Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:00, 16 November 2013

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Request

I am the subject of an allegation by User:PantherLeapord in a discussion at WP:AN. Could you please comment in that discussion regarding this user's prior actions towards me? (Note that I am absolutely not requesting that you comment in the discussion in any other capacity - that is completely up to you.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:CANVASS? ES&L 09:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it's why I worded my request as I did - but I suppose it's pretty much moot now anyways. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To avoid Canvass, you need to leave a neutrally-worded message - yours was not at all neutral. Yes, it's moot, but I hope you take the clear warnings that you were provided to heart - you're not being picked on or ganged up on, you're simply at the end of the community's patience - WP:ROPE is only so long, and you REALLY need to start behviour according tot he community standards you agreed to when you signed up ES&L 11:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

...and by the way, you need to stop behaving atrociously to volunteers on this project, and I'm specifically thinking of your behaviour on WT:TW at the moment. You're insisting on changes that have no consensus, and insisting editors reply to you - that's not the way things work; period. Cut it out, as you're rapidly becoming someone the community has no time for ES&L 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that you're lying, but apparently I'm not even permitted to state that given that stating it is pretty much the only reason I got topic banned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm "lying"? Why on Earth would you say that? Show me that I'm lying ... quickly, as that that suggestion is rather uncivil ES&L 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Quickly"? Sounds like a threat, "uncivil" kettle pot! In any case, I'm referring to your claim that I'm "insisting on changes that have no consensus". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, on WT:TW you're insisting on a change to the Twinkle interface that has no recent discussion linked to it where consensus was to add it ... perhaps it's not your intent to insist, but your written words say otherwise. I see you weren't silly enough to deny that you were behaving atrociously towards other editors - that's a good start. By the way, I'm going to be blunt: if you haven't got a fricking clue as to what is civil and what is uncivil, stop accusing others of it. There's nothing I have said to you that meets the definition of "uncivil", so cut it out - seriously. ES&L 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, your usage of "quickly" can easily be taken as a threat and thus uncivil. Also, why would I question something as subjective as "atrocious behaviour"? It's almost as ridiculous as WP:DE itself (and WP:POINT for that matter)... what I don't deny is my insistence upon a response, but I did not mean that any particular user should respond. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• ESL, it seems like every other edit by this editor is a fist fight. Dogmatic, I urge you strongly to tone it all down, all over the place. You're picking fights that you can't win since you're not following policy and guidelines (as in the dispute with Pigsonthewing), and you're ruffling feathers left and right. That's not the way to go. Don't make Bwilkins come out of retirement and block you for disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• The unfortunate and inevitable appears to have occurred. Some people don't get "try and get along with people, and you'll be fine...otherwise, the community that created the rules will start to rule against you" very well. ES&L 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI ec

Haha, you edit-conflicted with me, and when I reposted your comment (in the wrong section!) I edit-conflicted with you, so I couldn't correct my own mistake. We need a ticketing system for posting. This seems to happen occasionally at ANI, that solving an edit conflict (as you undoubtedly did the first time) doesn't solve the edit conflict. Later, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just don't be so conflictory ... edit or otherwise LMAO ES&L 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe good point. And you know, I'm trying to be a nice guy, a reconciliator! I'm lousy at it, though. BTW, two Wikipedians walk into a bar, separately but simultaneously, or maybe one was there already, anyway they meet (if they hadn't met before, or perhaps the one was a sock of an editor the other already knew), and says the one to the other, "why are you so fucking conflictory? Asshole!"

Or, two Wikipedians meet at the psychiatrist's office, the one going out and the other coming in (I suppose that's in the waiting room, maybe, I'll have to check the source), or the one going in and the other coming out (as a sock, maybe, or a reformed ARS member), says the one to the other (or vice versa), "hey I'm much less conflictory now: I quit hanging out at AfD". OK, that last one has a lousy punchline, but it has the virtue of being true. Well, true--verified by original resource of course. So template me, motherfucker, to quote Churchill! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "template me, muthafuckaaaahhhh!!" ES&L 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

