User talk:Eastlaw/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RE: Shook, Hardy, & Bacon (Link:[1])

My apologies. I reverted the edit, but forgot to revert your talk page. Consider it done. I sincerely appreciate anything you do to contribute and improve Wikipedia, and honestly apologize for being a stumbling block.Josh3580talk / hist 06:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting U.S. Supreme Court cases

Sure, I'd be glad to help. Just to make sure I'm doing it right, can you check these: [2][3]. Dreadstar † 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll start working on them tomorrow. Dreadstar † 07:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I just wanted to reiterate that my offer still stands for nominating you for an RfA. I think the site could really benefit from more editors, and admins, like you. Prodego talk 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching you, through BD2412, since pretty much you started editing. BD really helped me get to know Wikipedia, without him, I would not be here. Unlike the two of you, I am more of an administrative editor, I have written some 2 articles in 3 years of editing. However, I am also a strong believer in what adminship should be, what it was supposed to be. Simply put, I know that you have put in a lot of work editing this site, and I have seen you ask admins for trivial help. You clearly can be trusted, and you could use the tools adminship brings to help you edit. That is all adminship is supposed to be. You are clearly a very helpful and well intentioned person, you would happily listen to others views. It is true, and I can tell you right now, that some editors will oppose your RfA because you "haven't been active enough in the project space" and "don't need the tools". But I would ask you, is there any point that you needed an admin to help you with something you could easily have done yourself? That constitutes enough of a need for me. I would think about how you would answer RfA question 1, and if you can answer that, I think you will know what to do. Keep in mind adminship is not a job, or a duty, or even something you volunteer for. It is access to "technical features that help with maintenance" given to "anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community". There are all different kinds of editors, some who would use admin tools more, some who would use them less. But so long as they can be trusted to have them, they might as well, lest they need them. Prodego talk 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The second essay is the best written essay on the 'spam hunting' problem, I have ever read, very thorough and explanatory. Very well done. The first essay is also well written, and I agree with most of it quite strongly. But keep in mind disputes are part of the process, the only time to "get out" or "flee" is when the dispute stops being a civil exchange of opinion, and becomes a civility issue. When that happens a cry for help will usually suffice. It is important not to get involved in arguing in disputes, but you can and should be always willing to give your input, the only way to really resolve those disputes is to get enough people to agree to form a consensus. On that note, I do disagree with 3 things:

  • "In general, don't interact with other users any more than necessary": Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and having friendly relations with other editors, as I am sure you have noticed in someone like BD, can come in very helpful when you need a third opinion or a 'sanity check' on your actions. Contact with other users can be a good thing, if it is about the right things.
  • "Otherwise, force yourself to ignore it--because it isn't your problem.": It may not be your problem, but at the very least drop a note on the talk page noting the error you found. Leaving bad content in place, particularly on biographies, is just as bad as adding it in the first place.
  • "Most importantly, avoid the temptation to oppose someone on an adminship vote, no matter how much you dislike or distrust them.": As with voting in the real world, saying my vote won't matter isn't a real justification. Also, oppose votes out weigh 4 supports, so they do in fact have real influence.
  • As a subnote to this "stay the hell away from adminship discussions unless you know the editor" - yes, "and can offer a glowing, unconditional endorsement" -no. Don't forget that wonderful section in your second essay: Don't take the lazy way out, withholding information can be just as bad as supplying false information.

Prodego talk 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Eastlaw, thanks for the message. I guess you're finding out that a J.D. is not always a ticket to immediate bliss. But the bliss will come in time, I'm sure.  :-)

Anyway, I've gotten involved in the 2008 presidential election articles, and am therefore kind of jammed up at the moment. But thanks for the invitation. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kutak Rock

Quick note to say thanks for the great article. Feel free to chop away at any of the law offices - or any other topic you want to - in Omaha anytime. Best wishes. • Freechild'sup? 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite a monstrosity - good luck with that. With regard to the delitionists, in my experience the strongest rule to rely on here is verifiability; as long as the article meets those criteria it will stand. I have also found significant strength in reputation; by placing my editing #s and repeatedly editing on similar topics it builds reputability. After I built those things, my work around here became significantly easier. I hope yours does too. • Freechild'sup? 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Snell & Wilmer

Happy to help and thanks for good wishes.

