Welcome!

Hello, Kurando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 29 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)

Hi, I see you removed the link from Google Maps to the list page in my userspace. I'm curious to know if there was any discussion or voting on this - in conversations on the topic before, I've taken the position that this link (a) helps prevent people from recreating the list on the Google Maps page, which had become a problem, and (b) can be clearly distinguished from a Wikipedia article if placed in "External Links". I'd like to hear your comments here or on my own talk page. Thanks! -Joshuapaquin 13:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you adding a lot to the lists of Acts of Parliament recently. This is just a heads-up to let you know that I have split the list into sections by century as it was simply getting too big to be helpful. I've also made a link table which should let you navigate round the various lists. David Newton 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So that's when there are two Finance Act 1914s you're referring to is it? One way of distinguishing between them may well be through the statute book chapter number. It is unlikely that they would have the same number. I've also just had a look at the resource Justcite, and it seems that the the second session's finance act had a full title of Finance Act 1914 (Session 2), so it is possible to distinguish between them. David Newton 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that renaming the page on 18th century Acts of Parliament would be particularly helpful. The institution we are talking about still passed Acts of Parliament that applied to the United Kingdom, it was just that the formal title of the state was The United Kingdom of Great Britain, rather than The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or its current The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. David Newton 13:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for the work you've been putting into those lists. Um, that's it. Morwen - Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, thanks for sorting the Caravan Sites Act 1968 - i will try and add to the page as i get the info. Paki.tv 11:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we are clearly both working on the same article at same time. I will leave it alone for a while. I hope I have restored all your edits lost in the Edit conflict. Good work!--Mais oui! 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that the Acts for 1714 are a bit jumbled up. Since Anne died this year, I suppose there is a separate "Anne c. 1" and "1 George c. 1" but the list List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1719 has them being in the same subsection. Btw, I've put regnal years in the headers here - do you think this is an improvement? I wonder when the style of "4 Anne c. 1" stopped and "6/7 Eliz. II c. 1" started? Morwen - Talk 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. A shame about that. Maybe we should write to justcite.com to tell them about this. Morwen - Talk 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work there. If you need a hand I'll help, but I'm afraid I don't seem able to devote myself fully to it at this point in time. Steve block talk 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the archiving is work. I also found that after three or four months of being pretty much the only contributor it got soul destroying. That's why I've extended the offer. Steve block talk 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regard it as rather impolite to list me as a 3RR violator without even trying to talk about it before. If you looked at it, there was someone repeatedly removing information, and he made more than 3 edits, too. Just by coincident you only list me? Get-back-world-respect 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query: articles should not be included in both a subcategory and a supercategory.--Mais oui! 11:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Mais oui! 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a response to your query at User talk:Astrotrain.--Mais oui! 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

• For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
• For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws Astrotrain 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:

• "British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
• "contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.

I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.

By the way, you missed out a third, crucial, category of Scottish law: Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union.

Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved archived material back, shortly after the post above.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Wikipedia article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.

The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unhelpful for Astrotrain to keep flipping this discussion between three different Talk pages. Can we at least agree to keep this conversation in one place?--Mais oui! 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A legal expert has confirmed that laws with "(Scotland)" in the title can also apply to the rest of the UK as well. Bearing this in mind, I have changed back to British law category Astrotrain 17:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common sense expert has reverted the politically-motivated posturing of Astrotrain.--Mais oui! 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please only make further contributions to this discussion at User talk:Astrotrain.

I note now that a new comment has been left under the relevant notice at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. I had hoped that we could keep this discussion in one place. I would therefore like to recommend that we stop discussing this on personal Talk pages: I am going to copy the entire discussion thus far to:

• Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Scottish_laws

Please do not leave any new comments on this topic here at User talk:Kurando.--Mais oui! 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the new cats Kurando- it is probably better to be specific with your new categories rather than allow people with no legal qualifications to assert their opinions on what laws apply where. The categories Scottish law etc could probably be deleted now. What do you think? Astrotrain 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and support! I've responded in Talk:Current events. TransUtopian 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's OK, that's understandable. My comments were rude from the outset and shouldn't have been. My apologies. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure abut the non threatening report.. Newstalk just said he was dead! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking round, and you're right! Gotta love talk radio --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you resurrected British North America Act 1867, presumably for the British category. As I am not a big fan of duplicate articles, I was wondering if this might be a better approach, a redirect that can include the category, like this: [1]- the so-called "glorified redirect." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing so quickly that although I'd identified that the incorrect regnal year was given for the Foreign Compensation Act 1962, I then managed to move it to completely the wrong place! Silverhelm 12:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I responded to your copyvio concern here. - Eric 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been corrected. --Jay(Reply) 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 does exist. But it is very hard to find. A schdule is references in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Hopefully this sort of problem will go away when the governemt releases the statute law database.Dolive21 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the "replaceable fair use" tag from images. See the instructions if you object. ed g2s • talk 11:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I have just come across your MASSIVE index of every act of English law from the early dark ages!!!!!! Amazing stuff! Everything is brilliantly in order by year and alphabetical covering like 800 years!!!!!!! Nicely cut into time periods with a navigation box to find it all, I wasn't aware that this existed before an incredible component of our encyclopedia. I am awarding you this barnstar for your top work. Well done. The only thing is now do you reckon there is info available on every act because there are zillions of red links!!!

		The Original Barnstar
		This is awarded to Kurando for his brilliant and valiant efforts in indexing English acts of law. Well done!Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separately from our discussion on (a) the accuracy of individual entries and (b) the overall structure and formatting of the lists of Acts of Parliament, I'm loading up (on a child page of my user page) a table that shows at quick glance the valid years, sessions, and chapter no. ranges. I've only just started to put it together, so at present it only covers the period 1801-1811 (inclusive). But there's enough to see how it works. For example, you can see that 46 Geo. 3 was entirely within 1806, that there were no other sessions or parts of sessions in that calendar year, and that the chapter nos. are in the range 1-158 (inclusive). Likewise, you can see that 1803 has two separate chapter 18s, because of how the relevant sessions overlapped the beginning and end of the calendar year.
My notes only cover the Parliament of the United Kingdom at present, and cut off at the end of 1962. Of course it will still be useful to know the chapter no. range for more recent legislation, but at least there won't be the added complication of regnal years! Anyway, it should be a useful basis for an integrity check of the contents of each list. My next task will be to make notes for Great Britain, and then finally (when I'm feeling brave!) the four centuries or so of English legislation.
I should perhaps add that the dates given for the sessions relate only to Assent being given to Acts of Parliament, rather when Parliament was actually sitting.
Hope this was of interest. Silverhelm 06:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 195.92.40.49 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute this category title. Much of the legislation is animal welfare legislation, for example the Hunting Act 2004 covering how not whether animals are killed. MikeHobday 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Can you change the category title? I'm afraid my skills aren't up to that. MikeHobday 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Acacetus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Dicdef

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Raven1977 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Laws of Jersey, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Laws of Jersey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gallery of coats of arms of the United Kingdom and dependencies 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/Gallery of coats of arms of the United Kingdom and dependencies 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 good 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Brighton & Hove bus names 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/List of Brighton & Hove bus names 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 good 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. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Queens-remembrancer.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of laws of Jersey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Indiscriminate list with no explanation of the significance of anything listed, also doesn't do what it says on the tin, listing only laws passed in a 4-year span out of over 250 years of the States Assembly

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]