bio headshots & images on government websites

Hi, you left a message on my talk page inviting questions so I thought I'd take you up on the offer. My current issue involves image uploads as I wanted to flush out some red-links for a number of local officials, villages, towns etc where maybe 1 in 4 has an actual entry and the others are just dead-red. I figured I'd start practice/template on one I know, and my main conundrum is that the photo upload form has an option for federal government images but these are on an Ohio Sever, I'm basically just planning to harvest their headshots from their bios on such places. Conveniently subject #1 is a judge and confirmed ohio state law on gov't websites mirrors federal, but that doesn't help since the form doesn't know that. I essentially need to know the easiest way to upload these headshots and/or town maps / pictures of city hall. Caasi560 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caasi560 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally, such photos are not acceptable due to WP:COPYRIGHT...are you unable to get more specific help at the Files for Upload tool that I linked you to? ES&L 23:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, I finally went the route of listing it as her property done with her permission, evidence provided on request. Since that's the same photo she emailed to use on wiki when I inquired, I'm assuming that qualifies as evidence if someone requests. It's non-optimal though because I only know 2 of the 5 subjects and I wanted to do all 5 rather than leave them dead-red links. Photos aren't strictly necessary they just seem appropriate for a bio piece.Caasi560 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

She's the one who's going to have to contact the project to release copyright ... you cannot do so on her behalf, as you're not the copyright holder ES&L 00:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RFCUs

Hi! You sound like you would know: RFC/U seems dead - what happened to it?  —SMALLJIM  12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was busy enough last time I looked - there's a couple that were recently on the go. Thankfully, it's not the busiest place in the world! ES&L 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I must be looking in the wrong place. Thanks for the ANI comments, BTW.  —SMALLJIM  12:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, congrats. You screwed up again, refused to discuss it, and now are blaming others for your brutal misunderstandings of this project and poor behaviour. Fantastico ES&L 22:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen his userpage? Someone should probably remove that, but we're all banned from doing it ;) Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

His userpage and his talkpage. My bet - someone rightly removes them for violating WP:POLEMIC ... he restores them and BOOM gets blocked - and the sadness will begin ES&L 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Form filled out

• (for those watching at home: this is the "form" of which PL speaks) ES&L 21:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As requested. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's everything? I don't see anything there that matches WP:WIAPA ... so I want to make sure you've clearly and appropriately expressed things before I respond - I'm not going to accept "new evidence" after I've commented ES&L 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you DO have evidence for those allegations against me then I would be happy to hear it! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the question: is your submission all that you have as evidence of my "gross personal attacks"? If so, I can begin the process of review and response. ES&L 10:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright; if you want it made plain then by all means I will make it plain. Start the review process. Provide evidence to back up your gross personal attacks. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll remind you: accusing me of personal attacks without evidence is in and of itself a personal attack. Defining what you have listed there as a "gross personal attack" might not stand up to the evidence provided. "Gross" typically means "extreme" ... if nothing there qualifies as a personal attack to begin with, how will it stand up to being called "extreme"? I'll give you one last opportunity to review what you have submitted against the criteria for what is and is not a personal attack before I go forward - you need to remove your bizarre personal animosity towards me, and thing logically and objectively. ES&L 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you are using obvious stalling tactics is a dead giveaway that you do NOT have evidence to back up your gross personal attacks against me. If that is actually the case then a simple apology will do just fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Stalling tactics"? Are you kidding me? Apparently I'm the only one taking this seriously. There's no "time limit" so talking about "stalling tactics" is ridiculous. Holy fuck, read what you type before you click "save page", ok? ES&L 11:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am DONE responding to you for the time being. I will give you seven days to either provide evidence of your gross personal attacks or apologize. After that I will launch an RFC/U unless one or the other occurs. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no time limit: you are NOT permitted to give an ultimatum. I will respond, after reviewing your evidence - and your timeframes mean nothing to me, or to the project ES&L 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As was always my intention, I have responded within 24 hours to each. I have also provided you a space to respond to each of my 3 responses. Choose your words carefully, and again, I encourage you to check the wrongly-implanted chip on your shoulder at the door ES&L 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, Panda. Can't believe Jimbo didn't personally yank your account. Seriously, PantherLeapord, there's nothing there that violates anything--at least not on ESL's side. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Careful good Doctor ... I might have hypnotized you with my awesome internet-enabled admin powers, and turned you into my minion, so that I can use your puny brain in my quest to take over the world, one editor at a time! ES&L 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Foamfatale

Hi! Altough I am new at wiki, I can not understand your policy. You judged my article FoamFatale as wholly unreferenced, appears to be about a "the next big thing" which is WP:CRYSTAL. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of knowledge of notable things - not a place to promote new products or concepts. ES&L 09:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Therefore this submission has been blanked because its content violates Misplaced Pages's policies. This page has been blanked for privacy, security, or copyright reasons.

