User talk:Stuartyeates/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A kitten for you!

For continuing to update the GLAM newsletter with news from New Zealand. :D And offering to set the world in the correct orientation map wise. We know which countries are on top. ;)

LauraHale (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning users

Hi, thank you for your vigilance. However, warnings such as this need to go on the user talk page rather than at WP:AIV. I have warned the IP. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, completely my mistake. I'll try and be more awake next time. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not...

I would rather NOT have to revert your revert (see WP:BRD) on the list of ubiquitous whatever, then lock the article down. So, I'll give you the opportunity to self-revert, and help in the process of WP:SOFIXIT. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I believed I was helping the process of WP:SOFIXIT. Taking Australia as an example (as per your suggestion on the talk page), none of the research centers appear to be notable, none are mentioned on their wikipedia page and none of the references is to an independent source. If you feel the need to revert and lock, so be it. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alberto Zelman (musician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Charles Henry Zercho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Ethel May Eliza Zahel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mackay

Gertrude Mary Zichy-Woinarski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Frederick Victor Grey Wymark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Stawell and Victoria

John James Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mayo and Ballina

Richard Youl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Town and Victoria

Stephen Edwin Yarnold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Silvan and Victoria

William John Yuill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sebastian and Victoria

Alfred Youl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perth

Charles Adam Marie Wroblewski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Edward Lowenstern Yencken (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Florence Maude Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Frederick William Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blyth

Frederick William Zercho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Gum Yuen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perth

Harry Wyatt Wunderly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Henry Douglas Wynter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Henry Peter Zwar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

John Dickson Wyselaskie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

John Henry Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Sydney

Leslie James Wrigley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Robert Young (clergyman) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ryton

William John Young (pastoralist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antrim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Igloo (New Zealand)

I have added several refs from news websites to the Igloo article. Igloo has plenty of information on other sites. One of the refs I added was new info from this month.

I have also removed most of the information about Igloo from the Sky page so the info doesn't exist on any other page.

Igloo article shouldn't be deleted because it is a seperate provider even though it is a joint venture between TVNZ and SKY. Socks ⁰¹ 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Owen Wilkes

The DYK project (nominate) 09:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian dictionary articles

I think you need to change your template for the articles. You are putting "They were born" on individual people. Charles Henry Zercho is an example. I've also cleaned up several more... Their first names start with the letters A-I. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten my script to avoid the need for a gender-dependent pronoun. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you also please not place the articles in the parent category Category:Australian people. Unlike Category:New Zealand people we like to diffuse the articles into by occupation or some other sub-cat rather than lump them all in a single cat. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the category from recently created people and removed it from my script. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The New Zealand people category should also not contain people directly, but I appreciate that your script cannot determine which subcat to use. I'll start moving people into subcats over the next few weeks.-gadfium 05:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done A-F. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Found another problem. Edward Thomas Jones Wrench & Arthur Ferdinand Yencken... "was an Australian . " Doesn't say what they did. Bgwhite (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In both cases these are businesspeople who are minor subjects of the ADB article in question. Three is no way to automatically much information about them from the article. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography and it was agreed to include them. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about to include or not include them. Just that I found a couple of people that didn't say what they did. btw, the Biography banner on the talk page doesn't include listas. The article goes into a tracking category, where I find it and add listas to it. I also see the main article to see if any work groups or other banners should be added. I'm not trying to stalk your contributions...in real life that is a different story. :) Bgwhite (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin Leo Zöllner is another. Bgwhite (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the ADB that I'm drawing these things from there are some entries which are pretty spartan. I'll try extract more. I'm adding identical talk-page content to every article I create, because I don't have good tool support for anything else. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh—created tool support, let me know what you think. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Couple of things.. Recently there has been a change to how you are populating NAME in Personadata. For, "John Doe Smith", it should be "NAME = Smith, John Doe". But recently you have been doing "NAME = John Doe Smith" (two space between Doe and Smith). The two spaces are also showing up in the name at the begininng of the article.

I've updated my script to hopefully avoid this. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Sir" and other honorifics should not be used in the title of the article unless the person is commonly associated with it... Mother Teresa for example. The "Sir" should also not be part of DEFAULSTORT. Bgwhite (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done remove all the Sirs from my next page of results which should solve the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where to place this up above, so I'll do it at the end. I'm not trying to criticize you in anyway. I know how hard it is to script this type of stuff up and it is not easy or just plain impossible. I saw you earlier creating an article for almost every dead New Zealander and it looks like Australia's source isn't as nice. You aren't adding a parameter to the talk pages which causes the article to go onto a tracking category. Part of my daily routine is to clear out the category. You are not putting extra work in my basket. So, I add what is needed to the talk pages. No need to change what you are doing there. I've got some tools that make quick work of it. It also gives me a chance to give a quick look in case something is wrong. Please don't create an article for every dead Australian and if you start on China or India, lets just say it will be painful :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm working thought the Australian Dictionary of Biography as I previously worked through the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, whose featured people have notability via longstanding consensus based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I'm using personal judgment to skip some individuals, for example this evening I skipped Ignatz Wortman, who I feel may not have been notable enough (but I'm not Australian, so there may be something I'm missing). I do value feedback, the best features of my script(s) are the result of third party feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I already knew you were creating articles from the Dictionaries. I've also noticed the speedy delete messages. I just had to give you a hard time about it. Ahh crap and more crap. Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you mention it, I have access to the personnel details of ~100,000 NZEF members, maybe I'll start in on them? Stuartyeates (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New articles

