| Revision as of 12:51, 10 August 2013 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →"A reproach to the law": new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 10 August 2013 edit undoEllenCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,831 edits →US violations of the Geneva Conventions: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| '' Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale'' - Lord Denning. | '' Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale'' - Lord Denning. | ||
| == US violations of the Geneva Conventions == | |||
| I am extremely offended by your implication that US violations of the Geneva Conventions and reporting on them is a laughing matter. Shame on you! ] (]) 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:53, 10 August 2013
 | I am on reduced activity here unless and until ArbCom comes to its senses and understands that it is Newspeak to say "a sanction is not a sanction", and that it has the authority by community consent to sanction editors who were not even parties to a case until "after" the sanctions are proposed. This means that I will not be working on WP:BLP/N and other noticeboards as a rule, and am essentially "on strike" until saner heads prevail. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor |
Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.
Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.
I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like:
- I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).
- And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T.
Sound "collegial to you?
Some of my essays:
Happy Collect's Day!
 |
User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- And sincere best regards and thanks to you! Collect (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"A reproach to the law"
Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale - Lord Denning.
US violations of the Geneva Conventions
I am extremely offended by your implication that US violations of the Geneva Conventions and reporting on them is a laughing matter. Shame on you! EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)