I've userfied it to User:Eastlaw/Snell & Wilmer. When it's ready to be moved back into mainspace, drop me a line and I'll nuke the redirect that's in its space. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RE Category:Potentially Good Names For Heavy Metal Bands

You're so right, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. I was kinda wondering how long it would last.. Remember, friends don't let their friends drink and wiki stib (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses

  1. I am not familiar with enfacto.com, but it does not look bad. No need to warn, but you may possibly inquire if there's any conflict of interest.
  2. I'm starting a new term this week, so I can't help with indexing supreme court cases quite yet. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am teaching, not studying. I have taught paralegal studies, criminal justice, and business law for several years now at a proprietary college in Colonie, New York. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy law

Thank you for the links and fixes. Bearian (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon

Hi Eastlaw, May you take a look at Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon? The article requires some clean-up. I am not a native English speaker so would be thankful if you fix the language a little bit :) Best wishes.Lamro (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Law (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment)

Hello Eastlaw. I've seen your name a lot on wikipedia and you are member of WP Law, and so I am hoping to get your input on WP Law/Assessment Dep't. I recently opened WP Law assessment department after it had been defunct. An editor who was not a participant of WP Law had removed the links to the assessment department on the WP Law page several months ago and has refused to make edits to reopen the assessment department. I reopened the assessment department and now this editor is reverting my edits on some thirty pages. The editor is reverting the edits based on the argument that WP Law has not adopted the C classification yet. I think much of this is a control issue, the editor does not want to make any changes and the editor does not want any other editor to make changes and so the editor is lashing out on those who do make changes. WP Law had 3000 unassessed articles and a defunct assessment department. I've gotten it down to around 2300 unassessed articles and reopened the assessment department. EECavazos (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! EECavazos (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN

This edit reeks of article/category ownership. Neither categories nor articles are owned by any one editor. If other editors see better ways of organizing a topic via categories or can improve an article, they are entitled to do so and are encouraged to do so. Instead of taking ownership of the category, seek WP:Consensus on how best to use the category. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have been here long enough, then you should not have to be reminded. That said, Katr told you where to take the issue, which would be here. That said, I did not say one way or the other is better. However, there should be some sort of connection to an Oregon legal related category, not just a business related Oregon category. As of the original dispute on this, Category:Oregon law was likely the best fit. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me a few questions regarding Enfacto.com. As of now, it appears that it has U.S. Supreme Court cases with a plan to add federal appellate cases in the near future. Not sure what you would categorize as "content" insofar as your question is concerned ("Does it have any other content?") but it has internal hyperlinks to cited cases inside of opinions and a functional search that works pretty well. So in response to your question "what is it, just a database of U.S. Supreme Court cases?", I would say, no, it's more than that. You may find the following conversation worthwhile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Alternative.2C_Superior_External_Links_for_the_Opinion_Full_Text (my apologies of this is not the proper way to link you, I'm not familiar with the appropriate protocol). K8lj (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibson Dunn and Crutcher

Wikipedia newbie requesting assistance on this page; I think one of their summer associates is deleting information about a case where there was a punitive damages judgment against GDC. Not sure how to appropriately deal with this. I personally have no interest in the affairs of GDC; I am an attorney at a small family law/criminal law firm in Montana. 69.144.136.45 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just want to let you know the same thing has happened with the guy deleting the info on the Gibson Dunn page. This is the third time its happened. There's no "talk" page for this entry, so I don't know where to initiate a discussion regarding whether my proposed edit is worthy of wikipedia, etc. In my mind it is pretty significant that a major law firm would have a punitive damages verdict assessed against it _personally_, so it should be included. Maybe I'm out in left field on this... 69.144.136.45 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady

LOL. I was just going to ask you on your talk page to stop putting me in a category! (based on your edits) - then I saw your nice message. I'm really not comfortable with article writing just yet, and Complete was my first article that wasn't deleted. I'm into Taxation, so if you can help me with rulings, or panels, or any legal jargon, that would be great. I need a SCOTUS buddy here on wiki. XF Law talk at me 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help with anything. In my downtime (watching tv), I do some Huggle work, but I find article work more fun. XF Law talk at me 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
East, I got my first DYK! Just thought I'd brag because you are the only one I know who likes Supreme CT cases. :)

City of Chicago v. Morales

Thanks for the formatting in the stub and talk pages. Do you see any obvious improvements that we can make? Bearian (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you did not know about my infoboxen fetish? I love infoboxen. LOL Bearian (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Please respond to the RFC on Clarence Thomas. Wallamoose and other partisan editors are trying to decimate the section on Anita Hill and the other women who accused Thomas of sexual misconduct. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What if I lengthened the rest of the article, and the sexual harassment material only became 10-15% of the material? Again, the sexual harassment section's length is not discordant with other justices who had controversies around their appointments - like Hugo Black. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What have the Romanians ever done for us?!

