if ($latestcomment <= $archivecutoff) {
print "--Will be archived\r\n";
$escaped = quotemeta $sectiontext;
$archivetext .= $sectiontext;
$pagetext =~ s/$escaped//g;
$archivecount += 1;
}
GIVES ERROR
Nested quantifiers in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/==welcome==
Hello there Graham, [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to [[wikipedians|stay]]. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out [[Wikipedia:Help]] or drop me a [[user talk:maveric149|line]]. BTW, San Fran is one of my favorite places -- do you have any digital pics of the City to share?? Cheers! --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]] 19 July 2002 (UTC)
== Puff or puffing or puffery? ==
The article says the term of art for sales talk is "puff," but here in the U.S. I was taught in Contracts that it was called "puffing." Also, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., does not have a definition for "puff," but it does have a definition for "puffing," which includes the following note: "also known as puffery." I suspect that this is yet another American English v. Commonwealth English difference. Can anyone let us know exactly where the term "puff" is used instead of "puffing"? --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*In [[England & Wales]] we talk about a "mere puff", although I cannot provide a source for that off the top of my head. It implies you're right that this is a cross-Atlantic problem, though. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
** <-- HERE "Mere puff" was mentioned in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball ([1893] 1 QB 256) case, as per Lindley LJ at 261. [[User:Sir Jimmy|Sir Jimmy]] 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
== Estopple ==
I noticed that there are no reference to estopple at all in the article. Is that because its is seen as two different parts of law? (ie. Common law and equity), or has someone simply forgotten? [[User:Sir Jimmy|Sir Jimmy]] 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
: See the [[Estoppel]] article. But yes, its exclusion is more due to the fact that it hasn't been written rather than an explicit intention to leave it out. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
== Fork ==
About forking this article:
* Such a major change should not be done without prior discussion. I have reverted it. In particular, a lot of other pages need to be changed (e.g. the pages linked from the infobox), so this change shouldn't be taken lightly.
* Unless we actually have content on contracts in the civil law, it is premature to fork it to common law/civil law articles.
* ''Never move an article by copying and pasting.'' Use the move button and then recreate the original article if you really want to do this.
[[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
:I concur. From what I've read, civil law doesn't have a law of contracts per se, but rather treats it as part of the law of obligations. Therefore, I think any discussion of civil law contracts should be in a Wikipedia article on the law of obligations which should be linked to appropriately in a See also section in the footer of the Contract article.--[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
==Contractor?==
I am trying to remove direct links to the contractor disambiguation page. As you'll see, it has a definition there, which is used by a few pages as a link, and seems sensible from those pages (see for example [[mentor]]). The definition does not really belong on the disambiguation page, could it be teased in here somewhere, so it all looks a bit more sensible? I'll not do anything for a while, as I don't want to over-lengthen or mess about with this article. A separate page just for a definition seems wrong, and a Wiktionary link in mentor would spoil the article. Help!
[[User:LeeG|LeeG]] 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
: From what I understand, the definition provided on contractor ("A contractor is a legal term...") is not the legal term as it suggests. My legal dictionary states that a contractor is "the builder of a construction project". The usage suggested seems to be the more general, everyday usage. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that is interesting. I had started to form the opinion that I would move that definition from the disambiguation page to the [[independent_contractor]] article as it seemed to fit better there, and it's easy to link back to [[contract]]. If it is not a legal definition I'll delete the bit that makes it purport to be so. Off to check out the Black's Legal Dictionary...
[[User:LeeG|LeeG]] 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)/ at WikiEditor.pm line 119.