User talk:Coolcaesar/Archive4

Archived talk page discussions follow below:

Caesar. Obviously you think that Wikipedia is somehow your personal law review and only you are qualified to make edits. It also isn't Corbin On Contracts or any other legal treatise. You know nothing about West. Purchasing a West textbook for law school doesn't make you an expert either. West had a policy of no layoffs that dated back to before World War II. It was quite proud of this policy and there is nothing wrong with it being noted in a nonbiased article about the history of West. You also continue to revert the article back to an inaccurate state which is wrong too. If you were so knowledgeable about West you would correct the many inaccuracies that are still present in the article.

Wikipedia also shouldn't be a company advertisement either. Go to a company's website if you want to read one of those.

Based on your profile you appear to make numerous edits to various articles and take credit for them. Making edits to Wikipedia articles won't turn them into law review articles no matter how hard you try. Having 4 cameras doesn't make you a photojournalist either.

You are also very funny in that you don't believe the newspaper articles that are the source of some of the information that i have added. And you continually delete the only items in the article that have been verified. Everything else that you continually revert back to has no official source information either but that is fine with you. Unfortunately for you everything that I have added is 100% correct and is verifiable no matter what you think.

You also appear to have a history of making snide and snarky comments about others when you disagree with them. That definitely states a lot about you. It's not professional at all. If you think that being a young lawyer from UCLA somehow entitles you to make such comments guess again. Plese note that I have written this in "Engrish" so it will be easier for you to understand.

Finally, Fonzie called and asked that you stop using the word cool in your name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickking1001 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Coolcaesar. Interested in talking to you about your Sand Hill Road photo for possible use in a book. Please respond on my user page. SammyJean (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Descendants Plot
The plot summary is way to long, 3 or 4 times too long compared to similar movies. It is repetetive, meandering and confusing and contains many details from scenes that have no relevance to the plot at all. Especially as it not a plot driven moving but largely a character and situation based one. The point of an encyclopedia style article is not to describe a film scene by scene at length but to provide a concise summary of the main points for people who want to check something. Anyway I have had my say and it is there to read. My guess the plot is will be tagged for editing and fixed later.

On language. Wikipedia has a policy of total neutrality on US v UK language and which ever a writer uses should stand and they can coexist together. If you want to rewrite the article in better US English then fine but the language is no reason at all to justify the reversion whether the movie is US or not. Films are a global business anyway.

Dewatf (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rule of Law
Coolcaesar, I must respectfully take exception to your removal of my recent edit. Neutrality requires that the reader be informed of respectable dissenting views, and the views of Robert Bork (you may be too young to remember him) are both respectable and supported by unassailable evidence. The solution is the one as recommended: that more be done to explain what the rule of law is and what it is not. As it stands, the reader will be given the demonstrably false impression that Americans actually live under the rule of law, and not one of men.

While it is widely understood that lawyers are expected to be whores for the system -- young and inexperienced lawyers in particular are wrongfully taught this, forgetting that the lawyer's responsibility is to the law and not the system -- any suggestion that ours is a nation governed by the rule of law so completely at odds with the evidence that it is risible. Bouldergeist (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Silicon Valley
Hi Coolcaesar, just want to let you know that I am interested in one of the quotes that you removed from SV article. This particular section of the article was included to my thesis ... Any suggestions? Thanks --Studentusa2011 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we continue this dialogue?  First, you should not have been citing Wikipedia in a thesis paper. (It makes you look lazy.) Second, you should have been looking for better sources than Web sites---they're called books. Try a library. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC) First, you should not have been breaking Talk page guidelines and more specifically please  keep in mind No_personal_attacks rule. Second, please do your homework before you decide to edit an article. Suppose your goal was to improve it. --Studentusa2011 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)  See also: Should students be allowed to use Wikipedia as a source? Yes. As long as students have verified the claims through other sources, they should be able to cite Wikipedia - 49% Maybe. Students can look to Wikipedia for a subject overview and to find links, but they should only cite reliable sources - 36% No. We should discourage students from using Wikipedia. They should access only reputable sources 14%  So, I did my homework (double checked the sources) and included the following part of article to my thesis: In 1953, William Shockley left Bell Labs in a disagreement over the handling of the invention of the transistor. After returning to California Institute of Technology for a short while, Shockley moved to Mountain View, California in 1956, and founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Unlike many other researchers who used germanium as the semiconductor material, Shockley believed that silicon was the better material for making transistors. Shockley intended to replace the current transistor with a new three-element design (today known as the Shockley diode), but the design was considerably more difficult to build than the "simple" transistor. In 1957, Shockley decided to end research on the silicon transistor. As a result, eight engineers left the company to form Fairchild Semiconductor. Two of the original employees of Fairchild Semiconductor, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, would go on to found Intel. - 		 -