Hey Eastlaw - thanks for pointing out that tag! I'll use it before I add any more dudes. Happy editing to you and your kin! - FlyingToaster 06:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thelen LLP

I was sad to hear about Thelen, I have friends who worked there and are now trying to assess their options. Hopefully they will land on their feet. Things are really slow at every law firm lately. No end in sight. Cheers. --Mediterraneo (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rivers & Harbors Acts, Water Resource Development Acts, Flood Control Acts

Hey Eastlaw -

Saw your flurry of category edits on the above subjects. While removing Category:United States environmental law from most, I did see on the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 that you added Category:United States federal environmental legislation. Was just curious as to why ... and also the difference between the two categories.

I've been the creator on several of those (primarily because of my association with USACE). I've tried to be consistent, copying categories from one to another. My initial impetus in creation was to show that USACE's work is directed by Congress and not thought up in a vacuum (as some people think/imply). Am always looking for improvements. Most of my info has come from thomas.loc.gov and is rather abbreviated from the thomas summaries. They could use some prosaic expansion and probably more summarization rather than a sterile listing of just what they do. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. Understood that your edits were not a commentary on my quality. Was just asking out of curiosity. Had provided my own comments about my own quality in case you wanted to provide a better idea for summarization, organization, etc. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Lists of United States Court of Appeals cases

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of United States Court of Appeals cases, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Lists of United States Court of Appeals cases has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Lists of United States Court of Appeals cases, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Eastlaw. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In re Bilski

Thanks! But please direct your thanks to 66.208.26.115... I have just created the stub, and waited for four days... Since anonymous users cannot create articles, stubs can be a persuasive invitation to expand! Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, 66.208.26.115, who expanded ten-fold in re Bilski, teaches at the GW law, and was somewhat bitten (WP:BITE) when editing the article derivative work. See User talk:66.208.26.115. I took the liberty to mention your name as a potential source if he needs any help. --Edcolins (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey Ballet page

Hi. Thanks for your quick edit on that page. I don't know how to correctly put refernces on the page. I have all the details in "ref" tag, but somehow it does not show up as "References" section. Could you help fixing it? Z22 (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions - New Jersey Law Firm Pages

Hello. I noticed you have edited most, if not all, of the Wikipedia pages for NJ's largest law firms. How do you decide on which information to include since it is not consistent (for example, NLJ 250 and AmLaw 200 information is included for some, but not all). Also, do you choose notable alumni by whoever shows up in Wikipedia? In the case of the Sills Cummis & Gross page, why do you include the rankings (such as Chambers) under history instead of under the first paragraph about the firm? Also, why did you choose Sills, Beck, Cummis, Radin, Tischman & Zuckerman as the Firm's former name since it was most recently Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross P.C. and prior to that was Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross P.A. Thank you in advance for the explanation of your additions and edits. A852.123.987 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)A852.123.987

Do you know anyone interested?

I created an article but it would really help if Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959) could be created as well. Any project members with any time? I didn't see a request page on the SCOTUS project, like the Taxation Project has. Law shoot! 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Now I have to change my DYK nom. Law shoot! 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's no big deal. I scrutinized over the name because the Public Law itself is used in state citations - not the act. I was going with common usage. Law shoot! 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering...every reference mentions it as PL 86-272, and those who are utilizing wikipedia will most likely be doing a search under Public Law 86-272. This is the one exception where it is such a common term in the taxation world that it can be simple referred to as 'Public Law' without any numerical reference. This is really the case where Madonna is more popular than her given name, and I'm afraid the move is going to prevent search engine results from pointing to the correct article. Law shoot! 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
When you get a chance can you look at the codification and the external link you provided? Something is buggy! Thanks for help, btw. Law shoot! 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind lending a hand?

I created Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. You are always helpful, and was wondering if you could lend a hand. I have great knowledge of the law, but not the background of the actual court case. I'm sure you are busy, but if you could glance over it, that would be great. Law shoot! 08:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Emoluments clause

I would suggest that parts of your article be merged with Saxbe fix andd parts with Article One of the United States Constitution. I would just use my best judgement on where to merge things. Anything you add to Saxbe fix will probably have a few thousand eyes review it at the end of the week because it is nominated for main page exposure at WP:DYK. It seems that WP policy would be to have articles on the commonly used terms. I would link Emolument clause as a redirect to one of the pages above and all the alternate names as well. I am not so sure which one, but I think more likely Article one. Some of the British Parliament stuff should get mentioned in Saxbe where the James Madison stuff is. I think your intro is more a part of Article one. If you can help me find any refs for the modern examples that would be great. I can not really find good refs for either the Muskie or Bentsen examples.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Saxbe could use some augmentation of the emoluments definition if you like. Also, you could place a header like the following somewhere I guess
This redirect is about Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution. For conflicts related to Article I, Section 6, Clause 9, of the United States Constitution, see Saxbe fix.
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Maybe something like

