Hellenistic accountant

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Hellenistic accountant, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Peel Club moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Peel Club. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Needs sources other than The Peel Club. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Paul W (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thank you for pointing me in the right direction here, sorry for that. I have now redone the article with the addition of third-party, external sources, and linked them appropriately to each section or keyword. I will delete this draft and resubmit the new draft which I cannot seem to merge with this one. Thank you again. Chris Hellenistic accountant (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Paul W could you adjudicate the outstanding page deletion mediation on The Peel Club? I improved the sources as you requested on the first version that you parked in Draftspace. Thanks Hellenistic accountant (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Hellenistic accountant. I have already contributed to the deletion discussion. Like others, I think the sourcing still needs to be improved. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the most recent updates Paul, you've greatly improved the page and amended my formatting errors. Please excuse the clumsiness throughout this process, it's my first article. Are you now satisfied with the page and agree to it avoiding deletion? Thanks Hellenistic accountant (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Paul W Hellenistic accountant (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Hellenistic accountant. Apart from its name, the 19th century Glasgow incarnation of the Peel Club is completely unrelated to the modern club formed in 2024. I have just added a comment in the deletion discussion to this effect. Let's see what other editors think. Paul W (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Paul, per the sources provided extensively to support, the club serves exactly the same purpose and the website even states it claims continuity. In the Talk page I gave a legal caselaw on how the test was met for a legitimate claim which the newer club satisfies on all points from copyright to historical documents. Furthermore, the GUCA actually made an error in their page, because the founding document in "Proceedings of The Peel Club 1836" shows it incorporated as "The Peel Club" and not just "Peel Club". The case was made in the talk space that actually every criteria was met, and the association between both clubs was legitimate, and yet a main page with direct UK Parliament citation sources and from university of glasgow was deleted outright, and not even moved to draft, is a rather shocking move that was wholly undue. That undermines entirely the motives of the editors in harsh pursuit of the article due to my inexperienced techniques with formatting etc. As it happens, the history uncovered by the page was arguably nationally important given the two Prime Ministers it involved and worthy of its own formal research commission. None of the contesting editors actually checked the full details of the links, the article nor read my remarks on "reasons for making this change". The deletion arose flippantly and by an editor whose history shows he is a bounty hunter seeking page deletions and kills hundreds per week. I am appealing this outcome and requesting review of all parties. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow up argument previously ignored in the Talk page:

In conclusion, the 2024 Peel Club should be considered a legitimate re-establishment of the original Peel Club (1836-1852) based on historical continuity, legal principles, the expiration of copyright, the use of historical documents, and modern audience acceptance. The new club preserves the original mission and activities, making it a direct successor in both spirit and function. Legal and cultural recognition of this continuity supports the argument that the 2024 Peel Club is not an unrelated entity but rather a revival and continuation of the original club.

• Original Mission and Values: The 1836 Peel Club was founded to promote conservative political views and honour the legacy of Sir Robert Peel, a prominent Conservative politician. The 2024 Peel Club has explicitly adopted the same mission and values, aligning itself with the original objectives.

• Activities and Purpose: The new Peel Club performs the same tasks as the original, such as hosting discussions, fostering political debate, and promoting conservative ideals. This continuity of purpose demonstrates that the new club is not a totally unrelated entity but rather a continuation of the original mission.

• Consistency in Public Representation: The 2024 Peel Club actively represents itself as the revival of the original club, consistently referencing its historical roots, mission, and activities in its public communications and events.

• Cultural Recognition: The acceptance by contemporary audiences, members, and the public as the same club indicates that, in practice and perception, the 2024 Peel Club functions as a direct continuation of the original. This cultural and social validation strengthens the claim of continuity.

• Legal Precedents in Organizational Law: Courts and legal frameworks have historically recognized that organizations can be revived or re-established after periods of dormancy, especially when they maintain the same mission, values, and activities. For example, many political parties, social clubs, and cultural organizations have been re-established after long periods of inactivity and are legally considered the same entity due to their continuity of purpose and mission.

• Common Law Principles: The common law often respects the intent and purpose of organizations and their founders. By continuing the original mission, the 2024 Peel Club respects the foundational principles laid out by the original Peel Club, thus supporting its claim as a re-establishment.

