User talk:BostonBowTie

Welcome!

Hello, BostonBowTie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, and hello!

Hi, there! I can tell you're a lawyer, and clearly a subject-matter expert on administrative law, at least as it functions here in the United States. (We'd love your knowledge at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, by the way.) I hope you won't take offense at this (or even, God forbid, see this as a denigration of your expertise), but I would like to exhort, well, more encourage you to note the fact that Wikipedia is not a journal for specialists, and that we as editors should always be cognizant of the knowledge level of a general reader, who might know nothing about Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), and our articles, and, moreover, our language, should recall that, as crystallized in WP:REMEMBER. Now, by no means do I mean to state that your contributions aren't useful or enlightening, but, if I may, I'd like to advise you to WP:UPE, and remind you that verifiability is the watchword around here, and that WP:V and WP:NOR always apply. (As much as I love that bit about Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, for example, I am obligated to state that per WP:PRIMARY, I would have to remove it as "interpretation of a primary source", which is generally disliked, given the usual need for specialized knowledge to navigate a Supreme Court opinion.)

Sorry about my rambling. Thank you! — Javert2113 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

US admin. law

Hortatory or hortative, [1]] and [2]? Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Hortatory." What's the basis for the question?BostonBowTie (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your revision there answers the point. Cadit quaestio. Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Qexigator. As I see from your discussion with User:DCLawwyer in the talk page of Talk:Common law, you really don't know the first thing about law, philosophy of law, or history of law. Your edit history and your Talk page discussion establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know the first (truthful) thing about the subject mater. Much of what you think you know just ain't so. Your Talk page discussion removes all doubt that you don't read carefully. You have no respect for sources (who edits direct quotes from respected sources to remove the part that disagrees with an individual's idiosyncratic point of view?!?). You don't respect others enough to engage in a direct conversation. You don't write precisely.

After you edited United_States_administrative_law, I came behind you to edit again, but only to correct error that you introduced. The old text wasn't perfect, but it was correct. You made it incorrect. Your incorrect statement prompted me to fix ti up better than it was originally. But going backwards to force someone else to move forward isn't the best of approaches, is it?

Can I join User:DCLawwyer to suggest that your pattern of introducing error and then asking a knowledgeable person to clean up your excrescence, could be better directed? Maybe ask questions in Talk pages for articles, or individuals' Talk pages (as you did above) first. Wait (as you didn't do for United_States_administrative_law). Don't edit. You really have nothing to contribute as a writer (at least not to law topics). In particular here, if I recall, you're a UK national -- WTF with your editing a United States topic? I do welcome your questions -- if something isn't clear to you, add a "ciation needed" or "unclear" tag. I'm happy to make it clearer. But don't edit.

Your edits (at least on law topics) never move the ball forward. The best that can be said is that sometimes you manage to move sideways, without damage. The talk page at Talk:Common law shows that it takes a hell of a lot of time to clean up your messes. Please stop.

BostonBowTie (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. II | (t - c) 00:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Over at Talk:United States administrative law and above, you've been making personal attacks - calling me and another user a "barbarian vandal"[3] and saying my edits "[prove] the further suspicion that you’re an intentional troll"[4]. Personal attacks are not permitted, and our policy notes that "an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked".

Above, you call an editor an "ignoramus and a nincompoop" plus a nitwit. And a few weeks ago you called White whirlwind (talk · contribs) a troll as well over at Talk:Common law.

Please treat this community like a professional workplace, and act in a manner becoming of a professional. Since you claim to be a professional lawyer, it seems particularly appropriate to act professionally. II | (t - c) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a big believer in starting with a presumption of good faith. Contempt has to be earned.

Your actions (at Talk:United States administrative law) earned it. Just to take one example among many, at [5] you changed the truthful statement:

Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only “hortatory”

to the false statement:

Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only “hortative.”

As far as I can tell (from the Fastcase database) there’s not a single one. Ever.

If this were an isolated instance of easily-explained error, it might be excusable as a one-off lapse of someone that works imprecisely, with reckless disregard for truthfulness. However, the precise issue had already been discussed at length at Talk:United_States_administrative_law#Hortatory_instructional_and_nonbinding. Thus it appears that your introduction of error was on a fully-informed basis, intentional. A false statement on a fully-informed basis supports in inference of intentional lying, doesn’t it?

You started the round by deleting text that was correct--deleting rather than adding a "cite needed" tag. Thorughout the Talk page, you demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to answer a direct question with a direct answer--your technique is evade evade evade. You don't read before you complain (at least not with any reading comprehension). You don't read carefully enough to understand when two sentences are saying rather different things, and are not "redundant." You rewrite correct text to make it incorrect. Please explain how your actions at United States administrative law and Talk:United States administrative law can possibly be consistent with either competence or good faith.

You explained your first edit, that an everyday English term is something "lawyers use to confound general public." Pots don't get to complain about kettles.

With White_whirlwind at Talk:Common law -- read carefully. For several rounds I attacked only content, not the person. Only after several rounds in which White_whirlwind repeated actions that really have only one explanation did I state the inference from those actions -- that White_Whirlwind's actions support an inference of trolling, and I pointed out precisely how the actions supported the inference.

What's not fair or accurate about that? And how do you justify the actions of which I complained at Talk:United States administrative law? Please be precise and complete. Go through the conversation bit by bit, and don't bother with a reply until you've got a plausible answer for each and every allegation. It's possible I've erred in a few of them. But the mass of misstatements, editing quotes into misquotes, errors, and the like is really hard to reconcile with the starting assumption of good faith.

"Professionalism" is a two way street. It starts with reading carefully before you start editing or complaining.

BostonBowTie (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Our mutual "friend".

I choose not to waste my time debating with someone who appears to be more motivated by faith than fact and is willing to spend an inordinate amount of time here. Yes, the consequence is that we end up with a few nonsense articles, but life is not perfect. So I would prefer that you not try to draw me in to your debates with him. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. You're erased. BostonBowTie (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_User:BostonBowTie. II | (t - c) 04:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

If you persist in personally attacking other editors, you risk being blocked. This is your only warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward...

...to a trip down memory lane with you [6]. People are eager to know the answers so don't let them down! Also, what part of this year's Fed Cir Judicial Conference was the "lecturing"? EEng 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)