User talk:Wikidea/Archive 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Competition Law template

HI Wikidea, thanks for your comment on the {{Competition Law}} template I made. I'm admittedly a novice at template creation, having appropriated most of the code from {{Intellectual property}}, so if you can think of any ideas for improving the new template, please let me know. --Eastlaw 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life mate...

Indeed, 'life mate' is a term used by some in the gay community to refer to their partner in a committed relationship. In the absence of laws allowing gay people to marry, many have held commitment ceremonies (which are essentially marriage ceremonies without legal recognition) in which the partners declare to remain together. The partners in these relationships often refer to themselves as 'life mates'. Cheers! Ossified 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competition law

Thanks for your improvements to this article. It's really shaping up. Bearian 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools of economics

Somehow the merge tag slipped my notice. The Schools of economics page is linked to the Template:History of economic thought, and that is its entire reason for existence. The Template was intended for placement on pages of important economic thinkers, but it created a problem that the What links here page for every thinker showed every other thinker, via the Template's links. Editors who used What links here objected to the template, and the solution eventually worked out was to link the template to only one page: the Schools of economics page, which we created for that purpose. So its sole raison d'etre is as an ancillary page to a navigational template. Would it be possible to do the merge without hobbling its usefulness? --Anthon.Eff 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gardiner Means

You are free to rewrite the article from scratch in your own words. Please do not just change someone else's text here and there and repost it. That's a copyright violation. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it carefully before deleting it. I'll email it to you so you can see how close it is to the source article. Please do not repost it this way. -- But|seriously|folks  22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I will email it to you if you will enable your email address. -- But|seriously|folks  22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You may very well be right - but you've got to prove it!

You've got two years up on me. I only became a Wikipedian, to the best bof my recollection, about August of 2006.

May I say that I have a special fondness of the Brits and what they've given us and the world - not the least of which are Constitutionalism, the Common law, the Industrial revolution, Cromwell, and the Glorious revolution, the Law of the sea, and the list goes on . . ..
So please indulge my ignorance, and defend your position before you revert - unless, of course, you're not a true Brit. My mom used to say that the English did things with White gloves on their hands. But those were the glorious days of the British Empire - when England ruled the seas - and the Sun never set on her Empire!
Truly best to you, --Ludvikus 00:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Noticed your good reference contribution! Are youn a solicitor or a barrister? Besides bear, do you like steak and kidney pie? Are these good together?
Best, --Ludvikus 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great job on History of economic thought!!

Thanks for your brilliant job on the merge!! --Rinconsoleao 08:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

There's a couple issues with the current wording of the intro text that you changed:

  • "It is often referred to as called the Nobel Prize in Economics in popular culture, public media, scholarly works and encyclopedias."

This should either be "It is often referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics..." or "It is often called the Nobel Prize in Economics..." but it can't be both.

This text can be misleading as it makes it sound like the physics, chemistry, etc were never requested or endorsed by Alfred Nobel. I would recommend changing it to something like:

"The Prize in Economic Sciences was never requested or endorsed by Alfred Nobel. In contrast, the Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace were requested to be established by Alfred Nobel in his will."

I'll let you make the necessary changes.

–panda 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuelson's books

Hello again, Wikidea (from Econ Talk p., at which, your break out of separate subsections for fields stands remains, IMO, a pivotal improvement). You took Suicup's very good idea & added to it. As to your question about Paul Samuelson, I think that you're kidding. Paul Samuelson had a nice anecdote (possibly in the Enlarged ed. of FEA) about the confusion of the 2 books. The punchline was spoken to Galbraith later on reading Sam.'s textbook to brush up on the subject (reading Galbraith later)"I did take your advice. My, how complicated the subject has become since I was in school." All for awhile. P.S. I see from above that you've done good work elsewhere. Good. We need all the help we can get. --Thomasmeeks 16:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic history merge

Relax Wikidea. You are not in a battle. But your actions are way too bold. No one merges pages without some discussion. Typically the notice sits on both pages for a month or so before any action is taken. The merge you did yesterday was extremely inappropriate: Economic history is a subdiscipline of economics that looks at the history of the economy; History of economics is a subdiscipline of economics that looks at the history of the discipline of economics. Your merge ruined the Economic history page. Your merge project has me totally bewildered, so maybe you can explain it to me. Didn't you already announce on September 15 that you had merged the content of History of economics with History of economic thought? What prompted you to do yesterday's merge? Please understand that I'm perplexed, and apprehensive about what you plan to do next. I'm an academic economist, as is JQ and a few others, and any of us would be glad to discuss your plans with you, so that no unwelcome controversy arises. best regards --Anthon.Eff 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. It was only the last step that was a mistake (the merge into economic history). You've fixed that now, so all is well. It is also a mistake to do a merge without announcing it well ahead of time on both pages (you didn't do that with Economic history, and you only let a day or so go by with Schools of economics). Leaving plenty of time for feedback from other editors helps avoid unpleasant incidents. Just to be clear, I did notice the discussion on the proposed merge of hoe to hoet, and I noticed that you followed JQ's suggestion. I hope you noticed that I have been supportive of your efforts, even to the point of trusting you to handle the tricky template-link issues associated with Schools of economics. I have been supportive because I think you are really trying to write articles, and WP needs editors, like you, who want to write articles. Thanks for responding in a civil manner and clearing this up. --Anthon.Eff 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Survey 2

I agree with the majority of your comments, but to be convincing, please back up your arguments with references to Wikipedia policies as they hold more weight than other comments. You may find Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines helpful for references. –panda 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I'm not pursuing a grudge and I don't want for us to get on the wrong foot, specially since we seem to share some common areas of interest (I plan to put more of my attention to History of economic thought in which you are already heavily involved). -- Vision Thing -- 11:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we have cleared this up. -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark infringement?

