I am retired and currently unoccupied (although I harbour plans for a magnificent return to commercial life, usually involving the conquest of one or more major market niches and untold wealth). I am therefore perfectly qualified to obey the instruction, "do not create an article to promote yourself" since death (whether real or through boredom) will soon claim me. In the interim, I may scribble or tweak material within my fading expertise.

This is my final post before going into hospital. The longer the silence, the more likely it is that the operation was not a success. David91 16:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first day home. The operation was a success. The infection by c-difficile was, well, an unexpected difficulty that I am only slowly recovering from. Since it is very painful to sit up, expect little effort over the next few weeks. David91 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am really happy it was a success and hope the recovery will be fast and complete. Wiki needs you! Quatrocentu 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to hear the operation was a success. Your article (Semiotics of Ideal Beauty) was most interesting, and I literally had the time of my life reading that superb debate on the discussion page! My very best wishes for your recovery, and it's good to know we might just get to see more of your writing. It's a pleasure to read your work - and your debate! - Rahul, 28 Oct 2005

I've neglected to ask whether you are an attorney - if so, you can put yourself in Category:Lawyer Wikipedians. Cheers! BDAbramson T 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nicely done! BDAbramson T 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I've added "Willful blindness to the Crim law template, thought you might want to have a look at the article, since it's rather stubby. Cheers! BDAbramson T 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think willful blindness is its own sort of subspecies - recklessness is throwing the stone over the fence without thinking about the fact that it may hit someone on the other side; willful blindness is thinking about the possibility, but then refusing to check so you can later say you didn't know. BDAbramson T 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article on manslaughter that covers this. It's Vehicular_manslaughter#Motor_manslaughter|here. I'd suggest combining the 2. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think works best. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent contributions on the aestheticization of violence. So glad you made it (the operation et all). --Jahsonic 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to disambiguate larceny - it has a dominant meaning, and the main article should reflect that meaning. BDAbramson T 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Where one use of a term is dominant to the point that virtually all links made are likely intended to point to that term, there is no need to disambiguate at that page. If there are multiple uses, put a tag at the top (as I have) pointing to a Foo (disambiguation) page; if there are only one or two other uses, put a tag at the top pointing to those pages. See larceny now for an example. BDAbramson T 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - see edit history for detail. BDAbramson T 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I'm sorry to hear of your recent illness, but I'm glad that you are recovering. If you know of any, could you add a few references to Conspiracy (civil)? We are trying to increase the use of citations so that other people can verify information in the wiki. Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer crime is not really the sort of thing that I'm looking for in the categories of crime - we could just as well have articles on urban crimes, sex crimes, corporate crimes, etc. - but the category is really intended to encompass levels of crimes (from misdemeanor to felony). Cheers! BDAbramson T 05:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps another section is in order on special types of crimes? International and computer could both go there, as well as Corporate crimes and Sex crimes. BDAbramson T 05:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right template for Charles Peirce? Jon Awbrey 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message to Francis Davey. It is the law of England & Wales, and strictly the jurisdiction is called England & Wales (with the other UK countries, Scotland and Northern Ireland having an entirely different legal system and jurisdiction). The courts are often referred to as the courts of England and Wales. However i've never heard of it being called "English and Welsh" law. Although it's probably politically incorrect, i have only ever heard it referred to as English law. I have also only ever heard it rferred to as the English legal system (never English and Welsh legal system). However, I have been careful in all my recent edits to refer to "practice in England and Wales", "the courts of England and Wales", etc. On balance i would say the re-direct is a Welsh POV. It would be correct and perfectly legitiamte to have "law of England and Wales", which itself could be redirected. Necessaryx 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am happy (or ambivalent) to see the move to English law. However, copy and paste moves should be avoided because they destroy the page history. Please see Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page for stuff about pagemoving. In this case it appears that you could simply have moved the page back using the 'move' function - if this isn't possible its preferred to put it at Wikipedia:Requested moves so an administrator can delete the target of the page, and then move it there. I shall fix up the page history, though, so no need to worry, but just a note for the future. Morwen - Talk 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not much more than a handful of clicks.

I'm confused by the claim that "The United Kingdom is divided into five separate states, namely: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey." though.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Man and the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom (which I understand they are not - in the usual sense), and whether they can be called states (which I've never heard England and Wales described as), I can't see how to count the entities listed as five, unless you count Jersey and Guernsey as one (which would also be unusual). Is this formal legal terminology? Morwen - Talk 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that from memory? Morwen - Talk 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely they have seperate legal systems, not questioning that, just quibbling with terminology. Footnote 7 on that page notes that "[...] England and Scotland, which are not seperate states", and also it excludes the Crown Dependencies from the UK (but includes them in "British Islands") Morwen - Talk 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you shouldn't really be adding stuff from memory at all, as it violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Can I suggest just letting the offending sentence be removed from [state (law)? The contention that the UK includes the crown dependencies is flat wrong, according to the Department of Constitutional Affairs[1], who might be expected to know.

Morwen - Talk 09:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the reference you have cited is completely irrelevant to this topic and I am not wrong at all. It is a great shame that you do not take the trouble to inform yourself fully before making this type of unambiguous statement.

I have fixed Template:CrimLaw - the error was mine (a misplaced ":"). BDAbramson T 03:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your removal of my contribution to the murder page, which removal is potentially justifiable on the basis that the article deals with murder not manslaughter (despite the close and arguably inseparable link between the two), I have proceeded to remove the manslaughter provisions from the United States law sub-section on the same ground. I trust this will meet with your approval. Dominic.sedghi 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note your re-inclusion of the American state-law offences of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter with the comment that these are appropriate to the context. Given that the American and English law offences of voluntary manslaughter and (involuntary) manslaughter are, in their fundamental essence, identical, there seems no justification for inclusion of these offences in one sub-section but not the other. I have thus re-inserted my original addition. It should also be pointed out that causing death by dangerous driving is not a murder offence, as malice aforethought is not required. (Indeed, the offence is one of strict liability, so no mens rea is required at all.) This is only further supported by the description/likening of this offence within the article to motor manslaughter. Thus, if references to manslaughter are not to be included, this should be consistent throughout the entire article. I would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning for reverting back to the original format. Dominic.sedghi 14:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A case law page is an interesting concept - I suppose it should serve as a survey page for noted cases in the area. As for spelling, Wikipedia has a solid rule that the author can use whatever spelling they are comfortable with, so long as it is used consistently throughout an article. Cheers! BDAbramson T 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had a look at this and couldn't see a problem - you seem to have done the move perfectly. Not sure I understand what you mean by "duplicated list of redirects" - where? Morwen - Talk 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the database being confused - it doesn't handle redirects and page moves and suchforth too well. Morwen - Talk 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]