User talk:Britlawyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Britlawyer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing!  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Britlawyer! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Glad to have you onboard :) There is also Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law and many other places you may want to check at some point - but don't let all of that overwhelm you :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll start slow. Right now on the history subjects and Polish communities in Eastern Europe. We'll see where that takes us. Thank you so much! Britlawyer 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. Note that you may want to copy your replies to other user's pages, so they get the orange note about reply.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board

Dear Britlawyer:

No, I did not know this Portal. Thank you by invite me to share it.

Thanks my friend

--Gustavo 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!

Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

--Gustavo 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Zumbach

No problem! Always a please to expand a page :) Mumby 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about working together

Dear Britlawyer:

I world be proud to work with you in the “Anders Army” work, but I am translating the article about “Szlachta” to Spanish right now and also I am classifying Coats of arms in Commons (This is a boring and long task to do)

Anyway, I hope we can do something together in a near future.

Your friend. --Gustavo 03:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

Hi! Could you give some references about the interpretations of the Montevideo convention (you wrote you could)? Regards. Alaexis 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now answered on the page and provided two initial sources. Should it be required, the list of sources can easily be increased tenfold. This is entry level material so the matter is easily settled. With regards to individual inclusions, however, it would be appropriate to find individual sources for each state or state-like entity. Britlawyer 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

Until you don’t present any support (Primary and secondary sources) which support your claims (which are obvious POV), you can not simply rv the article. If you are lawyer as you claim to be, you should know better about presenting support and evidence for the claim which is highly disputed. No references and sources, your claims are just empty words and your rv are just another step of POV pushing. Ldingley 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see [1] I have no opinion on individual entities, and I support your inclusion of the "dubious / neutrality contested" tag on each of those until such time they are either removed or the requested sources are provided. Until then it is preferable that the list criteria remains consistent with international law.Britlawyer 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again Mr Britlawyer, where are your sources and references to support the claim that those so called de facto "states" are sovereign? I don’t need your definitions of state or sovereignty (I studied law too in Canada). In case you fail to find primary source (international legal document) where Abkhazia and the rest of those “states” are sovereign and recognized as such by even one state, I don’t see any point keeping them on the list and deceiving the public with false information based on biased and dubious research of some wikipedians. Ldingley 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read my answer to you: I have no opinion on individual entities, and I support your inclusion of the "dubious / neutrality contested" tag on each of those until such time they are either removed or the requested sources are provided.Britlawyer 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sovereign states

Hey, just wanted to come over and thank you for bringing some sanity and knowledge to the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states. That place is a morass of POV pushing, ignorance, and special pleading. I don't even really care if South Ossetia and what not are listed, but the apparent desire of several people to get a perfectly useful page entirely in order to prevent those places from being listed is outrageous. Keep up the good work. john k 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked your sources myself, but the quotes make it fairly clear that they are apposite, and reliable. Those who are objecting are not objecting because of any problem with the sources, but because they don't care what sources say, because they are determined not to include Abkhazia and the rest. I'm not sure what's to be done about it - we could seek mediation. john k 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

After reviewing your contributions, I found that it is extremely likely you are a block-evading sockpuppet of User:William Mauco. I am aware that a checkuser request the other day came up negative, but negative checkuser results are not compelling negative proof and we have indeed seen other false negatives in related cases lately. I therefore feel justified in blocking you on the grounds of similarity of behaviour and editing profile. You were certainly not a new user when you started contributing a few weeks ago. You said you had previous anonymous IP contributions from November. You can be unblocked if you provide a plausible explanation of your earlier history including disclosure of those IP contributions (you can do so confidentially and in private to me.)

This block will be advertised to the ongoing Arbcom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence and is subject to review by the arbitrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you do this? I like it here and would like to keep working on editing my favorite subjects. William Mauco is not me and I've never edited anything in any Transnistria articles. I originally found that page four weeks after I registered, after some Editors had a discussion and request for sources in List of sovereign states. No one could provide the sources so we excluded Transnistria from the list.
When I posted questions and suggestions on the Discussion page I was always very polite. My opinion on sources and links are my own and I've given my reasons but its really not a big deal for me, certainly not anything to block me out over.
Until now these are the only Article pages which I've ever edited:
Britlawyer 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)