User talk:Cdogsimmons/Archives 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- NatsukiGirl \talk 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Greetings!
Hi. I've added you to Category:Law student Wikipedians. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Enforce inclusion of categories
Hey, I've made a proposal to change the software to prevent mainspace pages from being saved unless they contain a category. I'd appreciate your thoughts! bd2412 T 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the barnstar
Dude, it was really nice of you to award me that barnstar. I just wish I had more time to do better quality work here on Wikipedia, and also add articles to more different subjects (though I did write some heavy metal related articles). --Eastlaw 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gonna get a third opinion.
Thx - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe... when you're a 3L, perhaps you will be equally as professional! Anyways, this is a collaborative endeavor, and I am never out to make beef. I can't believe you called one non-hostile revert a "low intensity edit war" in your post to Postdlf... Shocking! Well, whatever. Have a good one! - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the history. Pref and I were fiddling with these things within an hour of its creation on the 20th of August, two months ago. I would not call that an edit war. Edit war, in general, is a dirty term here. Edit wars get you flunked on your RfA more often than not. What we were doing was neither hostile nor repetitive, and once we established a disagreement, each one solicited input from other experienced users. (You chose lawyers, I went with a non-lawyer member of the Mediation Cabal. Neutrals work best. For example, if I am beefing with a buncha Jews over a Judaism-related article, I call in a gentile to adjudicate.) Anyway, what we were doing was not an edit war, and if you were an experienced user, I would have had every right to be pissed over such a sensationalist characterization of my actions - but since you're not, we're cool. Do you go to St. John's then? - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not offended, but you did use the term loosely. As for my rep, you didn't harm it, don't worry. RfA is a Request for Adminship. At 700 edits you are kinda new, even though it's been eleven months. Finally, I was not trying to uncover your identity, God forbid, just making conversation. Curious which law school you go to, if I know you IRL, etc. Networking, as it were. LOL. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks... we do what we can. --198.185.18.207 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's this "we" you're talking about? Hmm? --198.185.18.207 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, "us". --198.185.18.207 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OOOOh, I gotcha now. --198.185.18.207 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi


I invite you to join the Pornography in the United States GA for some copyedit (mainly proper articles and punctuation marks), but feel free to edit it anyway. Thanks, --Brand спойт 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Federline
Greetings Cdog... The reason I pulled the sex tape allegation twice? The first time, it had more to do with the source. Having lived in the U.K. for a stint, I've experienced the reliability of their tabloids. In short, they make the National Enquirer look like the New York Times. It never even passed the smell test; if you were Federline, would you really let that tape out of your hands? One illegal copy, and you're out of a fortune.

Later, the people who chimed in that they were negotiating for the tape all had a vested interest. The porn peddler needs to keep his name in the headlights in order to brag about his ability to pay and distribute, while the online betting parlor was using it as an inducement to lure in new accounts.

The second time I pulled it was because Federline's lawyer stated that it didn't exist.

Last, Ms. Spears (and her representatives) never mentioned they had a sex tape. The source of that rumor was a satire piece, believe it or not. Some idiot reporter (or editor) read the satire piece off the newswires (where it was released), and actually integrated it into a separate story. If you're interested in the genesis, try a Google news search, and you'll see what I mean.

If you're bored with second year law classes (who could blame you), you may want to check these two links out:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s4i12111 http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27269967.shtml

That article was published last week. It was in written in response to both the sex tape rumors, and the fact that Britney was giving away baby pictures in order to prevent Federline from cashing in, as he was entitled to as per the prenuptial agreement.