• Historical Archives: The new club’s access to and use of these archives demonstrates a direct connection to the original Peel Club. The documents not only provide a historical foundation but also guide the new club in maintaining the original club’s identity and purpose.

• Direct Lineage of Ideas: By adopting the same documents and founding principles, the 2024 Peel Club establishes itself as the rightful successor. The presence of these documents creates a direct ideological and historical link between the two clubs, further supporting the case that they are the same entity reborn.

• Copyright Expiry: Under copyright law, works published in the 19th century are now in the public domain. This means any writings, symbols, or other intellectual property created by the original Peel Club (1836-1852) are no longer protected by copyright. Therefore, the 2024 club is free to use these materials without legal infringement.

• Use of Historical Documents: The 2024 Peel Club utilizes an archive of historical documents from Sir Robert Peel and the original club. These documents, now in the public domain, provide legitimacy to the 2024 club’s claim of continuity. By aligning their mission, values, and activities with these historical materials, the new club roots itself in the legacy of the original. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Hellenistic accountant. I replied to you earlier on my user Talk page, trying to summarise the process. Note: the "history uncovered by the page" may be interesting but could be original research (WP:OR). Please also note: accusing editors of being "flippant" or being "a bounty hunter" may contravene Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks (WP:NOPA). Paul W (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Duly noted about sounding accusative, by flippant I merely mean the dictionary definition as "hasty decision without serious consideration", so that is ok and quite appropriate, but I do retract the 'bounty hunter' remark which is unsuitable. Cheers. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Hellenistic accountant, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this! I am new here and in the process of publishing my first draft. The first version was rejected for lack of external sources, but now I have them and am going to republish! Really appreciate the support on Wiki. Thank you Hellenistic accountant (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The Peel Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Peel Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peel Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

From the Talk page:

In conclusion, the 2024 Peel Club should be considered a legitimate re-establishment of the original Peel Club (1836-1852) based on historical continuity, legal principles, the expiration of copyright, the use of historical documents, and modern audience acceptance. The new club preserves the original mission and activities, making it a direct successor in both spirit and function. Legal and cultural recognition of this continuity supports the argument that the 2024 Peel Club is not an unrelated entity but rather a revival and continuation of the original club.

• Original Mission and Values: The 1836 Peel Club was founded to promote conservative political views and honour the legacy of Sir Robert Peel, a prominent Conservative politician. The 2024 Peel Club has explicitly adopted the same mission and values, aligning itself with the original objectives.

• Activities and Purpose: The new Peel Club performs the same tasks as the original, such as hosting discussions, fostering political debate, and promoting conservative ideals. This continuity of purpose demonstrates that the new club is not a totally unrelated entity but rather a continuation of the original mission.

• Consistency in Public Representation: The 2024 Peel Club actively represents itself as the revival of the original club, consistently referencing its historical roots, mission, and activities in its public communications and events.

• Cultural Recognition: The acceptance by contemporary audiences, members, and the public as the same club indicates that, in practice and perception, the 2024 Peel Club functions as a direct continuation of the original. This cultural and social validation strengthens the claim of continuity.

• Legal Precedents in Organizational Law: Courts and legal frameworks have historically recognized that organizations can be revived or re-established after periods of dormancy, especially when they maintain the same mission, values, and activities. For example, many political parties, social clubs, and cultural organizations have been re-established after long periods of inactivity and are legally considered the same entity due to their continuity of purpose and mission.

• Common Law Principles: The common law often respects the intent and purpose of organizations and their founders. By continuing the original mission, the 2024 Peel Club respects the foundational principles laid out by the original Peel Club, thus supporting its claim as a re-establishment.

• Historical Archives: The new club’s access to and use of these archives demonstrates a direct connection to the original Peel Club. The documents not only provide a historical foundation but also guide the new club in maintaining the original club’s identity and purpose.

• Direct Lineage of Ideas: By adopting the same documents and founding principles, the 2024 Peel Club establishes itself as the rightful successor. The presence of these documents creates a direct ideological and historical link between the two clubs, further supporting the case that they are the same entity reborn.

