User talk:Non Curat Lex

Reliable Sources

Please make sure every edit is backed up by adding reliable sources, preferably as in-text citations, so that articles are verifiable. Your recent creation of Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch was unsourced, if you have time, please revisit it and add sources. Thanks! - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzmiller decision

I've added a note to the Kitzmiller talk page. If you want to broach the DI's arguments, it shouldn't be as an unreferenced and unqualified description of the decision, it should go in the "criticism and analysis" section.

Also, I find fervent declarations of sharing a "side" creepy. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tort

Following up on your entry here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Request_for_advice, I read your dialogue at User talk:Enigmaman. As to the main bone of contention, namely, whether the article properly starts straight in with a hypothetical (well, case summary), I agree with him. It may be kind of a nice literary device and a refreshing departure too, but finally I think when someone comes to the article Tort, they want to know first of all, "what's a tort?" Your lead paragraph forces them to take in an example of something - they don't know what - before they get to the answer. They aren't law students used to extracting principles from stories; they don't even understand that that's what law students *do*. So while that lead may make a better essay, it does not make a better Wikipedia article.

More generally I find that wholesale edits are better achieved by either raising them first on the page's discussion page, or by making them incrementally, maybe over a period of days, so that other editors can more easily see how each one in fact improves the article. It is quite an imposition to implicitly require other editors to make those comparisons all at once, and then edit afresh a substantially new page. (It's also good practice, I think, to explain one's reversions of good faith and competent edits that plainly reflect a lot of work, but that doesn't always happen either. ) The incremental approach is also a good way of figuring out where any true disagreements may lie. Baby and the bathwater and all that.

I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: John, thank you for the advice. I strictly abstain from "edit warring" and one facet of that is making moderate changes. However, I did not think that my changes were radical. My edits were limited to the introduction. And I kept the basic existing structure of the introduction. All I changed was some of the content, and the order of a few things. I did not bring it up on the talk page first. But, I did check the calk, as I always do, and there was nothing on the talk page to suggest that what I was doing was in any way controversial. Wikipedia clearly has no rule that requires any editor to get "approval" on the talk page before making an edit. f people wanted to talk about it, they could take a look at my suggestions, and then post. Now, to see my suggestions, they have to dig up the history page. This is why wikipedia policy suggests against using reversion for good faith edits. It's not a rule, but I would have preferred if Enigmaman had followed that suggestion, and I think my interest in his following that suggestion is much weightier than his interest in my following the "discuss first" suggestion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule. It just makes things go down more easily. I agree too that your other changes (judging by my quick look) were not controversial. I am sure there is middle ground between you and Enigmaman and perhaps it would be worth your time to try to re-engage on your changes that don't affect the introduction. I have seen a lot of initially contentious relationships become very productive once the hackles are down on both sides, and perhaps this would be one of them. I agree too that reverting good faith edits is not the best approach, but in the defense of editors who do that occasionally (myself included), it is sometimes exasperating to be confronted with big changes by an editor who is saying, in effect, "if you don't like what I did, then *you* can find and fix the errors and fill in whatever gaps I may have left". (Please forgive my hyperbolic characterization there - this is written slightly in haste.) Let's see if anyone else wades in. Meantime good luck with it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John - thank you for the advice and the support. I am trying to follow WP:DR and negotiate to a compromise with Enigmaman, however, his latest post is that he is "done" talking about. Because I do not want to do anything unilateral and controversial, I am going to try taking it to the talk page and get the matter some attention from others at WP:LAW, if possible. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'm "done" talking about it, because most of your comments involved attacks on my editing. I don't appreciate people coming to my page and doing what you did. If you can discuss it more civilly, I'll be happy to engage you. Enigma ^msg! 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack your editing. I disagree with your particular edit and defend my own particular edit. Our positions are in conflict. Consequently, no matter how I put it, ultimately, my position is going to opposed to yours, and things will be said that will constitute some kind of an "attack" in some way. It's inevitable. But were these attacks on your person? No. They were criticisms of your edit, and the interpretation of the rules that you follow in justifying your edit. Is

I came to your talk page to see why you took what I consider radical action and if it was an error or deliberate, and if it was deliberate, if we could come to our own compromise as a first step as per WP:DR. Your talk page, rather than the articles talk page, would be the appropriate first step if it was just a case of rushing to edit, as I initially assumed. Something about my assumption seems to bother you, and I am sorry for that, but I assure you, I had good cause. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Your very first comment was an insinuation/attack about my editing in general. If you believed I made a mistake, a polite message asking why would've been the recommended first step, in my opinion. Immediately impugning someone's style quickly escalates a dispute before it even began. Enigma ^msg! 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page makes "speed" an issue. It's only natural that people whose GFEs get caught up in the grinder are going to be more likely to think it is a mistake when that's the reputation you create for yourself. I still didn't impugn the style; I don't have a problem with speed; I have a problem with your edit, because it's an improper reversion. You are making the style the focus here, when it should be the substance. Reverting a GFE creates a dispute. Insisting on reverting again even after you realized it was a sincere edit was plenty of escalation for that dispute. It seems like you're trying to shift the issue and focus on how I presented my concerns to you. I think that's a red-herring. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tort Law