This redirect is about Constitutional restrictions on titles of nobility. For Resolution of constitutional conflict with Congressional appointments, see Saxbe fix.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you are going to do with your draft text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me first say that I am very pleased to have someone show an interest in a subject so close to an article I am working on. I have very little experience with law articles and am grateful for any advice and editorial/organizational assistance anyone might provide. I am not sure if you think the Saxbe fix article is an unnecessary separate article. If you do you as a guy with a lot more authority on a subject than I should go ahead and do what is best for the project. I have had a few articles get rolled up into other articles. However, if the fix you mentioned is you best solution and not just one to make me happy that is fine with me. I think two separate new articles might be a good idea. I just bogarted my way into the two templates now in the article and am not sure of the propriety of inclusion in either. Edit and revert anything I am doing freely. Let me know how I can help make this subject an encyclopedic resource. Thanks for taking the time to think clearly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I get to footnote 1 of the Hall memorandum. It seems to discuss the constitutionality of rollbacks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You may want to tinker with my phrasing at Rollback (disambiguation).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also you will want to make an adjustment to Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_6:_Compensation.2C_privilege.2C_restriction_on_holding_civil_office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ineligibility Clause

I see the article still has the underconstruction tag. Are you still working on it. Today is the last day you can nominate it for the main page at T:TDYK. You might want to nominate it after removing the template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable person

just overhauled the whole article... could you review it for errors, please? Foofighter20x (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ineligibility Clause

Updated DYK query On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ineligibility Clause, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider RFA

You would easily pass an RFA in my opinion. Please consider accepting a nomination. We need good experienced people to help out with the mop tasks. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Eastlaw. I am glad you reconsidered. Since I offered to nominate you first, 'tradition' says I get to do the honors :). Beforehand though I would like to just ask a few questions. I note you don't have an email address set, which is pretty much required of admins, but more importantly, because you don't have it set I have no way to privately contact you. If you have an email address, or would like a gmail account (preferred for wikipedia use for various reasons) let me know, so I can email you. Alternately I am on IRC, or if there is any other way you could talk outside of the wiki, let me know. Prodego talk 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. Prodego talk 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Prodego to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eastlaw. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Alright, just let me know when you filled out the acceptance part / questions. Prodego talk 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The template to put on your talk page or user page is {{Rfa-notice}}. It is best to not inform people about your RfA. They will find it. Prodego talk 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read that first oppose against the userbox, which mirrors the same kind of oppose to my own RfA, which sparked a great deal of unnecessary drama. I hope to God (if he existed) that you won't have to endure the same drama...I wish you every luck that it will not be noticed and people will judge you by your great contributions and not by your personal beliefs. Good luck with your RfA! :-) SoWhy 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Joy
Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  01:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Can you stop and chat offwiki for a minute? jerryopennap@aol.com

