![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi Arllaw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Commutation_%28law%29&type=revision&diff=921490173&oldid=921488984 , you reinstated a citation for the definition of commutation. The source is not freely available online, and while that fact is not cause for avoiding its use as a citation, I am curious as to the thinking behind using this source given that suitable definitions are freely available online. Fabrickator ( talk) 05:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This page has significant problems as it does not comport with the law. I am trying to add in the legal sources so that someone can decide for themselves whether the other cited sources are reliable. I am using verified sources and citing everything when making my edits. The vast majority of articles that are cited USE AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD. This is causing rampant confusion and adding to the problem. Please stop removing my edits. AbbyNormal17 ( talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
Stop edit warring with me. AbbyNormal17 ( talk) 18:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Competency evaluation (law) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In the edit you made to probate, you refer to the "state of domicile". Could you clarify please whether this means US state or sovereign state (country). If you meant the latter, "country" would be better as it is (almost) unambiguous. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Please be advised that I am posting a formal notice regarding what I believe to be ongoing edit warring conduct by you. I've twice raised concerns about what appear to be breaches by you of the 3RR rule on one page and your closing down of discussion on the associated Talk page makes it difficult to collaborate properly and reach consensus. I hope you may be open to some discussion regarding editorial conduct as well as regarding the content of pages with which we're both involved. Thank you. Skythrops ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skythrops (
talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public defender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am accepting your invitation to explain my rationale for the edits I just made to the Prenuptial Agreement / UPAA pages, pursuant to which undid a couple of your edits and reverted to mine.
For Footnote 1, I added back this reference because the article cited contains a clear and thorough explanation of the actual legal purpose that parties enter into a written prenuptial agreement—to opt out of the default state laws that govern marital, divorce and death rights of spouses in favor of their own terms. The article I cited was the actual authority for my revision of the initial definition to include the purpose of a prenuptial agreement, and there is no reason to exclude readers from being able to read the full source because it contains additional information and specific examples of default state laws that can be modified by a prenuptial agreement. In contrast, the replacement source for footnote one does not support the statement whatsoever, it is a bad cite and provides no support for my statement. So I replaced fn 1 with my original reference since the replacement citation you added is not widely available and does not appear to support anything in the prenuptial agreement entry. Moreover, the external website to which I cite is the only website to have the full article that was published in the magazine.
In the 4th full paragraph, I added back “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent”, and added a direct link to an external legal website that contains a completely accurate, verbatim version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement act, as well as links to every single state’s version of the currently enacted UPAA/UPMAA that would be incredibly helpful to any read wishing to learn more about this topic. Also, my addition actually clarified an absolutely critical distinction between a marriage settlement agreement and a postnuptial agreement. Your edit and removal of the reference to an external site that sets forth the exact language from the UPMAA has caused this article to blur the critical distinction between a “postnuptial agreement” and a “marriage settlement agreement”. §3(c)(2) of the UPMAA (2012) specifically states: “This act does not apply to … an agreement between spouses who intend to obtain a marital dissolution or court-decreed separation which resolves their marital rights or obligations and is signed when a proceeding for marital dissolution or court-decreed separation is anticipated or pending.” I verified that the UPMAA on the referenced external link is completely accurate and that page would be a very valuable resource for people wanting the full text of the Acts and links to each state’s version of the UPMAA/UPAA so they can see what applies in their jurisdiction. For that reason, I am also adding back that reference as an external resource link on the UPAA page because there is no other site that has all of the relevant UPAA information (full text of both Acts) and links to the statutes for each state that has adopted a version of the UPAA anywhere else. It makes no sense to keep that resource from readers wanting easy and direct links to each relevant state statute, in my opinion.