You decided to remove the above quotation, because "that site is clearly not a reliable source". Let me share with you some of the preliminary results of my research. Since 1995, a great number of universities, publishing houses and magazines rely on   this Great  Classic Websites as a reputable source of information. You don't have any clue what you're talking about : "I am purging that garbage from this article now." --Studentusa2011 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I just came back from vacation and checked out various version of my thesis. All of them need the chapter of SV's article that was significantly cut down by you. So, let us go back to the discussion we began last time, when you started talking about historians. It's not an ancient rome/greece thing... We are talking about IT industry trends & history. Historians would look back on the time when IT industry appeared in the United States and their sources will be  the stories  that were written by IT insiders. These are the only sources that can be referenced in discussing the article at hand and we are talking about one of the most reputable of them. I proved this point to myself when I wrote my thesis. You can check it out on the citation list that I referred to above. Can you admit when you make a mistake? --Studentusa2011 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'be heard that some of the Twitter accounts were suspended for violating the terms of service by posting the private information of people they don’t like. As I see it from your post, you do the same things. Can you do me a favor? Please do it on your wikipedia page  not mine. Thank you for understanding. Now, back to the topic that I originally commented on. You asked me, "who is the IT insider...'?  Generally speaking, an industry  insider is characterized  by a long time spent in a particular field of the industry.  An IT Industry Insider uses hard won knowledge as well as in-depth research in the  IT trends  to identify the relevant key  industry challenges.  Your first suggestion was that anyone who lives about a hour  away from Silicon Valley  can't be considered as an IT industry insider.  It sounds funny, but your next statement was that   you consider yourself an IT industry insider because you "grew up in Silicon Valley and attended school with classmates whose parents  were top executives at Lam Research, S3, and Apple."     OK. I'm sorry, but I  don't get it. Do you really, so  desperately need to imitate an IT industry insider?  Do you really need to play this role anymore just to feel a sense of belonging? There are lots of other topics around here that does not related to the IT industry. Please, please  tell us it was a joke, repair the article  and  we will smile and laugh together and ... that's it, happy end. --Studentusa2011 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Philip Elmer-DeWitt
While I'm happy to see Declan McCullagh's 1994 piece about the Cyberporn cover story referenced in this Wikipedia page, I must object to the six adjectives you added to his description of me: "sensationalist, self-aggrandizing, unethical, incompetent, unprofessional, and irresponsible." None of those words appear in McCullagh's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiped (talk • contribs) 11:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recasting that, Coolcaesar. Much better. 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.226.136 (talk)

Not to beat a dead horse, Coolcaesar, but you've stepped into an issue that is a bit more complicated than you may have realized. I checked with Declan, who confirms that although we hired him at TIME two year later, he was not a "fellow journalist" when he wrote about the Cyberporn cover story. Acording to his memory of when that piece was written, he was still an undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon, president of the student union and a contributor to The Tartan, the school paper. When I asked Declan when the piece was published, he replied as follows (and suggested I forward it to you).

- - - - - -

From: 	Declan McCullagh  Subject: 	Re: Revisiting 1994 Date: 	March 22, 2010 11:17:29 AM EDT To: 	Philip Elmer-DeWitt 

Philip,

Thanks for your email.

I don't remember using the terms "self-aggrandizing, unethical, incompetent, unprofessional, and irresponsible" to describe your Time magazine Cyberporn cover story.

I didn't use those terms in my article that was reprinted on EFF's Web site, which I believe I wrote in December 1994, and don't believe them to be true today. Wikipedia's description of my article and its criticisms is inaccurate.

