who has assessed articles under the C-class banner, but you have been reverted. Please cease trying to impose Editorial Team 1.0's scheme on WikiProject Law - there is no consensus (and consensus is not based on the number of editors who have responded).
It appears I am the only editor and WP Law participant who assesses articles you are neither a WP Law participant nor a person who assesses articles beyond reverts. Further 1.0 scheme has the C class as a default opt-in and a concensus opt-out. You are the only editor who wants an opt-out, there is no consensus and you need the concensus. EECavazos (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have (until now) not opened the C-class discussion was due to the fact it has not been adopted by this project, but should the project feel that our current system cannot function without C-class, then we won't need to reinsert it into the law template. You feel that it cannot, so I opened the discussion and decided to inform you. We have not adopted the class to date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the WP policy is default opt-in, consensus opt-out. You are using the royal we. We means you, a person who is the only one opposed to the C class and who has not listed themselves as a participant of WP Law and yet who has removed the links to the assessment department thereby preventing actual WP Law participants from seeing the assessment department. EECavazos (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? You're simply being disruptive. If you want a change, there needs to be a consensus for it - the editorial team does not have authority over this WikiProject, sorry! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear about the problems you are having with regards to the article assessments. I don't know this other editor or why he is behaving this way, so there isn't much I can do personally to help you. You may need to use some sort of formal dispute resolution process, but before you attempt that, you should speak to one of the administrators on the project (User:Bearian, User:BD2412, User:Chaser and User:Postdlf are all administrators).
I wish I could help you, but I don't have any real power around here, and I don't know enough about the changes to the assessment system to be of much use to you. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EE - I got your message. Thank you for keeping the discussion alive; I was unaware of subsequent developments. I will be happy to continue to participate. Thank you for notifying me. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, EE. This is important, please make sure to stay within the editing policies of wikipedia. Do not revert. Do not edit war. The ONLY way to win an edit war is NEVER to participate in one. Relax and remember that no matter how much someone you disagree with seems to pollute wikipedia, EVERYTHING is saved, and there is no irreperable damage; everything can be fixed - except if you break the rules and lose the right to edit. Follow my advice and STRICTLY abstain from edit warring. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, EE, I'm looking at the history of the page, and it looks like you and NMVocalist are both trying to make a lot of improvements. Unfortunately, you have some different ideas about things and your edits are coming to into conflict with his. I haven't figured out what all of them are yet, because the edit history is a little lengthy, but I'd like to try and help, informally, if I can. I don't think it's my job to take sides, or make decisions. I just want to help both of you. Maybe if we can find some common ground, we can all work together to improve the article. Does this sound like something you would like to help me with? If so, write to my talk page to let me know, and we can get started. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP Law Assessment
Hi again, EE, thank you for following up with me. I'd like to address your comments.
First of all, you are correct - coming to me, and Eastlaw, et al. was a good idea, and I would oppose any suggestion that you acted improperly in that regard, okay?
Second, I am looking at your explanation of what has happened, and I think we need to take a step back. You want to improve WP Law assessment, and that is your main goal. We all agree on that. Now, there is another editor who also wants to do the same thing. You and he think differently about it. Now, just for starters, I consider NMC a member of WPLaw. There's a difference between being a part of a project and being a self-identified part of a project. We're self-identified members of the project. But that doesn't make us special. Remember, on wikipedia, everyone has an equal right to edit, except when there is a COI. We judge edits based on the content of the edit not the character of the editor. So I understand there is a real dispute about C-classification - which (I happen to think is a good idea.) We can't solve that conflict ourselves. So why don't we try to iron out what we can, and save that issue until we can get another uninvolved editor? I have some ideas, if you're willing to go along with it.
Here's step one, if you agree to it: I would like both you and NMCvocalist to e-mail me (using "e-mail this user") a list, which you can make and format any way you want, of what you consider to be things you want to change, or keep, about the Assessment page. The reason I want you to both e-mail me rather than posting is so that we keep the tone positive. I don't want one of you to make your list, and then the other person to make his list a bunch of criticisms of yours. So I want you both to be "blind" and send me what you want the page to say, if you could have it your way. I am then going to post both of your lists. Then we will see where you really have your differences, and what we can agree on to change. Then we can respond to each other.
I am asking for you to do this for me because I just cannot go back and look at every edit differential and figure out how important each one was. I want to seperate personal conflict from content. Are you willing to go along with it? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think is a good idea to get things clear in this manner and I'll email it in the next day or so, and I think the other editor should also do so in order to cool off. I would like to insist that an admin who is a WP participant should be involved at some point or at least some other WP Law participants just because two opposing editors with one mediator does not provide for the most auspicious circumstances for coming to a proper resolution. There are just too few editors involved. Five other WP Law participants and an admin would be the best minimum, but I suppose that is stretching it because perhaps too few care. On the other hand, probably not enough editors even presently aware of the assessment department because it has just been recently reopened. Perhaps within a month enough editors will have seen that the assessment department is reopened because of the to do list of the project page and the bottom of the project page where there is a section devoted to WP assessment department. So . . . I will email what I think should be changed, the other editor will do so as well, and then talk it out but wait for a month or so as WP Law participants rediscover the assessment department. Maybe the other editor should remove some of the uncivil langauge in his or her comments in the talk page of the assessment department so that the editor doesn't scare away potential participants ;-). EECavazos (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for willingness to participate. I mostly-agree. Let's make sure NCM is on board with the idea exchange too before you waste time on it. I'll check his talk page. I am not sure we need an army of editors and admins. We MAY be able to just work it out ourselves. In any case, before we go up the ladder, why don't we at least crunch down the issues, like a good WikiArb. But unlike a WikiArb, I'm not empowering myself, nor asking you to empower to make any decisions. I am just here to try to focus the communication. If anything requires making a decision, at that point, we go to an outside editor or admin. But then, we have a clear issue for him or her; the admin won't have to figure out what the issue is, and we'll get a better result. I will watch closely on the civility issue. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the current page is pretty good, then leave some comments to that effect on the the specific issue sections of the assessment department's talk page. There should be a consensus one way or the other. A consensus counter to my proposals be a beautiful sight to see in my eyes because a consensus finally developed. EECavazos (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)03:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