I thought I'd ask you about this since, according to your user page, you're a lawyer -- I realize this may not necessarily be your specialty area however. "Noble Prize" is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation.[1][2] And the Noble Foundation has stated that "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize".[3] Would it then be considered a trademark infringement to call the econ prize a "Nobel Prize in Economics"? –panda 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

In case you don't have the article watch-listed, I thought you might like to know that the Nobel Prize in Economics article has now been renamed to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences as a compromise name. –panda (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competition policy or Competition law

I don't care one way or the other which is merged, if at all, but keep me up to date on this. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the initiative on this one. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something to think about

Hello wikidea!

I came across a Wikiquette alert filed against you about a recent posting on Talk:Universal health care. The specific comment:

I agree that It's a fantastic system, it's universally accepted as the right thing by all political parties, and we look to America with horror about how inhumane a country can treat its poorest citizens.

While I disagree that your comments would have been deleted by another user, I would have to think that your comments could be interpreted as somewhat prejudicial. Certainly it is an opinion, and I think it is pretty far from the greatest breach in civility this website has ever seen, but I also think it can come across as inflammatory, and really added nothing to the debate. I agree that the statement you were responding too was very likely ignorant, however, that doesn't mean the best response is to come back with something that could have led to a bigger fight. If I may suggest in the future, come back with evidence which demonstrates how an ignorant comment is wrong. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Constitution

I received your message regarding my article about the Constitution of the Roman Republic. I just started adding references. I have other books that I will use, but the Lintott book is the first. The page use to have a lot of internet references. I decided to get rid of them, and put in more reliable references. I know that there is a lot of excess information, and it doesn't flow as well as it should. My plan was to add all of the references (and the new information along with those references), and then re-consolidate it to make it flow better. Are you familiar this subject? Do you want to help in developing it? I have one other person whom I am working with for the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK legislation templates

I noted that you had recently created the Franklin v. SE Railway article. Well done! I have been doing some work on templates for UK legislation here but haven't had a lot of interest. I'm not so keen on doing the work to perfect it without some support. Any comments? Cutler (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as I thought, not much entusiasm and I don't want to do a lot of work and have it come to nought. However, all the info is readily available. Most libraries have volumes of Public Acts and legislation history can be extracted from The Times which is online. Older repeals would need piecing together carefully but WIkipedia has all the time in the world. As for case law template, I have been using the U.S. (I presume) one, as here: R v. Dudley and Stephens.Cutler (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK Competition law

Good one! Keep up the good work! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your're welcome. I had planned to be a lawyer following in the footsteps of my cousin Paul Goulding who is a QC in London. I got a place at Cardiff University but dropped out after the first week I'm ashamed to say!! I could have been a practising lawyer by now but I don't think it was for me. I was thinking of the salary! Very interesting topic though but hard work!!! Google Paul Goulding QC and you;ll find him! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is one of the top ones isn't he, he's actually my mother's aunty's son, but he has worked enormously hard to get where he is. I was astounded to learn how much work he has to do. He's up preparing advadavits until late in a Sunday night for the next morning. It is basically a 7 day a week job to be a barrister and your life has to revolve around your work -this is one of the things that threw me off it - I'm sure you are extremely busy too!!! I believe he earns over £200,000 - £250,000 a year and has several houses across the world and that but such is the committment of the job that he would barely get the time to enjoy the money!!! I'd imagine that he would barely have a minute to even think about wikipedia which is such a shame because wikipedia misses out on the edits of thousands of experts on a massive range of subjects who are, well too busy with their careers to help it, so we are missing out on so much potential there. Keep up the great work anyway. We need as many people to work in that area as possible. How do you find the time to edit?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. This site is developing big time and it is remarkable the sheer content on here. I share your enthusiasm for the project. I'm currently putting all the towns and villages in France on here which were 90% missing. Yesterday the edit count jumped from 2,228,000 to 2,233,000!! and there is a group of us aiming to get them up and running. Keep up the good work anyway. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Employment discrimination law in the United Kingdom

Thanks for expanding this article! It looks great now. --Alynna (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postal history

I wonder why you made this edit to postal history. It seems to me that now the portal link has no prominence and will likely be missed by many visitors to this page while its position at the top right was quite noticeable. (I discuss where I first post.) Cheers ww2censor 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried differnt positions and the one I had originally seemed like the best even with the white space. Placed after the image but before the text looks fine too, on my computer; just above the image but to the right of the lead. What problem did you see? ww2censor 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)

[edit] "Treuepflicht" and German Stock Companies Act

Hello Wikidea, I'd really like to help you! Just leave your email address at the discussion page of my German Wikiuser site! mOdmate 19:16, 24th February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.178.11 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tort Reform

I was just looking up tort reform to get some info and when I saw the picture, I honestly thought it might be a joke. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:occupiers

Feel free to re-add the provisions if you are going to add some more discussion about the individual sections. It looked like the end result was going to be a simple copy of the Act which would have been suited more to wikisource than to wikpedia. I didn't realise it was still a work-in-progress. Tim! (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)