		The Biography Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new articles Paul Dibble, Oliver Holmes Woodward, Lake Falconer Ayson and others. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of notable people are appreciated! Northamerica1000(talk) 08:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

notice

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic_ban_of_single_purpose_account_on_pyramid_sales_scheme

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calendar2 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Thomas Worrall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Castle Hill

Ernest Henry Wreford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria

Isabel Annie Aves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Napier

List of libraries in New Zealand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Treasury

Thomas Worsnop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wortley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Crimes Act

Hi, I see that you've put two notices on the Crimes Act article --- I definitely agree with the second one, and as to the first one, while I'm slightly curious as to who you think has a conflict of interest with the Crimes Act (of all things!) is there a particular pov you think is being adopted that is problematic? Am quite happy to take a stab at improving this article soonish. Cheers, Pho-logic (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

George Wootten and George Frederick Wootten

FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Converted to redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedural de-prod

Hi, I de-prodded Virginity (EP) because it had been proposed for deletion once already. You can take it to AfD instead. Camerafiend (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Re: top ban proposal. [1]

I appreciate all your time on this article and taking the time to comment on the ban. It is nice that as far as pyramid schemes, there is at least one thing all wikpedians can agree on. Have a really great weekend! Calendar2 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Sensible Sentencing Trust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Crowe

Edited your short peice on the above, fixed spelling of Ballindooley. Not sure why she is notable, however, so perhaps more information would be useful. Fergananim (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Adèle Euphrasie Barbier

Is there anything that makes her notable? NealeFamily (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (New Zealand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Murray Wilson

Apart from being a pretty obnoxious character, is there anything that gives Wilson notability? NealeFamily (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

NZHPT Category I listings

As you know, I'm an admirer of your ability to take a database, write some clever script, and then add a lot of patience and hard work to turn out stubs that pretty much cover a topic area. I'm guessing that you are still going strong with Australian biographies. This will come to an end at some point and I wonder whether you are open to suggestions?

One topic area with 100% notability would be structures listed as Category I with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. I once gave the area some structure on Wikipedia as well as on Commons, and I have written many an article on Christchurch listings, but that latter activity proofed too distressing and depressing to carry on with. A somewhat more positive pitch would be to get the Category I listings up nationwide. Would that be something you could be interested in? Schwede66 08:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I've not even been making much progress on the Australian biographies. I've been snowed under with things IRL, including a fulltime job, part time uni, family, etc. NZHPT is on my list of things to script, and I've already got as far as confirming that it's script-able. I'll get back to it eventually, probably. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Great to see that our interests cross over. I have it on my agenda to write to NZHPT to explore whether they would entertain changing the licence on the write ups to creative commons. Schwede66 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Format for quotations

Hi Stuart. I've noticed in some of your recent work that you are using italics for what I perceive to be quotations. If they are quotations, then double quotation marks (straight not curly) should be used rather than italics. Double quotation marks are usually made with the Shift key plus the apostrophe/quotation mark key. Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking that pressing the apostrophe key twice (unshifted) makes double quotation marks. See Manual of Style#Quotation marks and other sections of MOS. Please excuse me if I am misinterpreting or "teaching my grandmother to suck eggs". Keep up the good work. cheers. Nurg (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not mistaken, just too lazy to find out the correct way of doing it. I'll try and remember. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UltraCommuter

Hi Stuart - I managed to do some research over lunchtime and found that this is likely to be notable in its own right. The vehicle would be one of the first NZ electric cars (if the first) in the Solar Challenge and is one of only two vehicles that have reached prototype stage with the aim of becoming a production version. It has links to the University of Queensland, which I still need to research more thoroughly and is possibly the basis for the current Waikato University solar electric car. The electric motors powering it may also be unique. I have improved the references and tidied up some of the information. Still a way to go though. Thanks for spotting the article, as I have been working on the Automotive industry in New Zealand and this car is significant in relation to its development. It could be the basis of a whole new trend. NealeFamily (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stuart, I am now reasonably confident that the article meets WP:V and WP:RS standards. It was quite easy to find a range of main media sources including some research papers, a bit of puffery from supporting companies, and academic comment both in NZ and Australia. Take a look when you get the chance and let me know if you think the references are sufficient to support it. NealeFamily (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

WIKIPEDIA IS KITTENS!