US court cases
Wow do you intend that all the red links in the US court cases have an article eventually? THats amazing. Let me know what your plan is Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fully agree with you that wikipedia should be the ultimate giant collection of human knowledge and this means ridding of the traditional encylopedia methods of basic coverage towards more precise and detailed coverage. If wikipedia is to achieve its goal is "providing the sum of all knowledge" it needs to do this and focus in on different areas and topics. I just think it amazing how wikipedia is progressing to cover such details!!!! I wish you luck. Ten years time and we'll see wikipedia only just beginning to recognize its full potential!! All the best! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember though that the indiviudal articles should be categorized by year e.g 1984 U.S court cases -I have seen several uncatgorized. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I don't mean the lists although the articles definately should. I would strongly suggest using e.g Category:1983 U.S court cases Category:1984 U.S. court cases etc for individual articles and maybe even for the lists to get some chrono. idea of the cases. This would alos make them more encyclopedic. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work!
The lists that you've been adding of U.S. Supreme Court articles are excellent. I started creating them awhile back, and got through volume 89, but I haven't found the time to continue. Keep up the great work! Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot?
Are you running an unauthorized bot to create all of those articles? John Reaves (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, great job then. John Reaves (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Court cases
I saw that you finished the lists of SCOTUS cases, great work! However, I had a quick question for you. I saw that you began starting to add succession boxes, what do you think about using this template instead? It's a powerful template that would eliminate the category link at the bottom, and it's designed to work with all pages dynamically. It can be seen implemented here. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you began to notice me editing the pages, but in case you didn't... the SCOTUSCases automatically adds the specified article to its proper category, so the category listed at the bottom of the page can be deleted. Also, it's a good idea to use three-digit numbers in the template (i.e. 005 instead of 5 or 079 instead of 79) so that the page is listed in the proper place in the category. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 577
Your recent edit to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 577 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Overton Park
Not trying to pick a fight -- and you have access to Westlaw now, while I don't. But I can't recall seeing the 'Inc.' used in the cite for that case on most occasions. If I had to surmise, that's prob. because the "Citizens to Preserve" in the name signals that it's a (nonprofit) corporate entity already -- thus rendering the corporate suffix superfluous.

Examples:
 * http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1066/
 * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=401&page=402
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=650482

It can be debated whether it's literally  incorrect to use the suffix -- but the version of the cite w/o it seems far more common. —GGreeneVa 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for the barnstar, I appreciate it very much. You dutifully finished what I only began and for that, I am very grateful. Keep up the great work. --MZMcBride 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm touched
I know I'm not the first to say this, but -- sniff -- I saw the barnstar, and I'm touched. ---Axios023 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nigerian general elections
I have to run - my table looks terrible on Nigerian general election, 2007 - can I leave it to you ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Eek - I see it has hit the front page. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate page
Hi Cdogsimmons. I noticed you created a duplicate page for Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe at Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe. Why did you copy the page instead of simply using the move function? --Eastlaw 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cdog
Hey how are you? I just graduated from Northeastern University School of Law, and I noticed that you had been adding a bunch of new U.S. Supreme Court case articles. I am currently in the process of adding cases to the appropriate sections of the List of United States Supreme Court cases; unfortunately, there are a great many articles which exist on Wikipedia which have yet to be added to these lists. Any assistance you could give me in this task would be much appreciated, especially since I am about to begin studying for the New Jersey bar exam very soon. Thanks. --Eastlaw 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See also links to volumes
I started a thread here and would appreciate your input.--chaser - t 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cruftbane 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I need your help! I was immpressed by your committment on the above AfD and in complete denial of my own inexperience in this area...I created Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration.  I'm not sure how all the infobox elements function, and I'm not sure what to put in the article.  I've got a rough start with a bunch of material from the case itself.  Any advice would be much appreciated..!  Dreadstar  †  03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks so much for the compliments and the barnstar..! I've slacked off a bit myself, but plan to add more every week or so...we should have the list completed in no time...then there's all the other years that I haven't had the nerve to look at yet...heh.  Thank for the boost!  Dreadstar  †  16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TootsieRollStarWrapper.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TootsieRollStarWrapper.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

