User talk:JRPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, JRPG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! __meco 13:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
A minor collision seems to have occurred in the English Channel!! A photo from the History section has run into the next section and I'm not yet fully up top speed with how to sort it.
- It's not perfect, but I've applied two quick fixes. First, the {{-}} template will keep text or images in one section from overflowing into another section (it sort of "pushes down" the other section until). Second, having two images very close together on the left margin, with differing sizes, appears to have had some confusing results. Hope that resolves things well enough, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Structural problems in Groby Old Hall
I don't know what is wrong but I suspect there is a fault in the Leicestershire stub template.
The orphaned image doesn't appear anywhere in the text and is nothing whatever to do with me!!
Thanks in advance JRPG 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed it. The image here on English Wikipedia was deleted as the same image appeared on Wikipedia Commons. However, that image was deleted on Commons itself as duplicate as another image on Commons. I've fixed the template to use the image at this "new" location. KTC 23:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Dogger Bank incident
Commented on the talk page of the article. Ingolfson 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirects after merge
North Sea
Hey. It's been a while but I finally went back over the North Sea article and am hoping to renominate it for GA shortly. As an active contributor to the serious improvements made a year or so ago, I'd like to invite you to take a fresh look at it, do any clean up or copy editing I've missed and generally think about how to make it better. Thanks -- Jieagles (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
North Sea
Thank you for your contributions to the North Sea article. I have re-written some sections so that they can have sources, references and citations for every fact. Can you be a second set of eyes, and see if every number, year, new piece of info has a citation please. If you see a copy edit that needs being done, could you also help the article in the midst of the GA review. The GA review is currently studying the verifiablity of the article and if it is properly referenced with verifiable sources for facts. Kind Regards and thank you.SriMesh | talk 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
| The Special Barnstar | ||
| In appreciation of the hard work you have put into improving The Equitable Life Assurance Society --NSH001 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
Re Ros Altmann
I read the Talk page and see that you have placed article text there as a reference- I understand that you think it may go away from access on the internet, but leaving it on Talk is not a good idea. Maybe you could find it on the Way back machine? If you have the old link to it, you should be able to find it, and it would be better to link to it there. Good Luck Riverpa (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your effort on this. Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice took over the Department of Constitutional affairs -and ..surprise, surprise they seemed not to think the document worth keeping. Unfortunately its too late for "Way Back" though it is available on subscription websites for anyone looking for the title. Would you suggest I removed it from the Talk page as it's probably served its purpose? JRPG (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Mike Penning
Thanks for your comments, glad not to have started an argument. The dog bowl seems petty, I know, but I think it reflects well on Penning (and I'm no Tory). It's also an illustration of how otherwise decent MPs may have been dragged into the "expenses scandal" net. Yeah, we should keep an eye on political bios for improper amends - for or against. Penning's bio seems rather thin, omitting references to the local hospital, to his opposition to the re-opening of Buncefield and also his political location within the Conservative Party, for example. Ayfer Orhan's is even thinner. I added him and other, former, MPs to the "Politics in Dacorum" category. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given your interests are rather similar to mine, shipwrecks and politicians (no connection implied), you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Re Ayfer Orhan, there is consideration on the forum to deleting entries for people who have no notability other than being candidates. For the record, I am expanding the profile of capable MPs I've met irrespective of party, the country needs them.
Regards JRPG (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've started Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire and I'd appreciate your comments on whether it's a worthwhile task, bearing in mind the "notability" issue. An alternative would be to alter the page to provide thumbnails of candidates (or have both formats), similar to Primary schools in Dacorum, which might address the notability issue of each candidate. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Based on my own experience- and other comments I really would hesitate to do this and I've already refused a request from a candidate in my own constituency. In the absence of decent sources people use their own blogs or other dubious/libellous material and it degenerates, ruining the article's educational value. I had to remove an external link to the Guardian, Rate your MP as a single individual had filled pages of it.
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Articles on Prospective Parliamentary Candidates for Election 2010
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Constituencies individual constituencies are low importance. To me this is incomprehensible as 60 marginals decide the election.
- Based on my own experience- and other comments I really would hesitate to do this and I've already refused a request from a candidate in my own constituency. In the absence of decent sources people use their own blogs or other dubious/libellous material and it degenerates, ruining the article's educational value. I had to remove an external link to the Guardian, Rate your MP as a single individual had filled pages of it.
Regards JRPG (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Footnote:Theres a fascinating gadget at http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/mike%20penning JRPG (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Equitable Life v Hyman
Hello JRPG, I would like to expand it, especially if it'd help you, but I might not do it straight away; just lots of stuff on. But if you want to ask specific questions I'm more than happy to look things up and help like that. It's an important case for contract law too. I think it wasn't unexpected - I would have blamed the directors in charge immediately before the collapse - who thought they could fist the GAR policy holders - they were a group of men whose integrity was a far cry from the people in charge since 18th century, who had had discretion, but never used it irrationally or to defeat people's legitimate expectations. It was such a shame to see the society brought to its knees as well - they could have done so much differently even after the judgment, but chose to let it go down. It was the height of hypocrisy when the former CEOs and Chairmen joined in blaming the government for failure to regulate its callousness! It'd be like watching the City blaming the government for the current financial crisis (well some probably are)? Well, that's just my impression, and I actually know very little but the bits I've seen in case law - do you think that's the wrong idea? Did you have personal experience with it? Best, Wikidea 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a small policy -but one taken out when the GAR case was imminent. I campaigned on company pensions at the same time as people were campaigning on Equitable. I know some of the people who wrote the original article, they were called as witnesses by the European Parliament and make regular tv appearances. They were experts ..but the article was a personal saga and therefore a disaster. I rewrote it as a favour ..and it took forever. The actuarian contributor NSH001 was interesting but blamed the HOL. I share your view that the GAR people had a point ..but were greedy. The European Parliament information was stunning. EU countries gave up local regulation to the UK which held the head office but -just didn't bother. Their report unfortunately had to be without prejudice. I hadn't dared remove the expert tags but the original writers all had professional financial qualifications and it was also checked by a leading Independent Trustee. The company is of real interest as a historic use of a maths/stats financial model as well as its modern legal and political importance, hence this article could go somewhere.
