This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notecardforfree. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodriguez v. United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remand. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pro hac vice, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Civil law and English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
FYI, I did a quick and dirty article on this. I'll try to expand it, but thought you might be interested in collaborating. GregJackPBoomer!06:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GregJackP! The article looks great so far -- you really have a unique talent for writing clear and interesting summaries of cases. I will add what I can over the next few days; I probably won't be able to do a ton of work today, but I will definitely do what I can this week. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. There is no need to apologise. It is a mistake that anyone could have made. The reason it is cited that way is because the first schedule to Short Titles Act 1896 says that it may be cited as "The Wills Act 1837", using those words exactly, and it seems that a legal document that cites an Act by a short title may be invalid unless the short title used is expressly authorised by legislation. Best regards. James500 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I would be delighted to take a look! I am sure that the article is just as interesting and well written as your other featured articles, but I will see if I can offer anything constructive. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Schmerber v. California you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. GregJackPBoomer!06:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GregJackP! I really appreciate the fact that you have taken on this GA review! I am so happy to be working with someone with your level of expertise in the law (and skill for writing fantastic legal articles). After seeing the FA nomination process for United States v. Kagama, I am pretty sure I will need to add hyperlinks to sources (and change some case citations to short-cites, per Bluebook). I also realized just this moment that some sources will need to be put in small caps. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions about anything. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for reviewing this GregJackP! It is truly an honor to work with you, and I am especially thankful to have a former law enforcement officer take a hard look at Schmerber. I will go ahead and follow your suggestions on the GA review -- hopefully I will be able to bring this to FA status one day. I think the significance of Schmerber is under-appreciated by scholars. The case is both the best friend and worst enemy of civil libertarians. On one hand, the case established the important rule that you can't go inside someone's body without a warrant. On the other hand, it said that physical evidence obtained from the body is non-testimonial . . . which is why we have results like Maryland v. King. In any event, I hope all is well, and I look forward to working with you again soon! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Willst du mit mir ein Altbier trinken, um die Autoren und Inhaltentwickler zu feiern? Lass dich nicht von die Wikianwälte beinflussen.
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Drayton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I know (or used to) because I was a clerk at the same time and worked on some of them. But I doubt if more than even a half dozen people know. So it is not "public" knowledge. Phila. Bank is the biggie that I remember. Here's another funny trivia item about RP. He argued Von's for DOJ--which is a precedent he later loathed.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Many of us knew how to do that. Posner-written ops, however, cited law review articles instead of cases--something he still does. At times, I would annotate his law review footnotes with cases to make them (appear) more respectable. Sometimes he acquiesced. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for sharing these stories, PraeceptorIP. It is truly an honor to be working with you on Wikipedia and to see your many fantastic contributions. I have also tried to convince judges and justices that law review articles are important authority that should be cited in opinions, but for the most part, my efforts have been remarkably unsuccessful. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I was taught in law school to be skeptical of secondary sources and to go to primary sources and make my mind up for myself what they stand for. I never could figure out why RP preferred law review articles, and I was a co-worker with him for nearly 10 years. They must teach something else at Harvard. Or he just marches to a different drummer. Curiously, Wikipedia has the same bias in favor of second-hand knowledge. WP prefers the ill-informed opinions of a student note writer or blogger to what the relevant source itself says. (I do not mean to deprecate, however, the opinions of well known authorities in a field, but WP cannot tell the difference.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% about Wikipedia's bizarre obsession with secondary sources. In legal writing, it is particularly easy to mischaracterize a legal argument, so it is important for writers to rely on primary sources to get it right. It is also particularly common for law review authors to offer interpretations of legal arguments that serve their own interests, which is yet another reason why secondary sources are less reliable. I generally use law review articles when writing on Wikipedia if the law review offers a useful summary, original research (i.e. telling the reader the first time the word "penumbra" was used in a Supreme Court opinion -- 1916, in case you were curious), or if the law review article uses language that is especially useful or clever.
With regard to the role of law reviews in judicial opinion writing, I think they are useful for sharing perspectives that may otherwise have been excluded when laws were made or precedent was set. I also think they are useful as evidence of the effects that a particular law or precedent has had on society (another flavor of the law and economics approach). I also think it is important for judges to remember that the best policy arguments may come from the philosopher's armchair, rather than the courtroom. Of course, there is a big difference between a Supreme Court justice who makes normative judgments and a Wikipedia author who reports what cases say. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Penumbra (law), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oliver Wendell Holmes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@7&6=thirteen: it looks like the copyvio detector is picking up portions text quoted from Supreme Court cases. Most articles on this topic quote the same language of the same cases, because the term "penumbra" has been used so infrequently. Consequently, the same quotations appear in this Wikipedia article as well as other law review articles on the subject. Every sentence in the Wikipedia article contains proper attribution per WP:RS and WP:IC. If there are specific portions of the article you find problematic, please let me know and we can address those.
On second thought, I have double-checked my Bluebook and I have determined that a "Sources" section is inconsistent with Bluebook citation style. BB R1.1 states, "all citations appear in footnotes appended to the portions of the text to which they refer." General "Sources" sections are simply never used in legal scholarship. Per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR, I am going to remove this section. I did, however, add links to the citations in the references section. The debate over whether to include a "Sources" section in legal articles has been going on for a very long time, but the consensus has always been to not include them because they are inconsistent with Bluebook. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You provided answers that satisfy my concerns. Forewarned is forearmed. I am always concerned when WP:DYK is involved, as I want to avoid problems that are easily fixed.