United States v. Louisiana (1965)
A template has been added to the article United States v. Louisiana (1965), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Martijn Hoekstra 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Move tab reminder
Please use the Move tab to 'rename' articles, like you did earlier this month with United States v. Stewart/United States v. Stewart (2003), but more recently didn't with United States v. Louisiana/United States v. Louisiana (1965). My understanding is that moving content away from its history is a GFDL license violation, among other things. The latter has been reported to the cut and paste move repair holding pen for repair. Thanks. Rhs1980 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana v. United States (1965)
My mistake. The article appeared to be the same as United States v. Louisiana (1965), so I made it a redirect. I'm glad that my mistake was fixed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jay W. Hood
A tag has been placed on Jay W. Hood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- WebHamste r 00:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to volumes
I just noticed this. I may well be wrong in my arguments in the thread linked below, but I've been periodically removing those links at the same time you're adding them, which isn't a durable solution. Let's discuss it here.--chaser - t 12:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room, please affix the template 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) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

missing Supreme Court cases
Hi -- on List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 396, numbers 556 to 1201 seem to be missing. Do you know why this is? This list has a similar gap, even though the same site has the decision numbered 976. Joriki (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Volapük
Hi Cdogsimmons! I found your name via the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought you might care about this discussion: Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree with us that deleting stubs is not the best for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight this proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 17:23, 16 January 2008.

AfD nomination of List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205
An editor has nominated List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been remiss in editing these articles! Thanks for reminding me!  Just created another one.  They're very interesting, actually...although the last one was about a poor man getting his head crushed by a train...eech...  Dreadstar  †  01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding
The Waterboarding article's ArbCom proceeding has been ended without resolving the content dispute. Please contribute constructively on the Talk page. I have proposed removing six words from the lead sentence, and I have also suggested mediation. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfM
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Trying this again, thanks for agreeing to participate
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your talk page notices
I've initiated a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard regarding your talk page notices about the deletion review. In many cases, these comments are considered disruptive; see Canvassing. Feel free to comment here regarding this issue. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I, for one, want to thank you for bringing the deletion review to my attention. This is just ridiculous that people get so het up about userboxes that in the long run don't mean squat if the person(s) using them aren't being disruptive.  --Merovingian (T, C) 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct way to utilize WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship is to use the Notice board. NOT to message every person on the membership list! That is considered highly disruptive. Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on US Navy
(Taking this from the DRV page because it doesn't relate directly to the discussion.)

Actually, the Oath of enlistment that I took when I enlisted and re-enlisted (four times in total) is here on Wikipedia, and the only three groups to which I am beholden is a)the Constitution, b) the officers appointed over me and c) the President of the United States. I have to obey their orders, but it doesn't say anything about agreeing with the orders or liking the people who issue them, only that I follow them. I have taken orders from people from whom I had little respect, and from presidents for whom I voted against (both parties, FWIW), but that doesn't mean that I agreed with them, or that it was a political act in and of itself.

My point about the American citizen userbox is that I am an American citizen by circumstance; I was born in the United States by two American citizens. It does not apply any labels to it (such as the "Proud American" userbox, which was a bit too POV for my tastes), and does not indicate whether I view this as a positive or a negative thing. Identifying one's citizenship is not political, unless one is identifying himself as a citizen of a nation that does not exist (such as Transnistria) or preposterous (such as Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship, which was deleted at UCFD ).  Horologium  (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BLS entry
Hello, I obtained permission to use the three pictures I've added to the BLS entry. If it's all right with you, can we delete the older ones? Thanks. --Saint.brooklyn.1901 (talk)

Everson v. Bd. of Ed.
Hi - sorry, that was my first NPOV and I wasn't quite sure what to do. I see you're in law school too, so you probably understand that this article seemed very slanted against Justice Black and leaves the reader the impression that in the legal field it is widely accepted that people view Everson as illegitimate. Harvardgirl33 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding and NPOV
You need to either post a convincing argument under NPOV (provide evidence, not just opinions) of why it should change. That discussion literally happens monthly, but no one can ever, ever provide any crowd-convincing reasoning beyond what comes down to giving the American conservative viewpoint undue weight vs. the rest of the International body of history. That's the problem. One group/political faction in a limited geographical area thinks one thing. Everyone else, per sources, thinks another. To elevate that dispute held by one American group to represent a global view is inappropriate. The Bush administration is a limited life span entity--8 years. Waterboarding's history goes back hundreds of years, and is worldwide. You may want to bring this up at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Lawrence §  t / e  18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification of title for United Public Workers v. Mitchell
The topic for the Supreme court case of United Public Workers v. Mitchell is incorrectly linked to the name of U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell.