On another note, my degree is physics, interest is history and law and politics ..and I cribbed your radio4 box!
Regards JRPG (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Tobin
Hi, I saw your comment about a police visit regarding content in the article and libel, have you got a link to a discussion or report about that, I would like to read about that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph, response by Alison W
I have to say the whole thing proved nonsense in that Similar fact evidence was given i.e. the prosecution brought up the previous cases themselves.
Being right however is of little consolation if facing a punishment for contempt of court and I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole at that point. Re libel, Barry George has successfully sued but this was for allegations made after his conviction was overturned. They could have said what they liked had he remained convicted as his reputation was worthless.
Regards JRPG (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting, there is an issue with untrained writers and misrepresentation, I wonder how wikipedia is not sued more. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cyclopia. Your "impossibly long achived discussion .." included Wikipedia referenced in Tobin case. Have you noticed several IPs are single issue contributions i.e. this vote. I strongly hope they have nothing to do with the case. There's another dubious edit referring to John Haig which shows how easy it is to make mistakes. BTW I'm not sure whether breeching UK law is punishable, on conviction, elsewhere in the EU. JRPG (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I've seen several articles talking about WP involvement but none talking about lawsuits or warnings against UK editors. The comment by AlisonW was quite enough however. The still unresolved point is, however: does an UK (or EU) editor face a reasonable risk of being sued? And in any case, what to do? Looks like something Mike Godwin should answer on behalf of the Foundation -and in fact he did on a very related case (also from ) : "Update: Mike Godwin replied to my email. His response is below. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) "The Foundation's official position is that we are subject to American law, including the state and Constitutional law doctrines governing defamation in the United States. The Foundation would oppose any BLP policy that recognized and attempted to adapt to the defamation laws of any other jurisdiction. We are of course aware that some individuals may attempt to sue is in a foreign jurisdiction and attempt to enforce such a judgment in the United States. We have prepared for that possibility.
- "Under no circumstances should the BLP policy be altered as a reaction to perceptions of the risk of defamation liability in non-U.S. jurisdictions."
- Here it is not defamation, but the clear concept seems that WP answers only USA/Florida law, not else.
- Also: BBC seems to happily publish and keep on line information about the case, see here, and I am sure they're much more aware than us of this kind of problems. If they do that, I can't see why we couldn't. --Cyclopiatalk 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly I was on the receiving end in 2000, of what I believe was fraud involving a multi millionaire venture capitalist, a major donor to the Labour party with a lot of political influence. When I pursued the issue, I got a warning from their lawyers -which I knew I could safely ignore. The story was printed in 2 major UK sunday newspapers and the lawyers checked every line and allowed the guy a right of reply. A third newspaper scrapped an article after the threat of an injunction. Note the comparison with Wikipedia. A balanced article from a decent source, properly cited, will already have been checked by the source and is not a WP:BLP issue. We however are getting uncited assumption of guilt comments such as someone saying he's not the first mass murderer from his school.
- Its only on a talk page but its both libellous and prejudicial, the latter being potentially a criminal matter.
Will Griffiths have a subsequent trial or retrial? If so the article may have to be taken down c.f. Tobin. Will some fool write something stupid whilst the trial is in progress? My suspicion is that trial rules are changing with the times. The judge will accept everyone has heard about the case, will tell the jury to ignore it and will have read the discussion. However he has the power to punish anyone under his jurisdiction if he wishes and that will be very bad publicity. The article is OK at present and should be protected during the trial. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- UK editors are potentially at risk of libel if and only if they don't cite a good source. In practice, libel is unlikely and non criminals can complain about their entry.
- If a UK newspaper editor is deemed to have behaved in a way prejudicial to the trial, he is at serious risk of being hauled before the judge and given a short prison sentence for Contempt of court. In practice, a warning is given first. An UK or EU Wikipedia editor connected to a witness/accused and using their knowledge could expect a prison sentence ..and worryingly we have a few IPs making their first edit.
- It's untested in the courts but I believe a UK administrator who ignored a court request is at risk as they will be presumed to understand the rules. It would be politically impossible for EU citizens to be singled out ahead of UK citizens. A US citizen is not under any UK jurisdiction.
- I'd like to see the page frozen and advice from a UK solicitor. The alternative is to wait to see if any guidance is issued by the judge.
- UK editors are potentially at risk of libel if and only if they don't cite a good source. In practice, libel is unlikely and non criminals can complain about their entry.