Pppowercurve (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Department of Corrections (New Zealand)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg Markets Follow-Up

Hi-there. Last week we discussed edits to the Bloomberg Markets article. I know you may be busy and it fell of your radar, but how do you think it would be best to proceed with these edits? Thanks.--RivBitz (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd use the AfC process. Do this by reading that page and then putting {{subst:afc submission/submit}} at the top of your sandbox page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to submit these edits to the existing article? I do not want my conflict of interest to interfere with any wiki guidelines.--RivBitz (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The AfC process is specifically designed to handle problematic and COI articles, it involves independent reviews to overcome these problems. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did just as you recommended. Do I need to alert someone that this article does exist in a very minimal state despite submitting my draft to afc?--RivBitz (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been added automatically to the review list. Currently there is a three-day backlog on reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I went through the articles for creation process as you recommended, but the article was rejected because a variation of it already exists. They suggested posting the edits myself. I am going to follow their advice, but because of my hesitation to post would you be willing to confirm on the articles talk page that you looked over my draft of edits? Thanks!--RivBitz (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Morrisseau

You haven't gotten it wrong. Morrisseau is a gadfly with no accomplishments to speak of in this area, the mostly rural state of Vermont. I suppose every neighborhood has one but they usually don't find their way into Wikipedia, I hope. Vttor (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article for RJ Williams

Apology for my last deletion to RJ Williams it wasn't meant as vandalism I just noticed several edits were made since that tag was placed--- apparently those changes werent enough so I just went ahead and made several fixes today including adding numerous citations and removing several statements that did not have citations to back it up. I intend to do some more tonight. Please review the page, as I feel most of the issues have been addressed to remove the 2 tags on the page--- if you feel otherwise please go in and make edits you see necessary to remove them as there have been quite a few edits made to the page in the last couple months since the tags. i'm a bit new to wiki so still learning how things work and just trying to understand how/when something meets the requirements of removing a tag. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.172.2 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Department of Corrections (New Zealand), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Dimensional models of personality disorders AfD

Hi Stuartyeates. I've responded to your post at the AfD for Dimensional models of personality disorders. You said to ping you if references were found and added to the page (which has happened). I also invite you to see the sources that Robertekraut provided on the AfD page, as they also seem relevant. Thanks, Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter

I've moved your investigation request here, since the user had the other name first, it appears we are supposed to add new requests under the old name. I've asked Moonriddengirl if there is some better way to do this. You'll see there is already an open CU request that includes TechnicsSL1200 that has been there a week and was summarized and endorsed yesterday. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Gold deletion

Jeff Gold deletion. Hello, I am Jeff Gold aka Jeffrey Gold. Forgive me if this isn't a properly formatted contribution, as I am not wiki literate. It seems you led the charge for the deletion of my article, and so I wanted to clarify a few things. First, Jeff and Jeffrey are both me. Second, as with film or record production, art direction can be a collaborative process and there is often more than a single person involved and credited, thus a shared award. However, I was awarded a Grammy of my own. Third, as you probably noticed, the Grammy website does not archive any nominations beyond the past year. As far as I can tell, there are no sites listing past nominees anywhere except for the Wikipedia page for best recording package, which lists all the past nominations for this award, and on which all of my nominations can be found. I am a frequent Wikipedia user, but had never heard of a sock puppet before this controversy arose, and I'm not sure I understand it fully now. But I can assure you that Jeff and Jeffrey are both me, and that all of the information in that article pertains to me. With all due respect, I hope this clarifies everything, and perhaps you'll rethink your objections in light of this new information. I invite you to contact me with any questions. Recordmecca (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Recordmecca

MacDas

Sorry, this has been previously de-PRODded, you will have to take it to AfD. 19:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand's Easter games

Can you create/improve New Zealand's Easter games and add information about it to College athletics? --LauraHale (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Gold again

Hello and thanks for the tips. I'm wondering if you had a response to my initial message and, if you still have doubts about my career, if there is some way I can clear them up for you. Kind thanks again.Recordmecca (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

DNZB template

Hi Stuart. Thanks for the comment on my page. I have made a comment at Template talk:DNZB which may be of interest to you. cheers. Nurg (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DOC mediation

I've added an opening comment. If you have any suggestions on changes (now or later in the process) to what I have written please email or edit my talk page. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited St. Patrick's College, Silverstream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Te Heuheu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem!