I do not know how to change this but it should be changed in the interests of accuracy.

The findlaw case is United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.94.18 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I think that should fix it. It's abreviated Public Workers v. Mitchell in the official citation.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining civility in waterboarding discussion
Cdog, you wrote this at my page:


 * Please try to keep a cool head when discussing this topic. I found your comment here to be outside the realm of common civility that I expect from all wikipedia editors. If you choose not to abide by standards of common civility, you may be blocked from editing on this topic per the policy specifically decided upon here. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is my reply, reproduced from my talkpage:


 * Cdogsimmons, thank you for your note. Here is the reply I have made at Featured article candidates/Waterboarding:
 * Thank you for your remark, Gdogsimmons. It, along with the message you left at my talkpage, raises some procedural concerns. I may decide to take those up separately, elsewhere. Meanwhile, Judgesurreal (who interestingly enough agrees with your position on the article), has more than once accused me of bias. The supposed grounds for that accusation seem to be these: (1) that I regard those who disagree with me as "psychos"; (2) that I irrationally take it as demonstrable fact that waterboarding (as defined by everyone) is torture (as defined by every disinterested party); and (3) that I say a minority must not be right. Those are the claims he or she made against me, in effect; but all three are ill-founded. As I pointed out, it was uncivil of him or her to accuse me of bias; I suggested a retraction or a justification. But I got neither. Nevertheless, I now retract what I suppose you have objected to in the post I made before this one (see above). Again I call on Judgesurreal to withdraw the accusation of bias against me, and not to take every opportunity to counter a fresh comment supporting the article by repeating what... some may consider to be a militantly biased push on her or his part. Such stridency risks intimidating newcomers to the discussion, and is entirely unproductive. We have heard him or her; let's now encourage others to have a say, rather than browbeating them with blunt repetition. If any of that is uncivil, I it put to editors here that I have been provoked by serious misrepresentation of the points I have made. Let me know precisely which phrasing you don't like, and again I'll consider striking it. (And then, please treat others the same!) Finally, I have "censored" no one. There has, to my knowledge, been no overt or covert censoring in this discussion. Yet.


 * If you were an admin, you might have authority and judgement in these matters. Since you are not one, you may consider yourself well treated indeed to have such a polite response from me.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 08:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Laura Taylor Swain
A tag has been placed on Laura Taylor Swain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Chris19910 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sidney H. Stein
A tag has been placed on Sidney H. Stein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Chris19910 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Hi there, i have posted a reply to your 'suspected sockpuppets of mine' on the talkpage Chris19910 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected_sock_puppets/Chris19910
FYI, just wanted to let you know I chimed in on the case of Chris19910 and Bridwater. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

National Central University Lu-Lin Observatory
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Central University Lu-Lin Observatory, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n5/aas195/157.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TootsieRollStarWrapper.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:TootsieRollStarWrapper.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gonzales v. Raich
I failed the GA nomination for Gonzales v. Raich for several reasons. First of all, more than half the article is unreferenced; the sections that are referenced do not use inline citations at all, just bare links after the text. This was a big enough MoS issue that I felt it could not pass. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An Invite to join WikiProject Genetics
By the way, I can fix the Pornography in the United States GA invite above, if you'd like. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment request: (B/high) for The Hotchkiss School
(copied to you because you seem interested) (B/High)Please add more in-text citations to this article. This will help with the NPOV concerns. In light of these two issues, I am bumping this article down to High until proved otherwise. — Calebrw (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
Just nominated this for GA status - I'd appreciate your review of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating geo lists
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot. Please offer your thoughts thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:228085main GLAST.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:228085main GLAST.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heller
Hey, thanks for your notification. I'd like to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page. I'm at work right now, but I'll try to get some detailed comments up to start a discussion later tonight. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I see that you were talking about removing discussion comments on the talk page. I don't have strong feelings about that either way-- so if you think they should be there, that's fine and I have no plans to revert you. Still, if you want to understand my rationale, which I assure you was not in bad faith, you can check out the policy pages What Wikipedia is not:


 * ...talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.

and Talk pages:


 * Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

As I said, it's not a big deal other way, but it may help you understand in the future when you see other people making similar cuts to talk pages. Thanks again for sharing your concerns.

--Ryan Delaney talk 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases
Hello Cdogsimmons. Thanks for you message. Unfortunately the list you submitted was quick-failed because it failed several of the key criteria for a featured list. WP:FLC is not a place to submit work where you wish for it to be peer reviewed - that's why we have the Peer Review process (as a reminder, the FLC instructions state "Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review."

You may like to compare the current state of the article with the criteria for a featured list:


 * 1) Prose. It features professional standards of writing. - virtually no prose at all.
 * 2) Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. - no lead other than the repitition of the title of the list.
 * 3) Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. ✅ - although it would need to be checked.
 * 4) Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. - nothing other than a series of numeric links which non-experts cannot relate to or find any context for.
 * 5) Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. - several WP:MOS breaches.
 * 6) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. - a morass of numbers with no additional information.
 * 7) Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process. ✅ - can't see major problems here.

So, feel free to work on the elements where the list fails currently, I'd suggest you go to peer review for a wider community perspective and then, once you're happy you meet the seven criteria, feel free to bring the list back to WP:FLC. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite – alas, I'm too busy these days to do any peer-reviewing or copyediting. If you still need my help in mid-July, let me know. Good luck! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

don't threaten me
My edits are not vandalism. It's you who is breaking the rules. --87.198.133.62 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For anyone else reading this page, we were talking about this.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your removal of links to the List of United States Supreme Court cases
Hello. I was going through the Flagged U.S. Supreme Court cases and fixing infoboxes, and while I was correcting the infoboxes, I also made other changes. So, while I didn't just change the infobox, it was the sole reason I was at the page to begin with. I was the under the impression that the WikiProject had decided to not include the links at the bottom, which after re-reading this, apparently isn't accurate. I remember Chaser bringing the issue up, and I could've sworn it was decided not to keep them. My apologies.

Because the infoboxes nearly universally define, it would be trivial to add a link in the infobox. Perhaps that's a better option than a "See also" section. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations


I heard you finished the bar exam today. Congratulations! I'm sure it's a big relief to be finished with it. Please enjoy this wiki-cake and I hope passage notification arrives soon. Cheers! --chaser - t 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll be taking the bar exam in three short years, but I'm busy dreading L1 right now. That starts in about three weeks. Wish me luck.

Anthony J. Travia and Anthony John Travia
I saw you created an article Anthony John Travia although the article Anthony J. Travia existed already. Please delete yours, redirect, merge, and/or write any additional info in the previously existing one. I know that the article omitted the category of Judges of the Eastern District, but even so, please search always for articles on any subject before creating new ones, to avoid doubling. Kraxler (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess I missed that one. Sorry. I'll merge them.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Platts
Is Thomas C. Platt, Jr. related to "Boss" Platt?SLY111 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)SLY111

Wiki Prisons
How would you like me to contribute. Hetelllies (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm kind of a newbie. So I won't be good at creating info boxes.Hetelllies (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prisoner's Dilemma
Hello--I'm not a member of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, but I don't think the article Prisoner's dilemma really belongs. In spite of the name, the concept is only very loosely tied to any kind of prisoner, and even then it's about interrogation, rather than detention.C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of the list index
I proposed a move here and was mostly looking for your OK as you've been the primary cheerleader for these lists, although looking through the history again, it looks like MZM actually started them (and has been quite supportive, too). Anyway, I just want to move the index page.--chaser - t 04:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)