With regard to your assertion that the content “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent” is unsupported and contradicted by the next sentence, you are incorrect. (See Revision as of 15:12, 3 December 2019). A “postnuptial agreement” is entered into after a couple gets married, and covers many of the same topics as a prenup. The real difference is that usually, spouses are considered to have a “fiduciary” or “confidential” relationship and enhanced financial disclosure obligations to each other once their marriage has been solemnized, so many states require full financial disclosure between parties entering into a postnuptial agreement, relative to the disclosure obligations owed by an engaged couple signing a prenuptial agreement. The important difference is that every state prohibits a postnuptial agreement that governs the rights of the parties during the marriage and what happens when it ends (like a pre-marital agreement) from being a substitute for a divorce settlement agreement which the parties enter into and present to a court when they ask to have their marriage dissolved. In every US jurisdiction, public policy favors marital agreements that are intended to promote matrimonial harmony and certainty as to the marital rights of each spouse, but it is against every state’s public policy to have people enter into a contract that leads to divorce. Like I distinguished with my edit, if divorce is “imminent” then the parties need to look to state law to determine their divorce rights and no postnuptial agreement they signed at that point would ever be valid.
Under the Federal Laws section, I added back the cite to the external link, notwithstanding the fact that it is a different page on the website I referenced before. The section of the website I cited specifically states:
"The Affidavit of Support creates a 10-year contract between the U.S. Government and the sponsor, requiring the sponsor to financially support the immigrant from the sponsor’s own resources. Divorce does NOT terminate the support obligations the sponsor owes to U.S. Government, and the immigrant spouse has rights as a third-party beneficiary of the support promise the sponsor makes in the I-864 Affidavit. As such, the prenuptial agreement must not violate the contract that our client makes with the government by providing the Affidavit of Support, or the prenup is at risk for being unenforceable. The alimony terms for a prenup where one party is sponsoring an immigrant fiancé must be carefully drafted to avoid invalidating the whole agreement."
There are more people who are seeking prenuptial agreements precisely because they plan to marry an immigrant than ever before, given the dramatic changes and trends in US immigration laws in the last 3 years, and the uncertainty about immigration law changes in the near future. As such, it would be helpful to the reader to have the external website cited for this content to be able to evaluate for themselves the merits of the admonishment that terms restricting alimony in prenuptial agreements where one party will be submitting an Affidavit of Support. Although the last sentence of the Federal Laws section is very true and important for people to know, without the reference I provided for a source, the sentence might be misconstrued as legal advice to the reader. Whatacoolguyiam ( talk) 00:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Whatacoolguyiam
Hi Arllaw,
You recently removed a contribution I made to the contingent fee article. I am a new user, and hoping to be a valuable part of the community - so I I'm hoping you could offer more insight as to why this contribution was removed - and I can better make lasting contributions in the future. The message you left was "Section is not encyclopedic". By this - did you mean that it did not cover the issue thoroughly - or was it something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenkrain ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arllaw, the work I contributed met all WP policies. It is not my place to debate with you, it is our place here to describe the debate. I am restoring the citations as I have edited them, and I will place them under discussion so that you may locate and place another sourced viewpoint. As it stands, the fact that the DSM-5 is being used to diagnose the symptoms of PA is published by several reliable sources. I did the work to place those reliable sources with their statements of fact. Those reliable sources, and those relevant attempts to seek recognition within the diagnostic publications are notable, and they belong in this article, and they belong within it in the way that they are written.
I look forward to balancing the differing opinions you have found about the status of PA within diagnostic material, and I likewise assure you that the point of view held by your sources will not be arbitrarily purged based on my personal beliefs.
Please discuss your proposed edits at the DSM-5 status talk section I have made for this purpose. Thank you. -- Frobozz1 ( talk) 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The
WP:ORIGINAL research policy on Wikipedia is not negotiable. Please take a break from editing articles which you feel personally attached to if you find the need to search for reasons to revert content.
“ | One of the problems with the present spate of disruption is that it takes far more to go down every rabbit hole that is presented as an obstacle to consensus than it does to actually fix the article, which is presently wretched. Arllaw (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | ” |
-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is uncivil to accuse editors in good faith with disparaging terms. Thank you.--
Frobozz1 (
talk) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted Parental Alienation to an earlier version, the last good version before the editing of Frobozz1 whom I deem by the available evidence to be a disruptive POV SPA. All of that material is now officially disputed by me, and restoration of it requires a WP:CONSENSUS of editors on the talk page, in which the possibility of WP:Canvassing, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry will be closely monitored.