I do, however, think your article was rather sensational, and I will happily stand by that criticism today. :)

-Declan

PS: I'll post this email message at this URL if it is helpful for you in your dispute with "Coolcaesar": http://mccullagh.org/misc/articles/philip.elmer.dewitt.correspondence.032210.txt

- - - -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiped (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fellow Journalist"
Coolcaesar, please delete or replace "fellow journalist," per yesterday's note. According to McCullagh, he was a college student when he wrote that.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiped (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Coolcaesar! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gerald Chamales -

Requesting your opinion
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pruneyard
Please read WP:IG. Image galleries shouldn't be used just to corral a bunch of images. Do you really think all five images are relevant to the article, especially given its shortness? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Images
Do you upload your images to the Commons? This makes it easier for other Wikimedia projects to use your images. Happy editing,  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Market-share liability‎
Thanks for your contributions! Clarity has certainly been improved. Verkhovensky (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Chill, man
You use the word "incompetent" a whole lot too much in your edit summaries where you modify sentences. Consider how easy this makes for someone to dislike your change even when they might otherwise see the sense of it. Ingolfson (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In agree, though I presume it's merely the arrogance of youth. I've not taken (too much) exception to it! 80.169.189.68 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not getting any better, though, is it? See "LOL", "Nice work at California Codes" and "Community property" below. Some of your recent edit summaries have included the phrases "Fix incompetent good faith edit", "Fixing incompetent edit by anonymous IP", "Copyediting poorly written prose apparently written by a 14-year-old or younger" (it may surprise you to learn that not everyone's first language is English), "Fixing this mess" and "Deleting obvious incompetent good faith edit". Whether you're right in your edits or not, please consider how it makes another human being feel to be spoken to like that. 80.169.189.68 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't learn. See here. Perhaps you're trying to confirm the stereotype of an American lawyer, or perhaps you're simply immature and need to grow up, or maybe a bit of both.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New word, not "incompetent" this time, rather called another editor a child. here I agree with the others, Chill. Cliff (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow
Hi Coolcaesar,

WOW -- I can tell you did some very laborious work at Civil procedure in the United States, and I'm very impressed.

However, I want to raise the question, whether we really want to change all the redlinks from "Civil procedure in XXX" to "XXX code of something-or-other". For example, I imagine that an article on "Civil Procedure in New York" would not only contain information on today's Civil Procedure Rule and Laws, but would also contain historic information (e.g. on the old Civil Procedure Act (New York), the Throop Code, and the Field Code which originated in New York), as well as information on the other sources of law such as state and federal court decisions.

Just my 2 cents ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Miranda warning
Hello there, I left a follow-up to somebody else's question and your earlier reply [] (at §20). Not working on the article but your remarks took the question into a really interesting lane. I'm not legally trained and not American (I'm from Sweden) but it seems to me this is touching some aspects of the outlook on the rights of cops and the state monopoly of violence in the US vs in Western Europe. The monopoly of violence has, of course, always been a more contested principle in the US and at the same time, or reflecting it, the expectation that policemen would act rough and fast is traditionally perceived to be higher in America. You seem to be implying the consensus understanding that after a waiver, cops are entitled simply not to listen to anything other than what they want to hear, and to throw aside even sensible remarks of criticism from anyone who is arrested and has waived his rights. That's a view many in Europe would find strange, even if they know policemen might act just like that - but morally right? I'd love a few more comments on how this is approached by US law people and cops. Strausszek (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed a link for you
I fixed a link to an article listed on your userpage (the company is now Ancestry.com instead of "The Generations Network"). Also, for your lists, you may want to look into using the div col series of templates to make the three columns as they will automatically adjust the sizes of each column as you add more. If you want me to show you what I mean, just let me know. You've contributed a lot of really nice photos. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL
"Incompetent"? Per Black's Law, careful of your words there, counselor. 98.148.124.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

Nice work at California Codes
I am always impressed when I see Coolcaesar's work in my watchlist!

I have reached my quota of WP editing for the day, but if you're still working on California Codes, you might want to plunder the information at California_law.

Parenthetically -- after months of seeing your edits in my watchlist, I now know not to take it personally when I see edit summaries by you that read "[verb]ing this mess" (Special:Contributions/Coolcaesar) -- it's probably some auto-fill in your browser. Still, it can be misinterpreted as an insult, and you might consider using it more rarely. After I made very small edits to California law and California Code last night, I was agitated when I saw a "... this mess" in my watchlist (this revision and this revision), and I raced to see whether it was some commentary on my own work (which, as far as I can tell, it was not).

Cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Hi. You seem far more reasonable that the others I'm dealing with. If you can help get these trolls off my ass, I'll write the Corporation article for Wikipedia. But I don't have the time to deal with people who are not educated in at least the basics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Community property
Hi, Coolcaeser. Although we're in agreement on the Community property article, please cool your rhetoric. Your comments at, attacking User:SasiSasi's integrity, and referring to his edits as "nonsense" and "craziness," violate WP:CIVIL. Please consider rewording your comment to removing those. Address the article issues, not the editor. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Products liability
I agree with your edit. Even if that was true, which it may be, the Federal Rules of Evidence would forbid its entry into evidence. Therefore, it is unlikely to be sourceable. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of your image in Businessweek
An image which you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons of Fashion Show Mall, Nevada, was recently used by the magazine Bloomberg Businessweek in an article entitled 'Best Places to Raise Your Kids'. The image appeared without attribution and did not mention that it may be reproduced under a Creative Commons license. I thought it would be helpful to notify you of this fact. Contact information for Businessweek is available on its website. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikimediafoundationheadquarters.jpg
Hello! Can you to tag your image properly? See. --TarzanASG (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you answer to me? --TarzanASG (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That photo was originally tagged as GFDL when I uploaded to Wikipedia, but the clown who moved it to Wikimedia Commons forgot to transfer the license as well.
 * Anyway, that photo should NOT be on Wikipedia. I don't know if you know what happened back when I uploaded that photo, but it was promptly deleted in a rare Office Action by the Wikimedia Foundation because they were terrified of anti-Wikipedia wackos coming in off the street and going postal.  I'm surprised the file is still around, as I thought it was deleted years ago.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. I suggested to restore it. --TarzanASG (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's not even their headquarters any more. After Sue Gardner came on board, they started expanding like crazy, outgrew that little building, and moved to 149 New Montgomery Street, the former headquarters of defunct startup RedEnvelope (which was later brought back from the dead in San Diego).  I have an old picture of 149 Montgomery on file somewhere with the RedEnvelope trade dress on it, but I haven't bothered to swing by New Montgomery for years so I have no idea how the building looks like now.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I have undeleted the image.  Could you, please, tag it as GFDL?  I, of course, could do it myself, but I feel it would be more appropriate if the original uploader (i.e., you) did so.  Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 13:11 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harborfreewaynorthbound.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Harborfreewaynorthbound.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357  talk  04:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:I110northboundundertransitway.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:I110northboundundertransitway.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.

Seagate Technology
The data in the cite is that WD produced more disk drives in the 1Q of calendar 2010 than did Seagate Technology so IMO it is more accurate to say Seagate is "one of the largest" than "currently the largest" and not in any way WP:NOT. BTW, other data by Needham has the same statistic. Accordingly I reverted your change. Tom94022 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

re your message at Okham the Fox
Please note that the above editor is an administrator on the Russian Wikipedia. Although their English is not always to a proper standard for articles, they are nevertheless a good faith editor and should be accorded the appropriate respect - and I would note that WP:Competence is an essay and not policy or guideline, and the tagline of Wikipedia is "The free encyclopeida anyone can edit". LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you caught me,
I only want to shame the LAPD, you are a lawyer, how is the law perverted as in special order 40.?.california law /code says that officers are to enforce all laws as in the federal register, local codes etc, That is to include the laws of immigration,I,ve seen the decline of L.A. and I am mad as hell the rule of law is twisted and the polititions with greed and corupt with power have gutted the city once called Los Angeles.open your eyes,yes its not nice to edit an artical (the words are easily fixed) how do you shed light on a bigger problem? When the reprisentives and leaders will not hear the people?(Hillbe (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Definitely not a lawyer
Thanks for fixing my lousy wording. I used your same wording to also fix this. Slightsmile (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, any suggestions for articles where Van Camp accounting and Pereira accounting might be an interesting See also add on? I picked Van Camp out of the wikify list and at the same time I'm seeing if I can de-orphan it. Slightsmile (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please source California Constitution‎
Please provide reliably sourced citations for your work. moreno oso (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil
It's one thing if you revert my additions to Local government in the United States for lacking sources. But when I wrote that the only persons who voted in the colonial years were propertied, white men, you called this detail racist and sexist. I feel your comment was insulting to me. I was reporting facts. That's how it was. Who voted in early America? Propertied white men. Women didn't vote. Neither did African-Americans (they were slaves). There are numerous facts to support the proposition that voting was by propertied white men (and I have provided several references in a restored version). In reporting history, I'm not being racist or sexist. Please be WP:CIVIL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't me
That wasn't me. I don't know who's been hacking my account, but I didn't make that edit.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I already have Avast antivirus! Dude, your computer doesn't need to be hacked for someone to just figure out your password.  I'll just change my password if that's okay with you.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's an edit that I really did make :
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States#Discrimination
 * However, as you can see, I provided citation for my edit. Will you revert THAT and accuse me of vandalizing?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey
WP:AGF :) --Pikolas (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rv vandalism, I read that book and inserted that assertion!)"
Hi there. I removed the quote because I took a look at the source and saw no mention or suggestion of UCLA being "generally regarded as the top law school in Southern California," while it did stand for UCLA being one of the top 15 law schools in the United States. So, the first part of the sentence would be your own opinion, not the opinion from the source.

