User talk:Wikidea/Archive 01

Chirac photo

I deleted Image:39648813_chirac_afp_203.jpg. This image was a clear copyright violation: it has a AFP tag on it. Furthermore, content from the BBC is not public domain.

Please do not upload pictures that you take from web sites unless you know well what you do with respect to copyright. David.Monniaux 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in saying that it's fairly difficult to find photos to put on Wikipedia. Most people are not aware of how long-reaching the copyright rules are. The safest solution is to take photographs ourselves, but it's not always an option. David.Monniaux 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hi there. Just to say that I reverted your recent change to the Evolution article. I agree that the older wording wasn't perfect, but I thought your re-wording lost some of the distinction between evolution and natural selection. It's a fine line for sure, but I thought your wording blurred it a bit. Sorry that I'm resorting to a talk message - my comment regarding my revert seemed to get lost and doesn't appear in the article history. Best regards, --Plumbago 10:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:1325.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1325.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tort article

Why have you made major changes to the tort article without first dealing with my remarks on the talk page, or for that matter trying to discuss them? Some of what you have done is valuable, but much is not and some is simply legally wrong. Please try to work with others. Francis Davey 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB you replied on my user page -- I've moved the remarks to my talk page and responded there. You might find using four "~" symbols for your signature would be useful too! Francis Davey 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law article

Hey there. Thanks for your (extensive) edits to the Law article, which are a huge improvement in many respects. There are one or two points I'd take issue with - I guess I'll raise these on the talk page for the article. Also thanks for the helpful message on my talk page. Again, there are one or two points I'd take issue with, which I guess I'll raise here:

it doesn't help merely to criticise. It's better to do.

I think if you check the history you'll see I'd made several substantial edits, rewriting entire sections in places. And they weren't limited to cosmetic alterations to the first paragraph. Also, thanks for the suggestion that I do 'a little more reading', but my time is presently taken up by little else. I will, however, refer to your recommended texts as time allows.

unless you've got some examples of where intentional harm to other people's property doesn't result in criminality, I wouldn't be so brash!

Suggest you re-read the comment I made on the Law talk page that you're presumably alluding to. It is, as I was pointing out, wrong to say that we may not intentionally harm others' interests without losing our liberty and becoming criminals.

It's really important not to attempt a definition of law too, because that's what jurisprudence is about.

Disagree here, but get where you're coming from. Suggest discussion on the Law talk page.

Once again, thanks for the suggestions. Always good to get another's point of view. Crebbin 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Edits to Contract

I see big problems with the recent edits to Contract. First, it does not conform to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Secondly, despite the assertion that nothing was deleted, things were. The prior article had a concise list of the elements of a contract (consideration, proper subject matter, competent adult parties, etc., under the heading "validity of contracts"), which is now gone. The preamble continues to get more muddled. I am suggesting a revert, and a) first a discussion of the proposed changes/reorg, and b) more incremental changes. --Bhuston 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:contract

Oh, are you in Sydney at the moment? Would it be easier to discuss this in person? enochlau (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could meet you later in the week, say Thursday or Friday. Is that going to be good for you? enochlau (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism of contract

Wikidea, I am not happy with your edits. Can you a) propose the change you want to make FIRST on Talk:Contract, and attempt to get consensus? As I have stated, I am not happy with your massive restructuring, and at least one admin agrees. You have made false assertions about improvement and preserving information, when in fact you are not adhering to WP:MOS, and are in fact blanking useful information (such as the most basic: elements of a contract). I consider your blanking large sections of this article is more than just a bold edit. It is vandalism according to WP:VANDAL. Please stop and discuss FIRST. --Bhuston 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law template

Hi,

I left a comment for you here, please respond. Ta, Andeggs 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Wikidea. Thanks for putting comments on the law template and the law article in response to mine. I'm going to roll over on this one because frankly I'm out of my depth. I just ask you to bear in mind that users will click to this article from all manner of other articles - including historical articles and ones which describe non-Western countries, religions etc. They need to then arrive at an article which is broad and baggy in its approach to what constitutes 'law'. I'm sure you get my point (see here for more!) Andeggs 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisprudence

It's good, of late, to see you and some other users putting some work into this article, which was formerly a bit of an embarrassment. Well done! Metamagician3000 09:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]