I felt a bit bored so I thought I give it a quick clean. :)Calaka (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

PromoJam

Although I have something against COI/Spam/ad/SPAs, I deprodded PromoJam after improving the article and left a "great" notice at User:PromoJam... mabdul 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Oliver Holmes Woodward

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Oliver Holmes Woodward. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Oliver Woodward. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Oliver Woodward - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 16:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely my fault. This was part of a mass-creation of stubs based on the DNZB. Clearly there were a few disambiguation issues in the list we were working from. Thanks for dealing with this instance. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge of various articles with GAMESS in the title

When you propose a merge, it is normal to explain your reasons on the talk page of the target article, thus starting the discussion that the mergeto and mergefrom headers point to. Could you please do so? I do not want to start the discussion myself, as I see no reason to merge these articles, which are now about totally different programs. I await your reasons, before I add to the discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

At Wikipedia_talk:Education_Working_Group#Success_metrics I changed your : to a * to get parallel formatting and clarity. If you don't like it you can revert me. Pine^(talk) 23:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Article about Shampoo (Italian Beatles parody/tribute band)

Hello Stuart. Could you please remove the "notability" tag from my article about Shampoo, the band from Naples who parodied the Beatles? Unfortunately I do not have any sources which are more reliable than the ones I used, and the ones I have are all in Italian. I think the page is useful to Beatles fans, who may be interested to find out that not only a tribute band existed in Italy in the early Eighties, but they were very accurate, even if they used parody lyrics. Ugo1970 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel the tag should stay, then if anyone who knows more about the band sees the page, that can add the resources that they know about. BTW I also created a talk page for the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note on your involvement in the mediation

Offender9000's participation is contingent on the discussion happening between me, him, and SimonLyall. You make good points, and I'd prefer if you used Simon as your proxy as you've stated. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll unwatchlist the page so I don't succumb to temptation again. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This case is fairly complicated. I don't mind if you two collaborate on what's best to say, etc., and I think you added a measure of "let's step back and actually think about this" sanity that was sorely needed. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "David E. Henderson, Kit Bigelow". Thank you.

Thanks for that. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with a newbie?

Hiya! I've run across you a few times on the AfD board, I believe, and I'm coming to you to ask for your help with an article that's currently up for deletion. I didn't write it, a new user did, and there's been some confusion as to what are considered reliable sources and whether or not an award is considered to be notable per Wikipedia's standards. I'm trying to find people that participate in the computer Wikiproject and while you're not a part of this group, I did notice that you do take part in computer articles and appear to be knowledgable. Can you help the new users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharepointboost? I will warn you, the discussion did end up running sort of hot and I've walked away from the AfD due to the user berating me for a perceived lack of awareness of SharePoint and the SP community. (Which I will admit is not my strong point, but I'm not entirely unaware of the computing world.) I'm not trying to make the other person look bad, just warning you that you will have to be diplomatic going into this as tempers might already be a little high. Despite sort of getting my hand bitten, I do actually want to help the article itself out in case it is notable. I'm running some of the sources (CMS Wire) through the RS noticeboard and I've asked another user to come in and help out with the article, but they weren't sure if they would have the time, so I'm going around to ask some of the more currently active users out there to come and help.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The I see is that most of the parties are in commercial relationships with each other and independence is deeply problematic, as it is in many trade press publications. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for outside input is the place to go. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Elizabeth Mackay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Mackay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Mackay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's College Silverstream

Hi there, Stuartyeates why have you deleted some of the school's most famous Old Boys from the article?? Are you an Old Boy of the school? You labelled as 'not notable' a number of multi-millionaire businessmen, High Court judges, District Court judges, men who have reached the top of New Zealand government and businerss in New Zealand and around the world. Unless you are an expert in the school, it's traditions and Old Boys, please refrain from wholesale deletion of important New Zealanders from the Old Boys lists. Thank you.

Nepialegs (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Nepialegs

Some of the people you added may be notable, but you need to demonstrate that, by linking to the Wikipedia article on them, or adding a citation for each person to an external source independent of them, and which also verifies their connection to the school.-gadfium 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Clark (legal scholar)

