User talk:Julien Deveraux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Communications

Julien:

Why have you butchered the FDCPA piece? Qball and I are lawyers on either side of the FDCPA divide that are experts in this area. While I appreciate some of the more organizational edits you made to FDCPA, the substantive legal edits you tried to make are in many places just dead wrong. You try to make the FDCPA a simple piece of easy-to-understand consumer legislation--when it is anything but that. Unless you have a federal bar card and have litigated at least 1,000 of these cases, please refrain from inserting your opinion into the FDCPA, because frankly, it is an ill-informed opinion. I would appreciate it if you would restore the original content you deleted/extracted from the article (but I appreciate the visual organization you gave to the piece.) The intent of the the FDCPA article was not to write an "FDCPA for Dummies" primer. Thanks.

Moonboy, I dont see why you think I "butchered" the article. I did not insert opinion in the piece either. I have been contributing to this site for more than 2 years and have never had anyone accuse me of doing this. I am quite skilled in argumentation and critical discourse and am quite aware of how to write articles while obeying the NPOV philosophy. I am also quite schooled in these laws and am no stranger to its terminology or limitations.

There is no "template" to the style of which these articles must be written and since the whole point of WP is to freely share information--writing an article that explains a piece of legislation so that anyone can understand it--doens't seem to be completely out of the question for this type of forum. I appereciate that you and this other user might be lawyers and it is fine with me if you'd like to have a serious discussion about this and even negotiate the article (by using the talk page); but not being a real "user" (i couldnt find you or him in the list of users so that I could use YOUR talk page to respond) and the fact that you both claim to be attorneys on "both sides" of this debate would lead me to believe that explaining this law in laymans terms might cut into your business and that your whole reason for calling my re-write "butchering" is motivated primarily by that. So, rather than insulting the article and calling me "dead-wrong" or accusing me of editorializing...lets have a real discussion. Thanks --Julien Deveraux 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Moonboy sniffed me out - I do practice FDCPA law, though I have never "claimed" to be an attorney on Wikipedia. For the record, (1) I have litigated on both sides of the FDCPA divide, and (2) I am not concerned about a good Wikipedia article cutting into my business. I will respond further to the issues on Talk:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Julien - I personally suggest you move this whole conversation to your talk page.--Qball6 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Julien - I finally stopped procrastinating and did another reorganization of the FDCPA article. I liked that you had changed the article to make it more user friendly, so I tried to stay true to your prior reorganization and avoid excessive legalese. Take a look, when you get a chance, and let me know what you think.Qball6 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like the changes to FDCPA. I mostly tried to give the article more structure by breaking up the "Specifics" section into things debt collectors can't do and things they had to do - it seemed like a logical way to give it a little more structure. What specifically don't you like? -Kubigula (ave) 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brent Corrigan Article

Please read WP:V. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, and don't, feel anything was necessary for me to say beyond WP:V. If, on the other hand, you intend to continue to introduce uncited material into articles, I'll be far from the only editor who will remind you that "[a]ny unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is neither MySpace nor a collection of data any of us owns, and the sooner you learn that Wikipolicies have a purpose in properly compiling "the sum total of human knowledge", the sooner you will recognize that what you believe now to be arrogance on my part is actually passion. Having said that, let me also point out that your assertion that Webmonkey's blogs do not constitute a reliable source is correct. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) I'm the opposite of you in this case—I knew nothing of this article's subject before I was asked by an editor to attempt a third-party view, which I hope to keep doing (though it required me to do research that was, well, interesting [the name "Brent Corrigan" led me to expect to read up on a musician or Riverdance performer, or something, so...]). Anyway, what are you having difficulty citing, specifically? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)