Accordingly, I "[c]orrected sentence to content of sourced assertion; removed opinion lacking source." Hardly vandalism.

Please provide a quote from your source that actually states or suggests the first part of the sentence that you reverted. I don't see it. Thanks.

Shepard's Citations
I accept your latest edit to Shepard's Citations.

However, your edit summaries in the page history violate Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines under "Working with others", particularly "Civility," "Etiquette," and "No personal attacks."

Since you're a lawyer I'm not going to argue with you, but comments like that are pointless and self-defeating.

And it's always embarrassing when you arrogantly accuse somebody of being wrong and you turn out to be wrong yourself. --Nbauman (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Style consistency, & Wikipedia: Civility redux
Style consistency
 * Re: edit comments on User:Look2See1 talk page: the Civility and Assume good faith guides for writing respectfully and well are at lower levels by Coolcaesar-central reservation posted comments. Your thoughts and guidance are welcome, but attacking is not, and others have expressing warnings on that here before me. Sorry about capitalization mistakes, they are only a good faith mistake and not the pejoratively expressed "incompetentce". The english language is used globally in different styles, without one superior form.--Best Look2See1  t a l k →  18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Laughably wrong Engrish?
Hello. I noticed this old discussion at User talk:OckhamTheFox. I admit I'm not an English native speaker myself but I simply do not see anything grammatically wrong with his edit. Also note your edit was reverted right away and "one of the world's largest" is still in the lead sentence as of today (two months later). Also see the search. — AlexSm 04:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The GEICO Gecko's name
The name of the GEICO gecko is creating confusion.

As I posted on the [Talk] page, it's been changed in the article back and forth from Mallory, to nothing, to Martin.

I trimmed off any name reference. I can't find an authoritative source for any name, and I'm about 99.9% sure there isn't one. Any references to a name I can find seem to be just a big feedback loop to the Wikipedia article.

If you can find an authoritative source, please let me know and change it.John2510 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Two judges per week.
Greetings! At WikiProject United States courts and judges, we have bot-created thousands of articles on United States federal judges. Of those 1,272 currently still have their bot-made cleanup tag. If just a dozen editors will each commit to cleaning up just two of those articles every week, we will conquer the entire list within the year. Most of the articles are quick and easy to clean up, requiring only a few minor adjustments of bot-created awkward wording. Please consider joining this effort, and committing to cleaning up two judges per week for the year. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You hold a J.D. and believe that?
Check the talk page, chief. You've got to be kidding me. You reverted my edit on the basis that the suggestion that American federalism is "tripartite" between the federal government, States, and Indian reservations is actually valid? The Indian reservation article even says "[a]n Indian reservation is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs." A municipality is an area managed by a devolved government, which has relationships with both the State and its relevant subdivision (i.e., county) and the federal government, but municipalities are not considered to be sovereign. They're devolved governments, from the relevant U.S. State. The article does not say "an Indian reservation is an area of land over which certain Aboriginal groups are accorded sovereignty." The BIA directly manages the mundanities of the existence of Indian reservations and works with other federal government agencies in their regard. Their "legislatures" and "courts" are really no different than those bodies convened by municipalities and counties. They're "deferred to", not "recognized".