Re: Coatrack. I have revised the lead first paragraph to account for this understandable mistake. As for editorial COIs, the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism is rather like abortion in that it is hard not to have a bias, perhaps virtually impossible. Folks who intuitively feel loyalty to the principle of empire (e.g., the United Empire Loyalists in Canada) are more at ease being pejorative whereas those who favor constitutional restrictions on government power tend to back off saying anything, for fear of their own bias. Maybe so?--Evarose3 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page of the article in question. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your reply to which I would like to respond says, "In this edit on my talk page Evarose3 seems to suggest that the Wikipedia:Coatrack issue has been resolved by this edit of theirs. Nothing could be futher from the truth. The Wikipedia:Coatrack issue is that this article appears to be a biography of a person, but is actually about complex legal dispute about which this person has campagined. As far as I can see the article doesn't even mention why the dispute matters to the person (are they a first nations descendent? are they a first nations supporter?). The article needs comphrensive coverage of the subject as a person and less of the cause / issue they have campaigned on. Additionally my suggestion in relation to COIs was much more along the lines of whether any editors or their families members (and/or their published works) are mentioned in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)" First Stuart would mind reading the fresh 1st paragraph of the article to see if it affects your impression of coatrack-ness? Secondly concerning your suggestion in that passage that the article is a political campaign masquerading as a biography, Clark was only ever a lawyer trying to get a constitutional question addressed. Finally you suggest that more personal interest information about the person as a person and less about the complex issue might help. I agree, but I can not use it. He is a fascinating person but all of my knowledge of that is based upon reputation and personal interviews, both of which fall into the forbidden category of original research. There are no secondary sources on that aspect precisely because it is not academically profitable to be seen as favoring the man who struggles against the imperial genocide with the rule of law. I would love to answer the question of why he did what he did and is doing, as you suggest. Could you get the article a dispensation?--70.26.28.64 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked, "As far as I can see the article doesn't even mention why the dispute matters to the person (are they a first nations descendent? are they a first nations supporter?)." Can you not see that preventing the genocide-in-progress of his clients, and opposing the treasonable breach of the constitutional duty to uphold the supremacy of the constitution, both of which are identified in the draft article, is a necessary and sufficient reason for Clark to devote his life to the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism? I am not aware of any vested or personal interest of Clark in the subject outside of that, nor have I heard or read any suggestion otherwise. If I had I would have made disclosure, of course. Is it not possible that this business of labeling is facile and inappropriate in spite of your absolute assurance of the rectitude of, and unswerving devotion to, your initial position?--Evarose3 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On my Talk page I see that you have entered a reply to my revision of the 1st paragraph. You say, Responding to this edit. (a) The current article, as it stands is remains a Wikipedia:Coatrack, which is not about any particular section of the article, but about the overall balance of the article; there are two entire sections where the subject is not even mentioned. (b) I still find it unlikely that article will be accepted into wikipedia without a complete rewrite. (c) There is no dispensation. (d) there are jurisdictions where it is academically profitable to be seen as favoring the man who struggles against the imperial genocide with the rule of law; consider this output, for example; I've already given an example above of a suggested model from this jurisdiction. (e) A COI declaration on your user page is a really good idea if you hope to make headway; you may notice one on my user page, for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)" Please bear with my questions on each of your positions:

Position (a): Would you mind telling which two concern you in particular so I can concentrate upon improving those two?

Position (b): How can it be re-written when Clark is not notable except in so far as, and to the extent he has been involved with the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism? Is what you really mean is you just do not like its message and, since it is not re-writable, it should be withdrawn?

Position (c): Since there is no dispensation why would you ask for petty data about personal interest that can only come from inadmissible original research, when the main issue is so overwhelmingly significant in any event of personal interest?

Position (d): Do you really think that cosmetically giving publicity to protesters, whose protests do not bother the empire, is the same as using the rule of law that by raising constitutionalism is capable of defeating the empire?