Glad you put in the links to the articles. Your choices on the citation method are within the MOS. I personally would have preferred to use sources and EFN and SFN, but WP:Citevar leaves well enough alone.
P.s., I think this "scholarly" article overuses the word "scholar" and that some of the sentences need restructuring to solve that. It's a little repetitive. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: Thanks for your kind words! The "penumbra" is a very import (albeit somewhat arcane) concept in constitutional law, and I was very surprised to see that an article did not already exist on Wikipedia. And you are certainly correct about my overuse of the words "scholar" and "scholarly." It's a bad habit, and I'll try to spice it up with other words. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Notecard, you might deal with some of that by slipping into the passive mode from time to time instead of the active. For example, in the phrase "Scholars have described the process of finding a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution as an interpretive technique known as ..." you might change it to "The process of finding a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution as an interpretive technique has been described as ..." or something along those lines. You will then need, unless you add "by scholars" after "described," thereby defeating the whole ploy, to leave it unsaid in text who did the describing. But presumably you will drop a footnote anyway citing some of those who so described it. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
PraeceptorIP, my professors in graduate school and law school taught me the passive voice was something to be hated and despised; something used when the writer is trying to obfuscate responsibility for something (e.g. "mistakes were made"). I realize now that they might have overstated things a bit. As you mentioned above, I think the passive voice can be quite useful when used properly, and it can certainly help spice up monotonous passages. I'll try to add switch the sentence structure a bit more, and maybe even include some passive voice ☺. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't like and mistrust the passive voice, too. A refuge of scoundrels. But desperate circumstances call for desperate measures. Remember Reagan's "mistakes were made." (He never said by whom. But you can say whom in a footnote.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP, I would be honored to take a look at the article. If I'm not able to take a look at it today, then I will certainly try to assess it before the end of the weekend. In any case, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi, Notecardforfree - I just started reviewing (and tweaking) United_States_v._Washington and while I was still in edit mode, you were reverting some of what I just saved. No problem if the revert is warranted but if I'm in the middle of tweaking while you're reverting, and my save inadvertently replaces something you reverted it could create issues. Since I started the review process today before you started working on it, why not collaborate with me instead of taking the BRD approach? I'm also thinking you may be confusing use of the word "which" as an introduction to a non-restrictive clause vs its use as a relative clause (restrictive) that is essential in identifying the Hudson Bay Company which shipped the fish to New York, etc. There are other companies called Hudson Bay, including one that makes ceiling fans. Simple rule of thumb: If the 'which clause' is a defining clause, then no comma. If it is not a defining clause, then use the comma. Also, A restrictive clause is a clause which functions as an adjective to identify the word it modifies. A restrictive clause is essential for the intended meaning. A restrictive clause is not offset with commas.[1] Thanks, Atsme📞📧20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, you are quite right about the distinction between non-restrictive clauses and relative clauses. I wasn't aware of the fact that there is more than one Hudson Bay Company, and it didn't occur to me that the function of the clause may have been to clarify the identify of the Hudson Bay Company. In any event, I apologize for causing any disruption to your work -- when I began my review, I didn't realize that were still editing the article. I certainly would like to focus on collaboration in the future, and I look forward to working with you! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Notecardforfree. I appreciate your response and look forward to collaborating with you. Aside from normal copy editing, I've decided it's best for me to make suggestions on the article TP before adding anything to the article. Collaboration works much better from there. Look forward to your input. Atsme📞📧22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: I actually can spell...most of the time. 😆
Your message (Obergefell v. Hodges)
I thank you for your appreciation of my work (or procrastination) on Obergefell. I didn't realize how much more time-consuming it would be in practice than theory. I did break one Bluebook convention though: I didn't abbreviate court documents. I thought it would be best for general/most readers. It's bad enough I used the phrase "consol. sub nom.," but I thought I would grant myself one major indulgence. Thanks again. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw that United States v. Washington was promoted to FA!! What an excellent example to demonstrate the rewards of productive collaboration and how WP is supposed to work. It makes me smile! I hope it will encourage GregJackP to scrap his retirement and come back to work!! 😊 I also wanted to let you know about the redirects I just created to help alleviate your concerns over the article title and potential confusion over the case you recently discovered, United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977), at least for the time being. I used your suggestions for retitling and created 3 redirects, United States v. Washington (9th Cir. Case), United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974), and United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1975). That way, if a move is determined to be the best option, the current article can simply be moved using the agreed upon title, and the redirects modified to accommodate the move. A disambiguation page could also be created if/when the 1977 article is created. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧11:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Atsme! I certainly enjoyed the process of working on the article and I share your sentiments about the collaborative process. It was definitely a rewarding experience! And thank you for creating the redirects listed above. The 1977 Supreme Court is fairly arcane -- it dealt with whether a criminal defendant could waive their right against self-incrimination while testifying at a grand jury. I doubt anyone will create an article in the next few years, but in my utopian vision of the future where every SCOTUS case has an article, then we would have to address the title issue. However, it looks like you found a simple and elegant solution! And I do hope GregJackP comes back soon -- he is such an incredibly valuable asset to the community. He is a fantastic content creator and one of the few editors to tackle the complex (and often heartbreaking) history of Native Americans in the American legal system. In any event, hopefully you and I will have an opportunity to collaborate again in the future! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"I personally find administrative law scintillating"
It's hard to find people who enjoy stimulating conversations about administrative law. However, much of my real-world life involves administrative agencies, so many of my colleagues share my interests. I truly admire people who pursue careers in programming and engineering; I don't think I would have much fun looking at microcontroller data sheets, though I can't say I've ever seen one before :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