Your RfA

Per your request, I closed your RfA. I'm sorry that it didn't go as well as you hoped, and you are probably right, you probably did get a raw deal. Unfortunately, the RfA process is like an interview. People are often looking for reasons to disqualify candidates as much as they are looking to support them. When an easy reason to oppose is presented, it often latched on by everybody else. Candidate behavior during the RfA is crucial. I do wish you well and wanted to let you know that your contributions to the project are appreciated.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your RfA until it was all over, but I just want to say don't take it too much to heart. RfA is a lottery cum popularity contest at best and a bear pit at its worst. The only "mistake" you made was in debating with your opposers; what you're supposed to do is to bend over and pucker up. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus has his own issues with RFA, which he's trying to drag you into in order to support his belief system, which would make him feel better. He's also trying to help you, and believes he is helping, but he's doing harm, because you'd be better off understanding why things happened the way they did, and getting a satisfactory conclusion, rather than giving up and turning dark and bitter, as some choose to do. I'll email you some thoughts privately, Eastlaw. I'm truly sorry about how things turned out last night, and there have been a lot of intelligent comments today on WT:RFA concerning how to avoid this sort of thing in the future. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You are quite wrong Dank55, and if I were not such a generous soul I may have been inclined to interpret your comments as a personal attack. I was merely sympathising with a fellow editor who I noticed had received a bit of a bruising at RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely believe you, and understand, that you think you're helping, Malleus. It's a fond wish ... perhaps a dream ... of mine that you'll see things differently in the future. But I'm not talking about you right now; I'm trying to help someone else, and I believe that it's more likely he'll be helped by understanding what went on. Eastlaw, you have a right to feel bruised, but the point is that, unlike in real life, we can fix everything here when an process that's a lot like a job interview goes wrong. Some people might look at your RFA and decide that you're deficient in some way; okay, we can fix that by revisiting the issue and posting the results on a page like a coaching page or WP:ER. People make mistakes (all of us), people misunderstand. If you follow Malleus's solution above and give up and decide that the problem is that Wikipedia is infested with assholes, you'll miss a chance to learn some things that could really come in handy when you go for real job interviews, and you might become disconnected from Wikipedia, which I think has been a source of some comfort to you. If you are open-minded, then there's a possibility that various good things could happen. As I say, I'll make some suggestions privately, and see if that helps. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No Dank55, it's a hallucination of yours ... perhaps a mirage. If you're not talking about me then kindly don't mention me in any other of the advice you have to offer here. If you are talking about me, then please do it elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Understood, I was over the line, I hope you'll forgive me. I have a lot on my mind, and I was trying to work myself up into jumping into this issue with both feet. Sorry if I stepped on your head in the process :) It does bother me that the RFA community hasn't done a better job with these issues before, as I know it bothers you, although we see things differently. Let's see if we can fix this, and all 3 of you are, of course, warmly invited to join. There are a lot of good discussions on WT:RFA today. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You're allowed to be over the line, you're an admin now. I'm unwatching this debacle. All I came to do was to offer a bit of lighthearted relief to someone who had taken a bit of a bruising at RfA. Why you felt it necessary to turn that into an attack against me I will leave as a matter for discussion between you and whatever God you believe in. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the matter would be important enough to bother God with. Surely, an omniscient deity with unlimited power would have something more important to deal with, no? And when somebody gives in, apologizes and attempts to reach out to you and include you in a way that validates your feelings and respects your opinion, for you to continue to pout seems somewhat pointy and inflexible. Just my unrequested $0.02. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for valuing your opinion at far less than the customary 2 cents. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastlaw, I am truly sorry that your RFA did not turn out sucessfully. I regret that my prodding you into RFA may have caused you emotional stress and attracted such drahmaz. I am willing to mentor you and/ or offer some advice if you choose to persue RFA in the future. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, everyone needs to chill out. There is no reason for you to be fighting amongst each other. And there is certainly no reason to do so on my talk page. --Eastlaw (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, that was a world-class LOOK AT ME in your withdrawal speech. I wish I went to law school, or had real world things to do. Some of us just aren't up on your level. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well then, perhaps you should consider doing a few things to improve yourself. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OSCOLA

Hello Eastlaw, sorry if it looked a bit schizophrenic, because I had been moving pages to ones with periods before. But recently I've undergone a conversion: the House of Lords has followed it now too with their latest judgments and you can see this page - the OSCOLA citation method (I understand Andrew Burrows and Peter Birks came up with it) on what we ought to be doing now (even for old cases, even though the reports used dots). Not sure whether you're UK based - it is a little annoying considering that the Americans, Australians and Canadians are still doing periods. Personally, I liked that, but I figured I'd be swimming against the tide if I tried to hold on here with the pages I put up on Wikipedia. Also, to be honest, it saves typing time (if you add up all the periods you would put in over your life...) Best. Wikidea 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-tort

Hi, can you take a peek at this and make any corrections? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:DANFS

Discussion is resolved: Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Convicted" Categories

Eastlaw -

I am sure I don't have to tell you as I have noticed you are a lawyer but you should be careful with your recent "convicted" categories to only add people who have actually been convicted. I came across this when you included Michael Milken in the "convicted of insider trading" category. Milken never was convicted of insider trading although he did plead to other charges as part of an investigation that included allegations of insider trading. Often, even people who are associated with insider trading investigations (Martha Stewart comes to mind) are not actually convicted of insider trading and it is the responsibility of those adding people to this category to make this distinction. Good luck in populating the categories. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN

Current events globe On 14 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Bernard L. Madoff, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Though you technically didn't "nominate" this, you clearly started the discussion that lead to the posting. Thanks again, --SpencerT♦C 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Judicial appointment controversies in the United States

Category:Judicial appointment controversies in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you're bound to see this anyway, since it's right next to the CFD you started, but what the hell... Speaking of which, I left a note there for you. Cgingold (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Parishes