So please advice me: how to share the knowledge of a new, effective oiltank fire protection technology, it's scientific background, which is the only one that can really prevent disasters? Remember Bouncefield in 2006.

You can find on wiki several fire fighting articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/Compressed_air_foam_system, https://en.wikipedia.org/Water#Fire_extinction, https://en.wikipedia.org/Fire_extinguisher, https://en.wikipedia.org/Aerial_firefighting.

I understand and accept wiki policy, but somehow we had to find a solution how to share scientific novelties with the visitors.

Thanks for your kind help in advance. Gpont

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Gpont — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpont (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this is an encylopedia - we don't "share scientific novelties" with anyone. If the "product" is an evolution of an existing technology, then portions may be added to those existing articles - but do not under any circumstance mention brand names, etc. The NAME of this product is not yet notable/useful, and promotion of that name is inappropriate. Concepts surrounding the tech might be beneficial for this encyclopedia, but not in an article of its own ES&L 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed

You actualy do need to be confirmed to curate. JDgeek1729 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Curating is - IIRC - rather different than new page patrol both in process and knowledge requirements. It doesn't invalidate the main thrust of my decline, however ES&L 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the curator toolbar was for marking pages as patrolled for WP:NPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDgeek1729 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know if ... I've never seen a "curator toolbar" and I have npp'd many many pages ES&L 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Oh lord, that Cars analogy

ViperSnake151  Talk  00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Whuh, this one?? ES&L 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are the pride and joy of Misplaced Pages! Without people like you Misplaced Pages would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra-special barnstar

	A special fish for a special editor
	What could be more rare than a coelacanth baby with yolk sack still attached? I'm plundering the museum to make you feel as "special" as you are. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Now there's nothing fishy about that award! Takk! ES&L 12:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

KATY PERRY UPDATE

Katy's single Roar has sold over 4 mils in usa and 5,749,000 as of 9 november please update don't tell me give us sources u can do math — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.232.141 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can do math. But Misplaced Pages requires sources. Plus, we have no need to update regularly - we're WP:NOTNEWS ES&L 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Vasiliev (martial arts) (2nd nomination)‎

There was a second article nominated as part of that AfD. Should Mikhail Ryabko also be redirected.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I already do that?

• 07:08, 10 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-3,808)‎ . . Mikhail Ryabko ‎ (redirect as per AFD - someone can merge the important info)
• 07:07, 10 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+130)‎ . . Talk:Mikhail Ryabko ‎ (add afd) (current)

Let me know if it didn't work ES&L 12:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was too quick off the mark. Sorry. Anyway thanks it works fine and I did some further clean-up. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦)

I'm pretty sure that unlike the other similar surname AfD nominations, this one does not have "clear consensus", like you have mentioned upon closure. I'd like to dispute the closure for this one (the rest of them are fine, however). --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not do that again without going to WP:DRV ES&L 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll go to DRV, but can you at least explain the reasoning behind your closure, though? --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

DRV at Misplaced Pages:DRV#Li Surname (郦). --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an email, even though it was obvious. Short version: all of these "articles" should have been listed at one single AFD. As such, the consensus across ALL of the discussions was what needed to be taken into account. I did so. ES&L 14:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was an alt account, I just realised from the email. I don't usually read userpages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatin'

Why you gotta be a "DIABLD8INFASHIST"? A disabled-(user)-hating fascist? Be kind! Trolls need love too! Doc talk 11:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL ES&L 11:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a passing note that before reading on I tried to decipher that alphabet-soup myself, and the best I could come up with was "diablo-dating fashion historian". ??? Organics 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion at ANI where you have been named regarding the behavior of Thewolfchild (talk · contribs). The discussion can be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After much consideration, and a review of his edits the past couple of weeks, I've commented. Maybe someday when he grows up, Misplaced Pages will make more sense to them ES&L 00:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

I've no problem with your revert if you think I'm mistaken but do you not think something to alert the editors who took part in the 3RR discussion would be helpful? Open to suggestions (and even a flat no). Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I find you've become disruptive in this matter - I think you were given clear direction in the origin AN, and you've now gone well beyond. Again, personally, I'd recommend you be blocked until you stop being disruptive this way ES&L 10:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm rather disappointed you'd consider that, indicates an appeal should be lodged at WP:AN. Could you explain how he is supposed to appeal to WP:AE whilst blocked? Please note I'm looking at this discussion as a learning experience, hence I'm asking questions. Also I would ask you to note, whilst you may think I had clear advice I may not have understood why lodging an appeal in this manner is disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:GAB, it's HIM that needs to generate the appeal. Someone else can copy/paste it on his behalf, but otherwise, it's non GAB-compliant. You cannot appeal on behalf of another user, and you were advised of that before. You cannot speak on their behalf like that, and that's obvious to anyone one.