Why is a topic on Utmost good faith inappropriate for a topic on Utmost good faith? Why is the link (secondary source that Wiki seems to rely on instead of primary source that established academia favours) that explains Utmost good faith and the case law that it relates to inappropriate? Seems like censorship for a genuine information provided on an encyclopedia, explaining a topic within that encyclopedia, and using a citation backing up that information? 110.33.188.54 ( talk) 13:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Why has the present situation of Parental Alienation in Ireland (where I live) been edited into an ill informed piece of information. I cited the content given as advised and yet it was deleted? Is this a form of censorship? Please advise and proive what information was wrong that I added?
The changes I made included 1. A Government TD citing that Parental Alienation motion to recognise and address Parental Alienation had been passed by 30 Councils plus a drirect quote from a government website of goverment action to adress Parental Aliention by "76 Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations Q3 Civil Justice – Policy Research and Data Analytics" Both evidenced and factual and strengthening the article. You deleted them? I fear you are not editing this article in a helpful or objective manner? What is your hidden agenda here?
I welcomed more than a handful of those socks and even gave one them a tip on fixing dead links. Facepalm
S0091 (
talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Arllaw. Writing you back regarding my addition to the
Traffic_collision page. Under legal I added information about what you typically do following a car crash. I believe it's makes for an encyclopedia post, as it offers a reader basic information about what to do from a legitimate lawyer. After reading the guidelines, it doesn't appear that I'm violating anything there. I've been contributing to Wiki since 2008, so I believe I know the process. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you.
Jayo68 — Preceding
undated comment added 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for mistakenly deleting your comment. It was my wrong choice after warning for editing conflict. Forgive me. -- Joep Zander ( talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
You undid my edit on the Shower page, and I was just adding a citation for someone else's assertion there(and not spamming or anything like that). In this case, I could ONLY find a plumber site talking about the extra drains that get installed in Australia. I'm trying to understand and get better at editing: Should we remove the statement/assertion until a better source can be found? I'm not sure what to do in this case. I thought I had the right answers from the Tea House ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_can_I_add_a_citation_to_the_shower_page?) Please advise - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The charge of being a spammer seems to be related to websites I am adding where I see citations needed, but don't we need to find URLs to support what contributors have asserted in these articles. It seemed like an easy contribution I could make, and I am doing spelling/grammar changes also. I want to understand: 1. Why a plumber in Australia is not seen as the right source for plumbing facts about Australia. Who else would we cite? And 2. Why the the Expert Witness citation wasn't workable (that site is from Peter Kent, the author of "PPC for dummies" and some other books. I didn't cite his book, but a post that he made about being an expert witness. It looks like he's been involved in some big cases with Pinterest etc - so what is that source missing in notoriety? I cited him as a source of who usually pays the bill for expert witnesses, and found his site through a Google search. Should I just stop with finding citations? Isn't the Tea House where I go for mentoring? Thank you for helping me understand(which I did with the Shower page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to receive my papers or my money back 65.35.0.62 ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, Arlaw! I noticed you refined a couple citations I added (to Expert Witness and Pearl), and I wanted to thank you. Also, to apologize for making an edit that required you to clean up after me!
I was hoping I might ask you for some advice, if you have time. Outside of the fields in which I work, I've found that my Google-Scholar-Fu is weak. Specifically, when I search to find a citation, I either get too many irrelevant results or else none. For things like economics and medicine, I can usually find what I'm looking for, but less so for others. (E.g., law, aquaculture.) So my question is: how did you find scholarly sources so quickly? I settled for what I could find on google, but sources from a journal (such as you added) are by far preferable. I'd like to avoid making editors like you clean up after me, if possible!
In any case, thanks for your time in reading this, and your help in getting better sources! EducatedRedneck ( talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have gone through the reversal of edits made at /info/en/?search=Medical_malpractice. I am a newbie and it is possible I made a mistake. But I would like to know why, so that I may not repeat the same mistake again. The case of Dr. Shreelata Datta is a well-known case study of malpractice where she "did private work while on paid sick leave". This is a real case of a real named doctor, as even the BMJ citation says. This case is reflected in several websites also. Please be kind enough to educate me why it is not a case study. Many thanks for your inputs in anticipation.