Yes, the reference does textually and contextually appear in the Commerce Clause, Art. 1, Sec.8: "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes." (emphasis added). Specific enumerations of entities with which the federal government is allocated the power to regulate commerce with cannot reasonably constitute an expression of the nature of American federalism. In 1787, most of the "Indian Tribes" were located on land that were, at best, aspirational, geographic, territories of the U.S. and were, at that time, not even cognizable as Territories. The only difference between Indian reservations and municipalities is that the former have an exclusive relationship with the federal government (ostensibly by virtue of that portion of the Commerce Clause) whereas the latter have relationships with the applicable State and county (State subdivision) governments, and to a much lesser extent (ostensibly due to federal preemption) with the federal government. Indian reservations might be federal enclaves, but they're not sovereign ones.

The "micronation" of Sealand issues its own "passport" and has its own "flag", and even its own "currency". It even has some arguable but implicit recognition from British, German and Dutch courts, resulting from rulings arising from, and pertinent to, issues of general legal significance to those nations. That does not mean it's truly sovereign. Does any foreign nation, or the United Nations, recognize a U.S. Aboriginal group as even a disputedly-sovereign entity? Some American Indians once tried to enter the U.K. on their own "passports" to participate in an international lacrosse tournament and were denied admittance by U.K. immigration officers. If the Mayor of New York City sent an emissary to England to present New York City's "credentials" to the Queen, would that make New York City a sovereign nation unto itself, and autonomous from New York and the United States? It's laughable. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent law school edits
I saw that you recently reverted some edits to Law school. I noticed that this material was also added to Law school in the United States. I don't have any particular objection to the material but I am curious if you have any insight into the group of new editors making these edits, particularly if this looks like the work of one editor using multiple accounts or several new editors. It's a bit suspicious... ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Law School Article
Coolcaesar, it seems we may disagree on the law school article. I see you are a UCLA law graduate, great school. My brother went there as an undergrad. I am a recent law school grad as well (tier 2 school though, you may commence the mockery, although I did finish the last year in the top third of my class, which may not be saying much). I have to say that the job market is brutal for recent grads of non-elite law schools. I actually called my school's career services office about a week ago and asked them where to apply because all of the attorney jobs listed required years of experience, they told me there were no jobs and the best advice they could give to recent grads was to get on a waiting list for a temp doc review position. Anyway, I feel it is important for prospective law school applicants to be well informed before investing a large amount of time and money in their education and therefore believe that this information should be visible (BTW, I did not create the "controversies" section). But, I understand your point as well that the information should be merged to the appropriate setting. Elkevbo proposed a good suggestion that there could be a summary of the "controversies" section in the "law school" article and then a more detailed explanation of "controversies" in the "law school in the United States" section. I'd be curious what you thought of his idea. Johnybegood365 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice
You removed an AfD notice while the discussion was ongoing. Don't do that. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not intoxicated, thank you
And I'd like you to provide reasoning for such a personal attack on me. There is no "engrish" in the edits I made. I took a very American-centric article and globalized it to include more examples (ie ring roads used commonly in Europe vs grids used in North America). I also deleted information that was obviously selectively taken from one city (that they are half a mile apart), added a term used in every country except America (arterial thoroughfare). I removed the incorrect assumption that they link to freeways and expressways via interchanges (as this is not always the case, and often the opposite is true in rural areas), and the grammatical atrocity of a sentence comprised of "Often, commercial areas such as shopping centres, gas stations and other businesses are located on them."