Nominated categories
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Europe to Category:Civil parishes in Europe
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Andorra to Category:Civil parishes in Andorra
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Asturias to Category:Civil parishes in Asturias
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Gijón to Category:Civil parishes in Gijón
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Oviedo to Category:Civil parishes in Oviedo
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Channel Islands to Category:Civil parishes in the Channel Islands
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Guernsey to Category:Civil parishes in Guernsey
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Jersey to Category:Civil parishes in Jersey
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Denmark to Category:Civil parishes in Denmark
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Northern Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Northern Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in the Republic of Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Latvia to Category:Civil parishes in Latvia
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Portugal to Category:Civil parishes in Portugal
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom to Category:Civil parishes in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Scotland to Category:Civil parishes in Scotland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Wales to Category:Civil parishes in Wales
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ceredigion to Category:Civil parishes in Ceredigion
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of England to Category:Civil parishes in England
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Bedfordshire to Category:Civil parishes in Bedfordshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Buckinghamshire to Category:Civil parishes in Buckinghamshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Cheshire to Category:Civil parishes in Cheshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Cumbria to Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Derbyshire to Category:Civil parishes in Derbyshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Devon to Category:Civil parishes in Devon
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Civil parishes in the East Riding of Yorkshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Essex to Category:Civil parishes in Essex
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Gloucestershire to Category:Civil parishes in Gloucestershire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Hampshire to Category:Civil parishes in Hampshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Isle of Wight to Category:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Lancashire to Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of North Yorkshire to Category:Civil parishes in North Yorkshire
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Suffolk to Category:Civil parishes in Suffolk
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Tyne and Wear to Category:Civil parishes in Tyne and Wear
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Winchester to Category:Civil parishes in Winchester
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of North America to Category:Civil parishes in North America
Propose renaming Category:Townships and parishes of Canada to Category:Townships and civil parishes in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of New Brunswick to Category:Civil parishes in New Brunswick
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Prince Edward Island to Category:Civil parishes in Prince Edward Island
Propose renaming Category:Louisiana parishes to Category:Civil parishes in Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Mexico to Category:Civil parishes in Mexico
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Caribbean to Category:Civil parishes in the Caribbean
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:Civil parishes in Antigua and Barbuda
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Barbados to Category:Civil parishes in Barbados
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Dominica to Category:Civil parishes in Dominica
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Grenada to Category:Civil parishes in Grenada
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Jamaica to Category:Civil parishes in Jamaica
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Montserrat to Category:Civil parishes in Montserrat
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Saint Kitts and Nevis to Category:Civil parishes in Saint Kitts and Nevis
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to Category:Civil parishes in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of South America to Category:Civil parishes in South America
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ecuador to Category:Civil parishes in Ecuador
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Asia to Category:Civil parishes in Asia
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Australasia to Category:Church parishes in Oceania
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Australia to Category:Church parishes in Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. The word "in" is preferred in Wikipedia category names. (See also this discussion.) --Carlaude (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Categories named after government agencies

Category:Categories named after government agencies, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles

I am not sure to be honest. I will take all responcibilites, and am sorry for any inconveniences I caused with that rather embarrassing edit. Renaissancee (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Parishes again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Wales Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Europe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on most categories. I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States Attorneys

Hey, good work on the diffusion of that category! I had worked on it a bit before going on vacation; imagine my pleasant surprise to come back and see it completed! Anyways, happy editing and keep up the good work! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Recorder (judge)

Gday. You stuck the merge tag on the Recorder pages viz. Recorder (judge) and Recorder (legal office), and there seems to be general agreement with your suggestion. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1913 CE template

Um, why are you adding {{Catholic}} to all those articles? Citing the 1913 CE is not quite the same thing as "incorporating text" from it. Gimmetrow 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The notices pertain mainly to text dumps, which some of these articles were. However, some of the text dumps from 1911 and 1913 articles were rewritten and are substantially different from the 1911 and 1913 texts. Other articles were never written from the 1911 or 1913 articles, but cite them. I'm pretty sure this was discussed before; I would suggest dropping a message at User talk:JASpencer about the 1913 CE templates. Gimmetrow 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of the template to Asser, as that article doesn't include anything from the CE as far as I know. It only cites one minor fact from the CE. I understood that template to indicate that material was incorporated from the CE in a way that is only legitimate because the text is in the public domain. What's the basis you're using for adding the template? I would think you'd need to see evidence that the CE's text is included but in Asser, at least, that's not the case. Mike Christie (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was tagging those pages which transcluded {{CathEncy}} template. I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that most of these pages were based on the Catholic Encyclopedia entries, so I figured they should be tagged with {{Catholic}}.--Eastlaw (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked Asser, and you're right; it does indeed transclude that template. It uses it in a citation. I looked at the template and the documentation says it can be used for citations, so I don't think it would be safe to assume all of the articles that transclude that can be tagged with {{Catholic}}. I suspect you're right that most are that way, but I don't think it's good to add it without being sure. Mike Christie (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:American federal lawyers