Position (e): Can you explain what "A COI declaration on your user page" would actually say? What is my user page and where on that page will I place the declaration? Thanks.--Evarose3 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(a) No, since I believe that starting again is appropiate apporach. (b) I believe that there is a good article on this topic somewhere and multiple good articles in you as an editor, otherwise I would no have engaged with you to the extent that I have. (c) A biography requires biographical material; much of the material is clearly non biographical. (d) I never said they were the same. I merely suggested a solidly written article to use as a potential structure for this biography. (The fact that a number of long-standing legal precidents have been overturned in the last 50 years is a matter to discuss another day) (e) Currently, when you sign your name using the four tildes method, there is a red link on your name (and a blue link for your talk page), this is your user page. Clicking the Evarose3 link will take you to your user page and you can briefly describe your COI there. Once you have a user page the red links will go blue (indicating that it leads to a page that exists, rather than one that doesn't). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(a) Does the fact that there is no additional biographical material that is not either original research or the subject's own books and articles not signify that starting again is not an option, and, if so, that what you really mean is to forget it? (b) Thanks and I hope I can bring you to see that it is the story of a man and his issue which happens to be a very big issue that requires some explanation to understand for if I can not I feel I shall have to give up. (c) Would not a biography of Einstein (and no I am not equating the subject with him) include the theory of relativity and his cosmological constant and recantation and so on? That is, how can you write a biographical sketch about a single-issue person without doing justice to the single issue? (d) Are you saying that the organization of the example you gave is different aside from the fact the protester was involved with facts not law and that makes exposition easier? (e) Yes, but what is the formula of words for me to insert as the COI? Thanks again. This is sure hard work, no?--Evarose3 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On October 28, 2011, the subject's article "Weather Forecast. War Clouds. Blood Reign." was published at http://readersupportednews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8127. It provides personal information. Would you mind looking at this to understand the dilemma over not being able to use original research or writings by the subject? I wonder how an article like the one to which you referred me on the New Zealand indigenous person got published when it is largely original research, is it not? I would love to be able to quote the 1st paragraph from the Reader's Supported News article!--Evarose3 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added six new refs to the article, along with the facts they can be used to support. They all contain detailed information on the Clark. The whole lot needs some work to be converted into a proper biography. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stuart: I have re-written and re-titled the article "Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D." Please be so kind as to review it. It is in my Sandbox. I do not know how to change the title officially or how to get it out of the Sandbox and established the candidate article. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The alternative re-write is now available at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D. This is not about your normal "activists' publicity-seeking' as you once said (or something like that). Please talk to me to improve the fresh endeavor. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the second attempt is a mistake. It's an essay not an encyclopedia artile. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer), which is now in article space. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, that looks very good. I've been trying to encourage Evarose on her(?) talk page as I agree with you that there is potential for some good articles here if she can channel her enthusiasm. The example of your rewrite on Bruce Clark will, I hope, encourage her although I note her flood of contributions over the weekend came to a sudden stop. I hope she hasn't given up in disgust. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not disgust. Fatigue. Sadness. Despair. I had confused the word encyclopedia with truth and now realize it signifies what mainstream media says. See, Delgamuukw v. AGBC paragraph [77] at which the Court says, "This defect in the pleadings prevents this Court from considering the merits of this appeal." The case decided nothing. It is all obiter dicta piled on a rejection based upon a procedural ruling going to the inadequacy of the Indian plaintiffs' statement of claim. The newspapers do not see it that way so your error is adequate for the purposes of Wikipedia. At least half of Clark's cases were in the USA. One does not need a licence to appear in the provincial court of British Columbia on a 1st appearance. Anyway, lawyers from one province appear in the others as a matter of course upon the basis of a rubber stamp, except for Clark. The newspapers do not mention that. In spite of my misunderstanding about the point of Wikipedia I am sorry to be losing touch with you and Kim and Matthew. All the best,--70.26.30.227 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)--Evarose3 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evarose, you have painfully arrived at what I think is one of the most important things to know about WP, that indeed it is not so much about truth as it is about verifiability. (Explore those two links for more of the thinking behind that.) It doesn't necessarily depend exclusively on what the mainstream media says; sources only have to be reliable, not mainstream. But it does mean that it is sometimes hard to find sources for what one knows oneself to be true as I have discovered for myself. Hard, but not always impossible. I do understand if you have found this process too demoralising to continue, but if you do decide to give it another go please message me on my talk page or in your own. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I can not find on Kim Dent-Brown's talk page an opening to talk to him but I do want to thank him for his insight. In spite of his insight I still do not understand how a refereed M.A. thesis such as Mahony's supposedly has no verifying value for exposing the cogent reason mainstream media got it all wrong about Clark and Gustafsen Lake, but that the demonstrably biased ("smear and disinformation" avowed by RCMP as a modern police propaganda tool against activists) mainstream media reports supposedly do have verifying value. Secondly, Stuart Yeates entirely has missed or evaded the legal point of the Delgamuukw case. The newspapers and all the lawyers except Clark speak of it as being highly relevant to the definition of aboriginal rights for constitutional law purposes. But the judges at paragraph [77] indicate that the case is devoid of precedent value and, more importantly, the Court per Chief Justice Lamer on a preliminary motion by Clark on September 12, 1995, said, "If you had decided to initiate or if you decide tomorrow morning to initiate in the Supreme Court of British Columbia an action for declaratory relief saying that the British Columbia courts have no jurisdiction, that is a different matter and you could be arguing to the judge that, well, this is an issue that has never been tried...There is no doubt that this is a constitutional case." The CJ's legal point is that the issue of Canada's jurisdiction (and therefor the Court's that derives its jurisdiction by legislative grant from Canada) over yet unceded Indian territory is an outstanding constitutional question. Aside from the fact that any lawyer who raises it, as Clark did on September 15, 1995, will be guilty of criminal contempt of court and disbarred seems to be lost on Mr Yeates. Or, rather, he has the point but prefers the mainstream lie that Delegamuukw is a precedent on the merits. And I do know how he could miss the point if he read my previous submission. Do you?--Evarose3 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evarose, to communicate on my talk page you just go to the link (via 'talk' after my signature) and click the 'New Section' tab at the top of the page. But I'm happy to discuss here as long as Stuart doesn't mind.... Now, about the Master's thesis: the policy atWP:SCHOLARSHIP says that PhD theses are acceptable, but that Master's theses are not (unless they can be shown to have had an academic influence in terms of being cited by other authors.) There might be all sorts of arguments against that, but at present that is the policy. However, there is a way of using at least some of the thesis material. I've looked at it and as well as the primary research there are numerous citations of things such as books and newspaper articles. Because these are reliable sources in their own right, we can cite them directly. Your second point about Delegamuukw evades me altogether, I'm afraid. I have no legal training and your explanation is not clear enough for a lay person like me to follow. So like Stuart, I miss your point because it is not made clearly enough. But beware - using language like "he has the point but prefers the mainstream lie" betrays a WP:POV that, like it or not, you are going to have to put behind you if you are going to edit here. If you can make your point about Delegamuukw in a clear, neutral way, citing reliable sources of some sort, we can do business. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to various points above (direct or implicit) from Evarose3:

(a) Masters' Theses aren't usually externally peer reviewed, so they're considered to have much less weight than PhD Theses.

(b) I'm completely aware of the legal point which I didn't cover in the article, it's a variation on perhaps the largest issue in indigenious rights world-wide, and I have worked on articles on dozens of indigenious activists including a number of lawyers, so I've seen this before. I excluded it because I couldn't find independent sources which covered it in this case. If you can find independent secondary sources which cover it in plain english (not legalese) I suggest that you have a stab at adding it yourself. Be aware, however, that it should not dominate the article and both sides of the arguement needed to be covered in approximate proportion to their standing in the wider world. If you have the sources and prefer to leave them the writing to me, feel free to post them here or to the talk page of the biography (be aware I personally deal only in digital sources).

(c) An encyclopedia, like a court briefing, has a particular style and a definite range of things that can and can't be covered. You will make far better progress if you learn the basics. In particular: we consider that cases which have reached the Supreme Court are notable (=worth of having their own article), see Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases for what such articles look like; articles which contain only passing mentions to living people have more leeway in many respects (essentially to avoid libel); and beware WP:FRINGE.

(d) On wikipedia, sources are almost everything. If you don't have access to a research library you may want to apply for access to highbeam (see Wikipedia:HighBeam).

I hope this helps. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The legal information needed for correctly dealing with both Clark and the Delgamuukw case follows. For strictly legal purposes one begins by asking, "What is the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court of Canada case of Delgamuukw v. AGBC? First as for the case presented by the lawyers consenting to the Court’s jurisdiction in spite of the objection to jurisdiction raised by the plaintiff for whom Bruce Clark was counsel of record, the Court held, “[74] I reject the submission with respect to the substitution of aboriginal tile and self-government for the original claims of ownership and jurisdiction … [75] The content of common law aboriginal title, for example, has not been authoritatively determined by this Court … [77] This defect in the pleadings prevents this Court from considering the merits of this appeal.”

The ratio decidendi is:—the constitutional question of the paramountcy over a Canadian Crown Government’s and Court’s jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe’s territorial sovereignty pending proof of a surrender, by treaty, is a legitimate and outstanding constitutional question that this Court has never decided, since it has never been tried. Aside from that, the Court expressly and explicitly avowed it decided nothing of precedent value regarding the alleged Indian constitutional interest.

Clark was convicted and disbarred for raising the same issue three days later on the ground that the Supreme Court of Canada along with every other of the other some forty courts before which the issue was raised supposedly had tried and decided it. Even so the world still revolves around the sun and, correspondingly the issue is not tried and decided:—the Provincial Court judge on a first appearance on 15 September 1995 could not and did not overrule the Supreme Court of Canada on the same point of law on 12 September 1995. The only standing ratio decidendi is that of the leading case of Delgamuukw v. AGBC, an express and explicit acknowledgment and recognition that Clark’s constitutional question is legitimate and outstanding.

Not that it is ever likely to be raised again as an issue given the example established by the conviction and disbarment of Clark for having done so. That presumably was the practical objective of the RCMP’s smear and disinformation. In consequence of it there was no evidence of public pressure to let justice be seen to be done so successfully had Clark been smeared. RCMP Superintendent Len Olfert said, “Kill this Clark, smear the prick and everyone with him.” The smear succeeded so well that for all practical purposes Clark and the issue he identified and defined are both dead.

That ain’t no way to treat a legitimate and outstanding constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone, of which the Convention of the Law Society of Upper Canada held in a decision rendered in one of the disbarment attempts against Clark, dated 19 June 1996:

Mr Clark has devoted his career to the advancement of the cause of native rights in Canada. He has studied the subject at the graduate school level, and has obtained a Master of Arts degree in History and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence as a result of his studies in the field of native rights.