Just a note that MOS:ELLIPSES requires use of three periods ("..."), not the Unicode character ("…"). -- Beland ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi Arllaw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Commutation_%28law%29&type=revision&diff=921490173&oldid=921488984 , you reinstated a citation for the definition of commutation. The source is not freely available online, and while that fact is not cause for avoiding its use as a citation, I am curious as to the thinking behind using this source given that suitable definitions are freely available online. Fabrickator ( talk) 05:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This page has significant problems as it does not comport with the law. I am trying to add in the legal sources so that someone can decide for themselves whether the other cited sources are reliable. I am using verified sources and citing everything when making my edits. The vast majority of articles that are cited USE AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD. This is causing rampant confusion and adding to the problem. Please stop removing my edits. AbbyNormal17 ( talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
Stop edit warring with me. AbbyNormal17 ( talk) 18:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AbbyNormal17
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Competency evaluation (law) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In the edit you made to probate, you refer to the "state of domicile". Could you clarify please whether this means US state or sovereign state (country). If you meant the latter, "country" would be better as it is (almost) unambiguous. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Please be advised that I am posting a formal notice regarding what I believe to be ongoing edit warring conduct by you. I've twice raised concerns about what appear to be breaches by you of the 3RR rule on one page and your closing down of discussion on the associated Talk page makes it difficult to collaborate properly and reach consensus. I hope you may be open to some discussion regarding editorial conduct as well as regarding the content of pages with which we're both involved. Thank you. Skythrops ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skythrops (
talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public defender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am accepting your invitation to explain my rationale for the edits I just made to the Prenuptial Agreement / UPAA pages, pursuant to which undid a couple of your edits and reverted to mine.
For Footnote 1, I added back this reference because the article cited contains a clear and thorough explanation of the actual legal purpose that parties enter into a written prenuptial agreement—to opt out of the default state laws that govern marital, divorce and death rights of spouses in favor of their own terms. The article I cited was the actual authority for my revision of the initial definition to include the purpose of a prenuptial agreement, and there is no reason to exclude readers from being able to read the full source because it contains additional information and specific examples of default state laws that can be modified by a prenuptial agreement. In contrast, the replacement source for footnote one does not support the statement whatsoever, it is a bad cite and provides no support for my statement. So I replaced fn 1 with my original reference since the replacement citation you added is not widely available and does not appear to support anything in the prenuptial agreement entry. Moreover, the external website to which I cite is the only website to have the full article that was published in the magazine.
In the 4th full paragraph, I added back “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent”, and added a direct link to an external legal website that contains a completely accurate, verbatim version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement act, as well as links to every single state’s version of the currently enacted UPAA/UPMAA that would be incredibly helpful to any read wishing to learn more about this topic. Also, my addition actually clarified an absolutely critical distinction between a marriage settlement agreement and a postnuptial agreement. Your edit and removal of the reference to an external site that sets forth the exact language from the UPMAA has caused this article to blur the critical distinction between a “postnuptial agreement” and a “marriage settlement agreement”. §3(c)(2) of the UPMAA (2012) specifically states: “This act does not apply to … an agreement between spouses who intend to obtain a marital dissolution or court-decreed separation which resolves their marital rights or obligations and is signed when a proceeding for marital dissolution or court-decreed separation is anticipated or pending.” I verified that the UPMAA on the referenced external link is completely accurate and that page would be a very valuable resource for people wanting the full text of the Acts and links to each state’s version of the UPMAA/UPAA so they can see what applies in their jurisdiction. For that reason, I am also adding back that reference as an external resource link on the UPAA page because there is no other site that has all of the relevant UPAA information (full text of both Acts) and links to the statutes for each state that has adopted a version of the UPAA anywhere else. It makes no sense to keep that resource from readers wanting easy and direct links to each relevant state statute, in my opinion.