Hey there, I think you'll want to put in your 2 cents at the CFD for this category -- hopefully to suggest another rename option, as I feel quite sure there won't be any support for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FCC v. Fox Television Stations

Thank you for creating the article about the case Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, essentially the sequel to Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. I've done some research and wrote about the hearings and programs in question. I encourage you and other Supreme Court Wikiproject editors to keep expanding the article to include every essential detail and maybe background in the history of legal action against TV indecency, starting from George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words".--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblioteca Angelica

This article was not incorporated from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some of informations used in the article you can not find in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was translated from it-wiki. I used also official site of the library, it means the article is more actual than 1913. Link to the Catholic Encyclopedia I added to the article, because not every reader of en-wiki knows Italian language. In the Catholic Encyclopedia you can find only article about Angelo Rocca, founder of the library. It means you did not read it. The ilatian article was expanded after my work, but it is not well refferenced. Perhaps I will translate additional material in the future. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not problem. It was my beginning of editional work on wikipiedia and link to the Catholic Encyclopedia I wrongly placed to the "See also" instead to the "References". In that time I did not know how to do "references". It was not correct, but I forget about it, and did not correct it to the present day (references). Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ineligibility Clause

You may want to work in some details from this article into Ineligibility Clause.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Huge, enormous, important project.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges. I'll need all the help I can get. I find the easiest way to do this is pick an active judge and then trace the succession back to the creation of the seat. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noted a few thoughts on the best direction of the Federal Judges project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix I have been asked to fill in some detail with scholarly discourse. There is a bit more overlap than before. You may want to have a look and comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Please look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=266456427&oldid=266454284 Consider the user-added claim "He has never used this label to describe himself, however." It is not cited, and not verifiable. Should this line be in the article? Wouldn't it be better to require a citation to some source that says Thomas disavows the concept of states' rights, or something similar? Thank you. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Eastlaw, be advised that this question has been disputed in a medcab case and is the subject of a pending nomination to mediation (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. Just thought you should know the context of the question. Simon Dodd (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1911 Britannica

When you insert the template "{1911}' it reads Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). Not every article that credits "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911" is currently based on that article, as did tend to be the fact several years ago. Templates thoughtlessly applied are the bane of the better sort of Wikipedians. Can you go back and vet your applications oof this template, please? Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings. I have left a message at User talk:BD2412. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as an individual, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:1911 talk

Debate is closed and the result was delete. Is everything set so I can just remove 1911 talk from the talk pages or there is something to be done first? You can answer me here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We should remove it from the talk pages, and add Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to the {{1911}} template. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the category in the 1911. Are you sure that for all the talk pages with 1911 the corresponding article has 1911? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the category. Users Wetman and Srnec got mad at me for tagging articles with {{1911}} using AutoWikiBrowser; see the conversations here and here, respectively. Since I got tired of taking verbal abuse from them, I stopped.
This page is a list of articles whose talk pages contain {{1911 talk}}, but which do not contain the {{1911}} template themselves. I only got through the "E"s. If you want me to finish the rest off myself, I could do it either later tonight or tomorrow. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the template for all articles not in the list above (~10,000 edits). Can you help with the rest, now we have the decision to remove it from the talk page? In many cases the 1911 has to be added in the article page. Please reply here. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, here is what I will do: I will tag the remaining pages on the list with {{1911}}, and I will put "per administrator instructions" in the AWB edit summary. I may not get around to it for a few days though, because I am going away on vacation. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Add the following text in the edit summary: "Added {{1911}} per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 4. Feel free to remove if not applicable" If it is reverted, don't put it back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, will do... --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mission accomplished. Template orphaned and deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Great job! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Anytime at all. I do a fair amount of template cleanup myself and have created many, though I am not a great coder and stay away from the really esoteric stuff. If you have a bunch of requests, feel free to bunch them and drop by if I'm around to bypass the edit protected wait, which is often amazingly long. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I just checked out your userpage. Well met, fellow atheist attorney Wikipedian:-) I stay far away from law topics here for the most part. I occasionally fix something if it catches my eye by happenstance, but I spend all day with the law, and writing about it here would feel like work to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

United States Conference of Mayors PresidentsTFD

Do you intend to be neutral at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_12#Template:United_States_Conference_of_Mayors_Presidents? You have not voiced a keep or delete yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I think I see that you added a 1911 template to William Ouseley. Tell me? How do you know?.... and if you do know then why not add an inline ref? Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC) oh! I see that Wetman made exactly the same point a month ago .... now I am confused. Why add needless templates? Victuallers (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the reply and the change. Victuallers (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Courts of" edits.

