User talk:Cabayi: Difference between revisions

You have created two MFD nominations for .js files, but the .js files themselves are apparently not tagged either for speedy deletion or for MFD. I am puzzled. Do you need administrative help, or did you forget to tag the files that you want deleted? (I can try to tag them, but you can probably state the rationale better than I can.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Feel free to try editing another user's javascript pages if you like. Both users were informed on their talk pages, and who else needs to be informed? Both pages have been speedied as I requested. Cabayi (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, here's another for you to try out your magic... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saša Matić/monobook.js. Cabayi (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to tag a .js page for speedy deletion is a bug, and a weird one at that. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, No, it's a pretty basic safety precaution to prevent another user introducing a malicious bit of javascript into your setup. Suppose they included Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer with a long expiry date into your common.js?... Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cabayi - Hmmm. A misfeature. A less-than-desirable consequence of something having a purpose. Then there should be a queue for requests about stupid .js files. I suppose that requests are rare enough that there isn't cause to have a noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your interest in this topic. Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have a category for these structures. I suspect people will point to examples outside the county, but I think it would be a good sub-category of Churches in Hertfordshire.....here goes. --Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, thank you for your welcome message and the links — much appreciated. You are right that I should read more on editing as I'm struggling a little to make it come out as I want. I'm also uncertain as to whether editing your talk page is the correct place to respond, or if I should have replied on my own talk page and somehow directed your attention to it. Apologies if I picked the wrong solution.

My understanding is that a minor is prevented from 'holding an estate in land’ under section 1(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925. I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong, but I think that all land holdings of a minor in England are treated by English courts as being held in trust. For example (under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) if a minor enters into a tenancy agreement with a landlord and only the minor is a named as tenant, the landlord is treated as the de facto trustee. The upshot being, sorry, but I don't think the requested rewrite is the right way to go, as the way you say it reads is exactly how I think the law works. If you are a lawyer and know different, I'd be happy to defer. Jonh333 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do... I will reference that better source shortly --Kingdamian1 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet a better source [1]... But I am afraid that it might be unethical to use it... Since the source is a direct video... Which then would make the trick available to others for free Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdamian1, Wikipedia exists to make knowledge available to others for free. So far as Wikipedia is concerned the main problem with the dailymotion video as a source is that it appears to be a copyright violation. Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Done... I did it! Provided a better source! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdamian1, It feels wrong to be stripping links from a reference but I think in this case you're right. You might find the following useful:

• Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations
• Wikipedia:ProveIt
• Wikipedia:Refill

Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I DID NOT DO THAT! I copied it from here [2] --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I PURPOSELY DID NOT add the method section. I am not a pro magician, but I do NOT think it is ethical for me to reveal how the trick is done, even thought there are references --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about the "magical ethics" but WP:NOTHOWTO applies. Cabayi (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabayi, About the page on Langevin family I created yesterday, there are no self-published sources, except for my website on note 23. I found the other 22 references online. I just translated in english the family genealogy tree and the names of the references I found on the web. You can check the informations one by one to make sure the references are valuable. But if you still think I gave false or self-published informations, you can eventually delete the article. I don't think this page is totally objective but I try to remain the more objective possible. Kind regards, Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]