User talk:Brainboy109

Baker
If you don't mind my commenting here...Baker is under federal law because with its one-sentence statement the SCOTUS said that someone denied a MN marriage license did not have an issue that could be raised under federal law. That's what not a federal question means. That one SCOTUS sentence made it difficult to get the issue of SSM into federal courts for years. Make sense? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course comment here, what it's for. Baker did not address federal law because it was not suing against a federal statute.  The first to do that was actually Adams v. Howerton, and cert. was denied there.  When the SCOTUS dismissed Baker for want of "substantial federal question" it is referring to the U.S. Constitution when it said "federal".  The SCOTUS was mandated until the 80's to give some type of response to all appeals from state court cases trying to convert their question into a federal one, and that was and still is very rare.  That is why it directs the federal courts to have Baker and other dismissals as precedent.  But the issue at hand in Baker was a state statute, not a federal one.  Baker was not suing the federal government.  Our federalist government system is a bit complex, and can make judicial analysis difficult.  It has to be understood that the "federal law" section I deleted it out of, is concerned with the federal statutes and executive actions.  That section summarizes all that well.  Baker is not apart of the federal law issue.  I hope this clarifies. Gabe (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that no federal statute was at issue in Baker and no one would dispute that. SCOTUS was asked if MN law was invalid under the U.S. Constitution. The meaning of the Due Process Clause etc was at issue when SCOTUS issued its one sentence just as much as the MN statutes.
 * I think when we say "Federal law" in the heading we include the Constitution, i.e., the federal level as opposed to the state level. Not just statutes. (That's why we don't say statutes, which would clearly exclude the Constitution.) I'm not sure offhand what better headings we could use. But then, I think it's clear enuf as it stands. We don't say state constitutions either.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While it could be said that "federal law" is the constitutional law as well, it's still not completely appropriate to put Baker there for other reasons. That section, like the state law section, is about the current laws/policies that are being used right now.  Baker is more appropriate and really only needs to be in the "History" section where it is now.  As you and others have said, we need to shorten the page, I feel no need to have the mention of Baker in the "federal law".  It is most appropriate and only needed in the history section. Gabe (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm BU Rob13. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Same-sex marriage in the United States without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 18:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"On the other hand" in Obergefell v. Hodges
This is just a little FYI. The phrase "on the other hand" is not strictly colloquial. It is found throughout academia, by which I don't mean legal circles. I thought you should know. My background is primarily in academia, generally. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see your background is in sociology and political science, which posses their own jargon and diction distinct from (the rest of) the humanities, my usual home. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have a background in both. My MA is in Sociology (my user page is outdated now that you reminded me about that).  "On the other hand" wouldn't necessarily be poor wording, but it wouldn't always be preferred wording.  I often suggest to my students (I teach college) to avoid using colloquial or expressive terms such as that, but it's not required of course.  It's certainly not a make or break of the Obergefell page either.

I am not sure what "jargon" we have other than terminologies that aren't used in other disciplines though. I've never run into that before other than using terms like maybe "radical feminist", that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. But I don't exactly speak of my work in academia with friends and family outside of work anyways haha Brainboy109 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:GDP PPP per capita world map IMF figures year 2006.png


The file File:GDP PPP per capita world map IMF figures year 2006.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned map."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Grace Santiago for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grace Santiago 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 Articles for deletion/Grace Santiago 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. Spinixster  (chat!)  11:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Annie McNamara for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie McNamara 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 Articles for deletion/Annie McNamara 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. Spinixster  (chat!)  11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)