• Copyright Expiry: Under copyright law, works published in the 19th century are now in the public domain. This means any writings, symbols, or other intellectual property created by the original Peel Club (1836-1852) are no longer protected by copyright. Therefore, the 2024 club is free to use these materials without legal infringement.

• Use of Historical Documents: The 2024 Peel Club utilizes an archive of historical documents from Sir Robert Peel and the original club. These documents, now in the public domain, provide legitimacy to the 2024 club’s claim of continuity. By aligning their mission, values, and activities with these historical materials, the new club roots itself in the legacy of the original.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Peel Club, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sir James Graham and Norman Macleod. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Alalch E.. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia.

This is not about the Peel Club article or The Peel Club article, or about any deletion or any deletion review or such. This is about you. That is, this message concerns your conduct and your usage of editing privileges on this website. If you do not stop inserting content about the organization whose website is https://www.thepeelclub.org and which calls itself "The Peel Club" and which claims continuity with the historical Peel Club to increase the perception of its societal relevance and historical rootedness, in order to gain increased visibility and social standing for itself and its members, when no such historical continuity can be ascertained using secondary independent sources, I will ask that you be blocked. —Alalch E. 12:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Alalch E. You're referring to a website that wasn't added by me, it was another user if you check the log. Secondly, you've removed a notable member as 'absurd promo' from 1840?! I'm quite sure Macleod is long dead now and is not promoting the club. He was president. Please read the sources before taking rash action to overcook your pursuit of alleged 'promo'. I shall check your other edits too in case you've made more mistakes in haste. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's true that I made that mistake in haste. Sorry about that. About the rest: You are obviously interested in the thepeelclub.org organization, which is what you initially wrote about in this revision of the very same current "The Peel Club" article. Unlike what you said, the website was added by you. At that stage, writing about a non-notable organization would have been a mundane happening on Wikipedia. This is usually easily resolved by deletion (just as it has been, albeit temporarily). But by now the still-existing article has changed its subject to the historical Peel Club (which I will just call the Peel Club), and that was initiated by you, when you began adding substantial content about the Peel Club starting with this 9k edit: Special:Diff/1242289733. By doing so you have created an amalgam of subjects seemingly to the ends which I have stated above, and in the context of a deletion threat to buttress the perception of real-world notability of the thepeelclub.org organization. The new organization figured as an ostensibly due subtopic, an episode in the history of a notable organization which started in 1836, but this is contrary to evidence. Along those lines, you have added the same type of content to Glasgow University Conservative Association (its original name being the Peel Club), which is really a pre-existing article about the Peel Club (diff). If your idea is not to aggrandize the new group by supplying it with a claim of historical rootedness and relevance on Wikipedia—and Wikipedia is often the target of promotional activities as it is a popular site which can be more or less subtly abused in this way—what was your idea? I suggest that we agree that inserting content about thepeelclub.org organization so as to make it look like it is the continuator of the Peel Club in absence of independent, reliable sources that explicitly support such a continuity is inappropriate. —Alalch E. 13:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you're wildly incorrect, and the same haste to which you made other errors, you have done so here in your scathing indictment which reeks of someone searching for a bogeyman where there isn't one. Paranoia and the quest to be revealing of surreptitious plans appears to be the foible of Wiki editor predispositions.

• The first version was a draft to build on over time--as a new editor learning the ropes and with just one topic to play with--where working backwards gradually made sense with iterations, but unexpected flags meant spending more time on it far sooner to improve it. The improvements developed the page, which is meant to be a group effort I add, but editors seem to prefer deleting things instead of helping.
• My errors initially were publishing before complete or ready to do so, which again are rookie mistakes, but not some extraordinary attempt you claim to be promotional, which as I said before, would not benefit the new club given its not available to the public or increased membership and has no benefit to me. The other editor who wrote this page again has declared a conflict of interest which may suggest they do, but from what I can see, I've been writing factual history with strong support and making a minor reference to the revived version, which is relevant in most contexts about things dying out and coming back to life.
• Lastly, why are you so emphatically mad? Your tone of writing is acerbic, accusatory and reveals a lack of impartiality that has been replaced for more witch-hunt mentality. Are you part of the "New Page Patrol" perhaps?... He who seeks, shall find!

Keep me posted on the Talk page. Best wishes. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)