With regard to your assertion that the content “and cannot be used if divorce is contemplated or when divorce is imminent” is unsupported and contradicted by the next sentence, you are incorrect. (See Revision as of 15:12, 3 December 2019). A “postnuptial agreement” is entered into after a couple gets married, and covers many of the same topics as a prenup. The real difference is that usually, spouses are considered to have a “fiduciary” or “confidential” relationship and enhanced financial disclosure obligations to each other once their marriage has been solemnized, so many states require full financial disclosure between parties entering into a postnuptial agreement, relative to the disclosure obligations owed by an engaged couple signing a prenuptial agreement. The important difference is that every state prohibits a postnuptial agreement that governs the rights of the parties during the marriage and what happens when it ends (like a pre-marital agreement) from being a substitute for a divorce settlement agreement which the parties enter into and present to a court when they ask to have their marriage dissolved. In every US jurisdiction, public policy favors marital agreements that are intended to promote matrimonial harmony and certainty as to the marital rights of each spouse, but it is against every state’s public policy to have people enter into a contract that leads to divorce. Like I distinguished with my edit, if divorce is “imminent” then the parties need to look to state law to determine their divorce rights and no postnuptial agreement they signed at that point would ever be valid.
Under the Federal Laws section, I added back the cite to the external link, notwithstanding the fact that it is a different page on the website I referenced before. The section of the website I cited specifically states:
"The Affidavit of Support creates a 10-year contract between the U.S. Government and the sponsor, requiring the sponsor to financially support the immigrant from the sponsor’s own resources. Divorce does NOT terminate the support obligations the sponsor owes to U.S. Government, and the immigrant spouse has rights as a third-party beneficiary of the support promise the sponsor makes in the I-864 Affidavit. As such, the prenuptial agreement must not violate the contract that our client makes with the government by providing the Affidavit of Support, or the prenup is at risk for being unenforceable. The alimony terms for a prenup where one party is sponsoring an immigrant fiancé must be carefully drafted to avoid invalidating the whole agreement."
There are more people who are seeking prenuptial agreements precisely because they plan to marry an immigrant than ever before, given the dramatic changes and trends in US immigration laws in the last 3 years, and the uncertainty about immigration law changes in the near future. As such, it would be helpful to the reader to have the external website cited for this content to be able to evaluate for themselves the merits of the admonishment that terms restricting alimony in prenuptial agreements where one party will be submitting an Affidavit of Support. Although the last sentence of the Federal Laws section is very true and important for people to know, without the reference I provided for a source, the sentence might be misconstrued as legal advice to the reader. Whatacoolguyiam ( talk) 00:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Whatacoolguyiam
Hi Arllaw,
You recently removed a contribution I made to the contingent fee article. I am a new user, and hoping to be a valuable part of the community - so I I'm hoping you could offer more insight as to why this contribution was removed - and I can better make lasting contributions in the future. The message you left was "Section is not encyclopedic". By this - did you mean that it did not cover the issue thoroughly - or was it something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenkrain ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arllaw, the work I contributed met all WP policies. It is not my place to debate with you, it is our place here to describe the debate. I am restoring the citations as I have edited them, and I will place them under discussion so that you may locate and place another sourced viewpoint. As it stands, the fact that the DSM-5 is being used to diagnose the symptoms of PA is published by several reliable sources. I did the work to place those reliable sources with their statements of fact. Those reliable sources, and those relevant attempts to seek recognition within the diagnostic publications are notable, and they belong in this article, and they belong within it in the way that they are written.
I look forward to balancing the differing opinions you have found about the status of PA within diagnostic material, and I likewise assure you that the point of view held by your sources will not be arbitrarily purged based on my personal beliefs.
Please discuss your proposed edits at the DSM-5 status talk section I have made for this purpose. Thank you. -- Frobozz1 ( talk) 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The
WP:ORIGINAL research policy on Wikipedia is not negotiable. Please take a break from editing articles which you feel personally attached to if you find the need to search for reasons to revert content.
“ | One of the problems with the present spate of disruption is that it takes far more to go down every rabbit hole that is presented as an obstacle to consensus than it does to actually fix the article, which is presently wretched. Arllaw (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | ” |
-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is uncivil to accuse editors in good faith with disparaging terms. Thank you.--
Frobozz1 (
talk) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted Parental Alienation to an earlier version, the last good version before the editing of Frobozz1 whom I deem by the available evidence to be a disruptive POV SPA. All of that material is now officially disputed by me, and restoration of it requires a WP:CONSENSUS of editors on the talk page, in which the possibility of WP:Canvassing, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry will be closely monitored.