Hi Non Curat Lex, I've followed your disagreement with User:Enigmaman vaguely. I've also taken a look at the edits to the said article in question. At Wikipedia we try and keep everything neutrally worded. Your additions simply jump straight into a, possibly, original researched hypothetical example.Although much appreciated, we have to keep to things that we can source and back up. We can quote examples of Tort Law (within reason) if they're supported by reliable sources. If you believe that an example of the said law would be appropriate in the article please feel free to propose it in the article's talk page. If you have any questions or queries on how to use Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask me. Take care! (P.S. I see no one has left you a welcome page, I'll leave one as soon as I post this.) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir - You're a little off. Look more closely. I replaced an example that had no basis in citation with one that had some basis in authority. Further, as already remarked, the previous example was used in a misleading way that seemed to conflict with the rest of the article. I don't think it was meant to, but my use of the example avoided drawing any conclusions. It was self-explanatory in my version that the example was not a case where liability was or was not imposed, but rather, an example of a decision made pursuant to the subject - tort law. While I have no express authority for the psotion that this is a good exmaple, the article did not have one before either. So my position isn't the be-all end-all of encyclopedia quality, but it is an incremental improvement over what was there before.

Bottom line - I added three sources that weren't there before in my edits; you're justifying an edit that removed all three on the basis that I didn't cite sources. I apologize if this seems defensive, but your position strikes me as perverse. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find no fault with those sources, friend. It's the rhetorical question that strikes me as being unencyclopaedic and too informal for an encyclopaedia. I am honestly glad that you're contributing in a positive way but we work as a community to discuss major changes like that.

1) The lead section needs to remain intact.

2) Any informal/conversational language needs to be checked and removed.

3) A more reliable, 3rd party published example needs to be developed and added.

Those are the things that need doing buddy :-) I hope this helps! If you have any comments or queries please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat: the "informal rhetorical question," however, is according to many anglo-american authors, the only meaning of tort law. What is "a civil wrong not a crime and not arising out of contract?" It is what a governmental authority of suitable jurisdiction says it is. According to White, Tort law in England and America was nothing more than a collection of miscellaneous writs that could not properly be categorized as property, or contractual. Holmes, who himself quipped that tort law was not a proper subject for a legal test, was largely responsible for the defining notions - the first principles - of the field that persist to this day. Is that just my opinion? Well it could be, but it isn't. And no one has to take my word for it, either. Other people have a chance to edit anything said. Hopefully, those people will know what they're talking about. I am convinced however, that what I've written reflects the consensus. The decision, however, should be made by someone who is familiar with the content, not someone who is making a content-blind judgment about the form, rather than the substance. Plus, I can add plenty of 3rd party published citation - but not if I have to work with an introduction like that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-follow-up: Also, while sometimes the status quo should be maintained, by supporting it in this case, you're also supporting a "revert-first, ask questions later" approach to dealing with good faith edits. Is that really what you want? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a third party, completely neutral to the argument altogether, I just wanted to give my input on a couple things. First, regarding your specific edit to Tort Law, I'm glad to see that you have started a discussion on its talk page. I think that was absolutely the most appropriate course to take, and I encourage you to continue discussion of Tort Law edits there.

Regarding your question to Scarian, which read, ...while sometimes the status quo should be maintained, by supporting it in this case, you're also supporting a "revert-first, ask questions later" approach to dealing with good faith edits. Is that really what you want? I think the answer to that question is "yes". "Good faith" edits are not necessarily "good" edits by default. Whether or not I believe your edit should have been reverted is irrelevant; what matters is that an experienced editor felt that your edit could possibly have lowered the quality of an article. It's easy enough to revert a revert, so I believe ~~Scarian~~ Enigma took the correct course of action by preserving the integrity of the article while the two of you discussed your changes. For example, if a new user made a good faith edit to the article for Pineapple and wrote "Pineapples are delicious!!", it would not be appropriate to simply leave that text sitting in the article for days; instead, the correct course of action would be to revert the edit, and then allow the new user time to either understand why his edit was not helpful, or clean up his content a little more.

Finally, I just want to mention that it looks like all parties involved got a little heated during this discussion. I sincerely hope no one is walking away with a grudge, because it would be a pity for such talented editors to get distracted from helping to improve Wikipedia. Rather, I hope to run into excellent contributions from both of you again in the near future! --Ean5533 ( View! / Talk!) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear something up: Scarian wasn't involved. He was also a neutral third party who came along to offer his opinion on the matter. Enigma ^msg! 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]