You can re-add the categories to the "Courts of [state]" articles - it is fine to make changes, so long as they are either outside the tags, which only cover the actual list of courts, so categories are fine. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks---I'm glad people appreciate my photography. I was just walking around the law library after doing some work-related research, saw some UCC stuff on a shelf, and thought, that might be nice for Wikipedia.

I'm sure the conspiracy wackos will go nuts when they realize that there were "confidential drafts" of the UCC! But it's all very dry, harmless stuff (about as entertaining as reading rough drafts of Congressional bills on THOMAS).--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notification

Thank you for the notification on my talk page. Would you mind signing your comment as well? Cheers. kilbad (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Schnader Practice Areas

Hi Eastlaw - I see we've been going back and forth on the description of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP's practice areas; my concern with your description is that it leads with Family Law. While Schnader's Family Law Department is very well-regarded and well known, Schnader is historically and currently primarily known for litigation and business/transactional law; the Family Law Department is a big part of the Firm, but probably shouldn't lead the description. Can we come to some common ground on the language? Best, CBrobeil Cbrobeil (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges

Greetings, old friend! Your support for the creation of this project would be most welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Schnader/Neutrality

Hi Eastlaw - Yes, I am an employee of Schnader. I do understand the conflict of interest policy and the neutrality policy; in making the changes, I actively sought to avoid puffery or anything that was beyond a simple, accurate description of our current practice areas (in making all of my edits, I sought to be simple and factually accurate; I was not seeking to promote the Firm, I was trying to ensure accurate information about the Firm was posted; I was also sensitive to not editing language that, while not my own, was accurate). I remain true to that purpose - I do not seek to promote the Firm on Wiki - it is not the appropriate forum to do so. I just want to ensure an accurate entry. I am welcome and open to suggestion - are there parts you feel are beyond the bounds of appropriate description/factual accuracy? I look forward to your feedback. Best regards, CBrobeil Cbrobeil (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on SCOTUS case

Just to let you know that there is a dispute on this SCOTUS case, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (see talk page). Third opinions welcomed... Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To summarize the background, User:PraeceptorIP appears to regard the revisions of User:222.151.202.177 to Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (here and here but possibly the further edits as well) as motivated by "a political agenda" [4]. In contrast, User:222.151.202.177 wrote that he "has been researching the issue of patent exhaustion ... and noticed ... hundreds of assertions by PraeceptorIP that simply are way off the mark". Further, he wrote "There are so many erroneous and political undertones in PraeceptorIP’s analyses and statements that it is difficult to know where to begin, and frankly it is not worth the time to correct them", with more details about some supposedly erroneous statements [5]. From this, the question is how to bring these two truly knowledgable editors together to improve the article? Possibly a question of understanding the case's subject first (at least partially), asking the right questions, and then applying in some way WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR and WP:CIVILITY... What do you think? --Edcolins (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Richfife/Bankruptcy

Sure, I'll do it myself. I was sort of doing a trial run in my namespace to see if there was a lot of squawking. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is now open for business - let's get it organized and outline our tasks! bd2412 T 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

listen i don't know who you are...but there is a such thong as freedom of speech...and even if you delete my page i can sue because it's in violation of my rights..but im not going to do that because i believe in what jesus would do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 909bjy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to direct you to Wikipedia:No legal threats. bd2412 T 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Eastlaw, you might want to have a look at this discussion: Wikipedia talk:External links#CongBio and FJC Bio templates in External links. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your requests to change the categories of these templates, the best way to implement this is to use documentation subpages, which I have now done. I also decided that, as all these templates have a similar function, it would probably be easier to maintain them if they all used the same documentation page. I hope you agree with this. Would you be interested in updating that page to accommodate all of these templates? If not, I will try to find the time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good the way you did it. The template {{User information templates}} lists all of these types of templates, as far as I know. What specifically would you want me to change? --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, there is some specific documentation for {{User}} at the top, but nothing specific for the other templates. But you're right that {{User information templates}} appears below, so maybe nothing needs to be done. I notice that there are some others which you didn't place an editprotected on (e.g. {{User5}}). Is there any advantage in making those share the common documentation as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your AWB edits break /doc pages

Hi Eastlaw. I noticed that your edit to Template:Unsigned/doc broke that /doc page. I reverted that edit. You can not use substitution of {{PAGENAME}} on /doc pages since they are meant to be read on their template page. And sometimes they are even transcluded to other places too.

I checked your user contributions for that day and see that you also broke Template:Botlinks2/doc, Template:Undated/doc and Template:Userlinks2/doc in the same way. I fixed those edits too.

I leave it to you to check if you broke any /doc pages on any other days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5