Talk:Childs v Desormeaux

I'm getting really sick and fucking tired of whatever cheese eating highschool boy is writing in case summaries. This one is not even close to the worst so far, but look can we just get some sort of 'agreement' from you wikipedia morons to at least attempt to use the case summaries available from quicklaw etc to guide your entries?

I'm seriously going to just start erasing case summaries. If some memo-mad 1st year with half a brain used some of the case summaries I've fixed in the last year from time to time they'd be drummed out of law school as clinically retarded.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think many of the summaries were written with the intention of being correct or complete right off the bat. I suspect you may have the wrong expectations for what you are reading. As with virtually everything else on wikipedia, material it is all a work in progress. The errors and gaps are should motivate people to correct them. It is unfortunate that it has had the opposite effect with you. I completely agree that some of the articles are very poor, but I don't see the need to be paternalistic to the student who wants rely on materials that is noticably incomplete and unclear. On each page there is a link to the actual case so I don't think it unreasonable or onerous to expect a reader to verify what they read by checking the actual decision. If they want to rely on potentially incorrect information without doing any further due diligence then that is entirely up to them. While I understand you may be frustrated, I don't see any reason not to try to improve what is already there rather than reject the whole thing outright. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on what you see as wrong in each article, I'm certain we can work on getting it right. --PullUpYourSocks 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Childs v Desormeaux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414112501/http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2004/2004onca10739.html to http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2004/2004onca10739.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2002/2002onsc10004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)