AustralianLawMan

Hello, AustralianLawMan, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

AustralianLawMan, good luck, and have fun. PamD 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

PamD 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Big Six

Re your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#Change_name_of_Wikipedia_page_from_Big_Six_(law_firms)_to_Top_Tier_(law_firms): Please see WP:Requested moves for how to suggest a page move. Thanks. PamD 09:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And please always provide a link to a page you are discussing: Big Six (law firms). It makes it easier for other editors. PamD 09:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Big Six (law firms) reversion

Hi user:AustralianLawMan. Do you mind if we discuss your proposed changes? I think you made some good points in your edits of 18 Apr 2021, and your preferred page may indeed be better. However, perhaps your edit summary "Restored version due to unverified user removing previous version without appropriate reason", [emphasis added] when reverting my restoration is a little unfair: After all, I wrote several paragraphs on my reasoning, and gave an extensive edit summary. The fact that I am an IP user is neither here-nor-there. Please take it to the talk page and / or request a 3O. I do not think I have ever given anyone on WP a reason to think that I would not positively engage in discussions or consensus building on articles, even if I am "an unverified user". Look forward to hearing from you on the Talk page. Thanks. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia is generally prohibited

Hello,

Your edits look very similar to those of another Wikipedia user, User:AustralianLegalRankings. Please be aware that the use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia is generally prohibited, please see this page for more information. It's important that you are clearly accountable for your edits under one username. If you do in fact operate the account AustralianLegalRankings, please ensure that from now on you only edit on one of these two accounts. If I have made a mistake, feel free to let me know. But please be aware that if you continue to operate multiple accounts, you will risk being blocked from Wikipedia.

Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello

We are not the same user. I admit that I had used their name for inspiration though lol (I am a woman so it would be a bit hard to be the same person!). The edits are similar because I suspect we both work in the legal industry and both hold the mainstream view of the division of the Australian legal market. There was another user that did not remove the updates made by me and ALR, so that is two independent people. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianLegalRankings (talk • contribs)

@AustralianLegalRankings: @AustralianLawMan: Given that you just replied on the talk page of AustralianLawMan while you were logged in as AustralianLegalRankings, and said 'me and ALR' while logged in as ALR, I strongly doubt that. Please refrain from using multiple accounts for inappropriate purposes or you may be blocked from editing. Local Variable (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

'Top tier' in law firm article leads

Hello again,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your attempts at improving articles.

I noticed you've edited the articles of several law firms describing them as 'top tier' firms. Even if sourced, this term looks like a 'peacock term'. I think it is inappropriate in the lead sentence of the article. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which requires - as far as possible - articles be written with an unbiased tone. Describing a firm as 'top tier' seems to me to violate this principle, even if it is sourced, since it suggests Wikipedia considers the firm to be better than others. It may be possible to include this elsewhere in the article, perhaps phrased a bit more objectively.

In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and revert those changes.

Thanks

Local Variable (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello

The term top tier is used to indicate the position in the market (and types of clients) which those firms operate. The term is not used as a peacock term; the term indicates the reflects of the Australian market. The term is not used in the media and industry as a peacock term, rather in accordance to the said division of the legal market. It is a term widespread by various and independent sources - from recruitment websites to newspapers to blogs. Firms also describe themselves as mid tier, which does not bring the implication of a lesser firm but instead a firm with mid level specialisation and clients. I think the change should be reverted. Thanks

I have reverted the change. I don’t think it should be changed again unless sufficient reason is provided. Hate to play the majority card, but two other people than I have a similar view. I also note that your change has not added recent citations (which was why the page should be changed and was changed in the first place, presumably).

I should also mention the name of the article itself, the Big Six, by the logic of the user would be a peacock term. I don’t think the user’s view against top tier is sound.

UPDATE: Local Variable removed “top tier” from numerous law firms but retained it on rival law firm Clayton Utz. Potential manipulation to boost Clayton Utz at the expense of other firms based on flawed claim of peacock term. User should be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianLegalRankings (talk • contribs)

@AustralianLegalRankings: First, your claim that Local Variable is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor one Australian law firm over another fails to assume good faith on LV's part. Second, unless the term "top tier" has a specific legal definition in Australia, its use by media and industry does not change the fact that it is a peacock term. Any firm may call itself a "top tier" firm, and any media may refer to any firm as a "top tier" firm; it is a vague and meaningless term that can only serve to promote the firm in question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Big_Six_(law_firms) Local Variable (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianLawMan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)