By the way, much of the thrust of your appeal is false: just because we didn't find out about the violation until a couple of weeks later, doesn't mean it's not actionable - consider massive copyvios that we don't find until years later. It's their response when found out that becomes the key. "Meh, it was not an issue" or "meh, I was justified" shows that a block is needed, whereas acknowledging the error - or at least understanding the potential problems - would likely not lead to a block in any manner. ES&L 11:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I get it, so if he had made the appeal and I'd copy pasted it that would be OK? I will in a moment close that thread myself.

Back in a moment on your second point. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if he basically copy/pastes YOUR unblock request, that's not going to look good either - you cannot create his appeal for him ES&L 11:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I will make that point to him. On your second point, Marshal mistakenly thought he was allowed to comment because of the vandalism clause. When I pointed out he was wrong and that applied only to clear examples of vandalism eg penis comments, he withdrew and redacted his comments. So he actually recognised he was mistaken two weeks before the block was applied. So the sequence was he makes a mistake, then he gets it, acknowledges he was wrong and only then gets ban hammered. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be believable ... if it was not for the fact that this was his second AE enforcement block. He was unblocked early on a 1-month AE block because he gave clear assurances that he understood the ENTIRE nature of his enforcement restrictions. This was his second (and therefore 60 days, due to standard escalation processes), and it therefore looked very obviously to the community that even though he stated he understood that he was purposely pushing the envelope. It's the fact that this was a repeat behaviour that makes this action problematic, and much more difficult to defend/appeal. ES&L 11:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but this is a football article Chile–Peru football rivalry. As I commented at WP:AN, WP:Banning policy allows him to edit a football article but not those sections of the article related to Latin American history. Its not repeat behaviour, its not even skirting the topic ban. This is an overly broad interpretation of broadly construed, made worse by the fact arbcom gave an exemption for recent history.

Don't get me wrong, the edit warring warranted a slap for both and I've castigated Marshal for his initial edit summary as that was provocative. However, they both got to 3 reverts within 5 minutes so a 3RR block for 24 hrs would be a justifiable action but not a 2 month incorrectly applied AE block.

I think I could have resolved the whole mess in talk and neither editor need to have been blocked. Instead Marshall's block encouraged the other guy to make the 4th revert that got him blocked. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Having been to both Chile and Peru in my professional life, I would argue (very successfully) that the entire subject of that Chile-Peru rivalry is a core part of the cultural history of those two countries, and is such the entire article is part of Latin American history, narrowly construed. That's not even arguable. It's not an article he should have touched with a ten foot pole, based on his topic ban ES&L 11:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I lived in Argentina for 6 months (Patagonia to be precise). Football is a religion not history in Latin America and so I think we shall have to respectfully disagree on whether the ban is justified. I do nonetheless thank you for pointing me in the right direction at WP:AN, my intentions were honourable but ultimately flawed. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede of that article says it all:

There's no possible way to claim this has nothing to do with history, based on that lede ES&L 12:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

He isn't allowed to edit articles on Latin American history, he is allowed to edit Football articles but not those parts related to Latin American history. Point me to a history edit and I will promise to STFU. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is about a rivalry that developed via history - the lede says so. As such, this entire article - although focused on football, is also a "history between the two countries" article. Again, the lede is clear about the nature. We don't have a "Canada-Greenland football rivalry" even though, historically it could exist (ok, barring the fact that Greenland is an overseas territory - so subst Iceland). The lede is CLEAR and UNAMBIGIOUS that this is a history article ES&L 12:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEDE indicates the lede should "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It doesn't, its crap, poorly written and completed unrelated to the rest of the article raising something brought up nowhere else. Sorry but honestly you're stretching a poor argument there. WP:Banning policy is on my side here, the core of the article is unrelated to the topic ban and he edited nothing related to it.