For a period of seven years Mr Clark lived on a native reserve. He is the author of two academic texts on the subject of the rights of the indigenous people of Canada. Although space does not permit a complete summary of Mr Clark’s argument, it is based upon the proposition that certain native lands (or “hunting grounds”) have never been properly surrendered to the Crown. … Finally, Mr Clark argues, by usurping jurisdiction over the indigenous people living on unceded hunting grounds, the Canadian government, the legal establishment and domestic courts are contributing to and are complicit in the genocide of indigenous people. … [I]t is this argument that is at the root of the complaint of professional misconduct that the panel were called upon to deal with. … Mr Clark is remarkably knowledgeable in the area of native rights, and the views that he espouses are honestly and sincerely held. It is accepted also that he believes that his comments as particularized in the complaint were intended to advance the cause of justice and the rule of law. … all of the members of the panel were impressed with [his] presentation, his thoughtful remarks to us, his commitment to his cause, and the obvious sincerity of his beliefs. It is acknowledged that Mr Clark has made very significant family and financial sacrifices in pursuit of his quest for justice for his clients.…[He] has much to offer the legal profession… Mr Clark’s argument is anything but frivolous. It is the product of intensive study, and reflects a belief that Mr Clark sincerely holds. It would be difficult to disagree with Mr Clark’s assertion that the issue that his argument raises is “constitutionally critical”… The “genocide” of which Mr Clark speaks is real, and has very nearly succeeded in destroying the Native Canadian community that flourished here when European settlers arrived. No one who have seen many of our modern First Nation communities can remain untouched by this reality. Mr Clark is not making the kind of argument that fall to most of us daily in our courts; much of the ordinary work of lawyers relates to the interpretation of a will, the proper understanding of a contract, the ownership of a piece of land, or individual culpability for crime. The issue Mr Clark raises is one of great significance for the entire people—and for all of us. … The nature of Mr Clark’s argument is such that the persistent refusal of the courts—he states, without contradiction, that he has attempted to raise this argument on some forty-one times—itself in part engenders his fixed and firm conviction that his argument is correct. The issue itself has not been determined by any Court. We also note that the advocacy in question here took place in the context of a serious issue of public importance. … We do not find his letters abusive or offensive. Nor do we find his statements intemperate or unsupported by the facts used to sustain the argument. Indeed, throughout he has begged to be allowed to develop facts to sustain the argument. It is impossible to say there was no reasonable basis in evidence for the legal positions he asserted; he has always been prepared to make a thorough and comprehensive argument in each case. … Indeed, each of the statements alleged to be intemperate and unjustified flow logically and properly from the submissions he was making respecting jurisdiction. … … In our view, the Law Society has come quite close to asking Mr Clark to refrain from making an argument that he believes to be both well founded in law and in the interest of his clients. … [He] will not give up his argument at least until some court has ruled on it.

And it does indeed seem he has not given up, as witness W’Lawpsh (i.e., Clark), “Might Is Not Right,” A case study ongoing of Rick Vanguilder of the Mahican Tribe and Gary Metallic of the Mi’maq Tribe v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Well that ends the legal analysis. It sounds like you have sufficient exposure in the law adequately to render this in encyclopedic text. I can scan and email to you any the pages of the transcript from Justice in Paradise if you wish. Cheers,--Evarose3 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure this is impossible but one of the included paragraphs in the above legal opinion appears here when editing but is not present in the saved version. It is the second paragraph of the legal opinion beginning "Second," as follows:

"With regard to Bruce Clark’s client’s preliminary objection to the Court’s jurisdiction on the constitutional ground of the Indian Tribes’ territorial sovereignty pending proof of a surrender of it by treaty the Court held, “If you had decided to initiate or if you decide tomorrow morning to initiate in the Supreme Court of British Columbia an action for declaratory relief saying that the British Columbia courts have no jurisdiction, that is a different matter and you could be arguing to the judge that, well, this is an issue that has never been tried.… There is no doubt that it is a constitutional issue. … Is that all you have to say on the constitutional question?”"

Maybe it is only machine?--Evarose3 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should email the Windows.doc of the Delgamuukw legal analysis and send it with the scanned Justice in Paradise pages? The paragraphing above is all wrong and I do not know if anyone but me can figure it out.--Evarose3 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, what is needed is "independent secondary sources which cover it in plain english (not legalese)." As far as I can see none of the above meets that. I suggest that you re-read what I said above about using a research library to find sources. Your missing paragraph was most likely related to a malformed reference which I just fixed. Please don't send me anything. An unpublished legal analysis is of no use and Justice in Paradise is not independent (sending me scans would probably also be copyright infringement). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know why you invited me to send you my analysis so you could consider adapting it. I will not interrupt your smear campaign further. This time Kim got right, I am giving up in disgust with your rude tone and willful blindness.--Evarose3 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the assumptions of bad faith. I saw no rudeness or willful blindness from Stuart - just the latest in a long string of editors desperately but vainly trying to help you adapt to writing an encyclopaedia. Evarose if you think your contributions have been models of polite and collegial editing then I have to tell you, you are gravely mistaken. I'll post here or on your talk page no further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)