Why is a topic on Utmost good faith inappropriate for a topic on Utmost good faith? Why is the link (secondary source that Wiki seems to rely on instead of primary source that established academia favours) that explains Utmost good faith and the case law that it relates to inappropriate? Seems like censorship for a genuine information provided on an encyclopedia, explaining a topic within that encyclopedia, and using a citation backing up that information? 110.33.188.54 ( talk) 13:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Why has the present situation of Parental Alienation in Ireland (where I live) been edited into an ill informed piece of information. I cited the content given as advised and yet it was deleted? Is this a form of censorship? Please advise and proive what information was wrong that I added?
The changes I made included 1. A Government TD citing that Parental Alienation motion to recognise and address Parental Alienation had been passed by 30 Councils plus a drirect quote from a government website of goverment action to adress Parental Aliention by "76 Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations Q3 Civil Justice – Policy Research and Data Analytics" Both evidenced and factual and strengthening the article. You deleted them? I fear you are not editing this article in a helpful or objective manner? What is your hidden agenda here?
I welcomed more than a handful of those socks and even gave one them a tip on fixing dead links. Facepalm
S0091 (
talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Arllaw. Writing you back regarding my addition to the
Traffic_collision page. Under legal I added information about what you typically do following a car crash. I believe it's makes for an encyclopedia post, as it offers a reader basic information about what to do from a legitimate lawyer. After reading the guidelines, it doesn't appear that I'm violating anything there. I've been contributing to Wiki since 2008, so I believe I know the process. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you.
Jayo68 — Preceding
undated comment added 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for mistakenly deleting your comment. It was my wrong choice after warning for editing conflict. Forgive me. -- Joep Zander ( talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
You undid my edit on the Shower page, and I was just adding a citation for someone else's assertion there(and not spamming or anything like that). In this case, I could ONLY find a plumber site talking about the extra drains that get installed in Australia. I'm trying to understand and get better at editing: Should we remove the statement/assertion until a better source can be found? I'm not sure what to do in this case. I thought I had the right answers from the Tea House ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_can_I_add_a_citation_to_the_shower_page?) Please advise - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The charge of being a spammer seems to be related to websites I am adding where I see citations needed, but don't we need to find URLs to support what contributors have asserted in these articles. It seemed like an easy contribution I could make, and I am doing spelling/grammar changes also. I want to understand: 1. Why a plumber in Australia is not seen as the right source for plumbing facts about Australia. Who else would we cite? And 2. Why the the Expert Witness citation wasn't workable (that site is from Peter Kent, the author of "PPC for dummies" and some other books. I didn't cite his book, but a post that he made about being an expert witness. It looks like he's been involved in some big cases with Pinterest etc - so what is that source missing in notoriety? I cited him as a source of who usually pays the bill for expert witnesses, and found his site through a Google search. Should I just stop with finding citations? Isn't the Tea House where I go for mentoring? Thank you for helping me understand(which I did with the Shower page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to receive my papers or my money back 65.35.0.62 ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, Arlaw! I noticed you refined a couple citations I added (to Expert Witness and Pearl), and I wanted to thank you. Also, to apologize for making an edit that required you to clean up after me!
I was hoping I might ask you for some advice, if you have time. Outside of the fields in which I work, I've found that my Google-Scholar-Fu is weak. Specifically, when I search to find a citation, I either get too many irrelevant results or else none. For things like economics and medicine, I can usually find what I'm looking for, but less so for others. (E.g., law, aquaculture.) So my question is: how did you find scholarly sources so quickly? I settled for what I could find on google, but sources from a journal (such as you added) are by far preferable. I'd like to avoid making editors like you clean up after me, if possible!
In any case, thanks for your time in reading this, and your help in getting better sources! EducatedRedneck ( talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have gone through the reversal of edits made at /info/en/?search=Medical_malpractice. I am a newbie and it is possible I made a mistake. But I would like to know why, so that I may not repeat the same mistake again. The case of Dr. Shreelata Datta is a well-known case study of malpractice where she "did private work while on paid sick leave". This is a real case of a real named doctor, as even the BMJ citation says. This case is reflected in several websites also. Please be kind enough to educate me why it is not a case study. Many thanks for your inputs in anticipation.
Just a note that MOS:ELLIPSES requires use of three periods ("..."), not the Unicode character ("…"). -- Beland ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)