BTW I said I would STFU if you could point me to a history related edit. You didn't, I think that rather proves the point doesn't it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lord Almighty, he doesn't have to make a "history edit", he merely has to edit an article that involves "history" in order to violate his topic ban. The fact that you don't LIKE the current lede is irrelevant. However, as it stood at the time the edit was made, the lede was clearly defining the topic of the article as having historical significance, and was therefore under any narrow definition, subject to his topic ban. I cannot fathom how you're reading anything else ES&L 12:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify: there are 2 ways to violate the topic ban: 1) make a history-related edit anywhere on the project, or 2) edit an article that is clearly and obviously related in any way to history. This is SOP for a topic ban. ES&L 12:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

An article about football is not clearly and obviously related to history. The lede refers to a historic event, which allows for creative interpretation but leaves considerable room for disagreement about whether the topic ban applies. Which is where a community discussion is required. I honestly think your argument is wrong and the topic ban is unjustified. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WCM, I personally think you're smarter than to try and make the ridiculous argument you're trying to make. Shake your head a bit, or as the Brits would say, "pull your head out of your arse". You cannot ignore that the lede, as it's written, shows the historical significance of the rivalry, and thus automatically includes the article as a history-of article. You're smarter than this, come on. FFS, think....THINK!!! ES&L 13:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, I am grateful for the advice and I can now see how I wasn't helping so I've stood back. I also think the lede is obscuring the issue and if you put that aside would you be making the argument you are? Hence, I honestly don't think it to be as clear cut as you infer. Now you can interpret that as me stubbornly defending a friend and lord knows I acknowledge stubborness as a character flaw of mine. I can assure you this isn't the case and its because I genuinely believe the block was wrong. BTW I don't claim to be perfect but I am trying and I do accept I may well be wrong. Can we not agree to disagree on this? I respect you have your opinion but respectfully disagree but I've taken your advice and arguments on board. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I don't think my head is up my arse either, I'm not that flexible since the incident with the Land Rover in Bosnia :0) Wee Curry Monster talk 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, just let me know when someone files the official appeal - it should link to this discussion :-) ...and thanks for taking this discussion (and my humour) the right way ES&L 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

His appeal has been filed, and it does link to this discussion. On a personal note, I appreciate direct speech so no I wouldn't take your humour the wrong way.

Divorce attorneys

Re this: I've been practicing law for over 35 years. The last 30+ years of that has been transactional law, i.e. contracts, mergers, acquisitions, real estate, and the like, but I had a period of about 2-3 years at the beginning of my career when I practiced criminal and, yes, divorce law. I can, without hesitation, point to the worst single moment in all those years as having been during that time.

I'd been hired to represent one of the ex-spouses in a child custody fight. They'd been divorced a few years back and the wife had been given custody of the kids. The father had now gone back into court saying on slim, but not altogether untenable, evidence that she was unfit and asking for the custody to be changed. After making several frustrating settlement passes back and forth in which both parties were absolutely unwilling to consider anything proposed by the other party and which were taking forever to go back and forth, I called the other lawyer, who I did not personally know, and asked if we could all set down together and try to work it out without having to have a trial. She agreed and we decided to meet at her office. When I and my client got there on a cold winter day we discovered that her office was a single room about 8 x 10 feet and had an defective thermostat which kept the temperature at a balmy 80 or 85 degrees or so. We had no more than stepped into the room when both parties started screaming at each other. The other lawyer and I tried to maintain order so that we could try to get something accomplished, but every comment and proposal brought on another round of mutual furious screaming which would have to be brought back on track. After about an hour of that, during the current round of screaming, I looked over at the other lawyer. She looked me in the eye, leaned back in her chair, and threw her hands up in the air in a clear indication that, "I'm done with this." She didn't say another word, but I kept working on them and after another three hours of deafening screaming had managed to work out a settlement that they were both willing to accept, even though they screamed at each other up until and through the final agreement.

So don't be so hard on divorce lawyers: some of us earn our keep and regardless how much we are paid (and, come to think about it, I don't think I ever did get paid in that case), in some cases it's not enough, regardless of how much it may be. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you actually read what I said - the message as written says "as much as I personally dislike divorce lawyers...I would not wish wish them this level of badness". You seem to have taken something different out of my statement ES&L 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I read it, I just thought you might enjoy the anecdote. Hey, it's Friday... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)