User talk:Epstein's Mother

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NRSRO

Did you realise there is already an NRSRO article? You could consider expanding that rather than duplicating new articles under different terms. You could then create "redirects" for search terms you believe should point there? --Blowdart 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the legal nuance you referred to but I must assume that you know that waging aggressive war and committing war crimes is a clear violation of jus cogens. AntonioBu 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

  1. Please do not delete or edit legitimate contents, as you did at insider trading; this is considered vandalism. Thank you. —38.113.135.196 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, spam is a violation of Wiki's guidelines. And please use a user name if you want to leave comments. That way we know who to block for adding spam. Epstein's Mother 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

I noticed your removals of the insidernewswire.com links. I do run those sites and some might take it as spam that I added them. It's worthwhile to point out that those pages aren't part of a money making venture right now and have no advertising. I thought they might provide some freely available visibility of trading by insiders to the curious.

I will not add them back in, but I thought it would be worthwhile to comment.

Best regards,

Bruce

Rbcwa 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alligator

Thanks for editing Alligator; it and its related articles really need some help. However, the article now says that the Chinese alligator is native only to the Yangtze River valley. Admittedly, there aren't any citations on it there, either, but Chinese Alligator says that they were once much more widespread in China. If you know what you're talking about, by all means, leave it, but I'm afraid you might have introduced an inaccuracy. These articles desperately need some TLC and a lot of sources, but I keep not getting around to it. Enuja (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I was trying to just rephrase the original without changing any of the meaning, but you are right that I missed what was actually said. I changed it, following your suggestion. Epstein's Mother 10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International law (public) or Law of nations

Dear fello Wikipedia:

I've Cut & Pasted the following for your reference & convenience:

Either usage is better. And the former conforms to Wiki style. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google search results

  • "Public international": 1,240,000 [4].
  • "Public law (international)": 11,100 [5].
Accordingly, we should REVERT. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Disambiguation practice

I call the editors attention to the Wiki style practice/format to make distinctions as follows: [[Term (qualification)]]. Accordingly, we should revert. --Ludvikus 18:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International law, Public & Private

It aapears to me that the editors herein essentially adopted usages - contrary to Wikipedia style - in the context of the need to Disambiguate. Unless such usage as these are justified, we must conform to Wiki style if we wish to distinguish between Private , and Public, International law. --Ludvikus 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)