Please explain your revision, and do not degrade or attack the intelligence of editors. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As an outsider, I thought that the thrust of Floydian's edit was good, but it was a little terse in its wording (I've been guilty of such overly terse writing myself). Rather than reverting with such an insulting edit, perhaps Coolcaeser could simply copyedit Floydian's text? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very least I'll be going back and removing statements which contradict the North American Traffic Engineering Guidelines, but I'd rather upgrade the entire article to be less simpleton, and to incorporate the engineering elements (after all, it is a civil engineering topic). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Parkingticketcontract.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parkingticketcontract.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wrecking Wikipedia with incompetent edits or else you will be classified as a vandal
Please stop making incompetent edits to Wikipedia, or you will be classified as a vandal, and blocked permanently, and your edits will be reverted on sight. Your edits are consistently factually inaccurate and introduce numerous spelling and grammar errors into articles that previously had none (or only had a few). You appear to be incapable of drafting a single sentence free of spelling or grammar errors. You're citing unreliable sources in violation of WP:RS, and you violate the Manual of Style like crazy. Everyone else is too busy making contributions to the encyclopedia to spend the time to teach you how to write like an adult (try visiting a library or going back to school, or graduating from high school first). Leave the law articles to the lawyers unless you actually understand what you're talking about. (Trust me, you don't; I can tell you're probably only attended one or two depositions, while I've attended over 150.) If you are unable to draft prose in a minimally competent fashion, you should not be editing Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being non-native English speaker is not a reason to ban me from editing Wikipedia. If I made a spelling or factual mistake -update the article with correct information, but so far I have not hear any facts from you, just discriminative remarks. Let me know what exactly factual information that is wrong? Also, Wikipedia is for average people, not for the lawyers only, so I am trying to explain the rules in a language that can be understandable to anyone. Innab (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If we leave the law articles to only lawyers, that will indeed bias them. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''User:71.132.142.209 may be wrong or he may not be, I don't know and don't particularly care, but you are reverting his/her edits as vandalism when they are obviously not vandalism. You've already started to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and I'd encourage you to hash this out there rather than edit-warring.'' Zachlipton (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with an article about a legal case
Hello, a (long) while back you commented about legal cases regarding Burger King on the talk page for the article and I was wondering if you could help me with some other cases I encountered that seem to have had some impact on case law in the United States. Since I am not a lawyer and have very little experience with legal research, could you possibly assist me in developing these in to a full blown article or articles? I have started some stuff on a sandbox on my talk page at User:Jerem43/BKli. There is also an article exclusively dedicated to BK and its legal disputes and cases that can be found at Burger King legal issues. I would like to split that article into a disputes article and a legal cases article once I have gotten enough quality information on its major legal cases.

Thanks, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help. I suspect that this "newbie" is the same special education student who has created most of the problems at that article for the last several years, and I always appreciate having someone else take a turn at undoing her mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Road articles
In case you miss it, there is a discussion on merging some road articles here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Biglotsstore.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Biglotsstore.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good faith edits are not vandalism
Dear strong personality,

Please refrain from blowing up at everyone every time they have a different viewpoint than you. Please do not assume you alone understand the way each article should read. Please refrain from insisting people refrain from violating Wikipedia's policies when you violate them more than anyone. It would not be difficult at this point to collect enough evidence to have you banned from Wikipedia outright.216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marshall F. McComb
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mirandawarningadvertising.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mirandawarningadvertising.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stare at Black's
Take a look at http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=stare%20decisis&type=3 or other law dictionaries. Stare decisis says judges will abide by previous decisions made by other judges in similar cases. In general they must follow what higher courts say and usually follow what courts at the same level say. See also Law of the case. (But you know all this.) However, as you wrote here  ("Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.") you make it sound like the authority or the obligation to follow what the court says comes from stare decisis itself. Well, what happens when a court gets a case of first impression and there is no stare decisis to follow? And why do we get conflicting decisions from different courts seeking to answer the same issues? More simply, where do courts get the authority (the "legal force") to decide lawsuits and why are parties to such lawsuits obligated to obey the judicial interpretations, decisions, and orders of the court? The answer is not stare decisis. --S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (& PS: WP:NPA) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack
Hi,

I replied to your message at. I understand that you might be frustrated at your image's listing at PUF, but personal attacks on me like calling me "out of [my] mind" are uncalled for. Please see WP:NPA. Thanks, <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

another possible personal attack.
Hello, I noticed your edit here. While I agree that the passage was poorly written. Saying it was written by a child can be considered an attack. Assume good faith, perhaps the user is not a native english speaker, they're still trying to help. Further, the addition was made by an IP which suggests they may be a newbie, please don't bite. --Cliff (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Deposition (law). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Beginfreewaysign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beginfreewaysign.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Thepruneyardsign.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thepruneyardsign.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

wp:DONTBITE
While I agree that Pieceofpeper's proposal at WT:MOS is a non-runner, your tone in reply is quite apalling. From the fact of your qualification and the number of your edits, I see that you are not unintelligent and that you are an experienced user of Wikipedia. That being the case, the tone you took towards an unexperienced editor, who is clearly not a native English speaker, was indefensible. I wonder whether you will have the character to apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sanpellagrinoaranciatacan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sanpellagrinoaranciatacan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Autorouteexitsign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Autorouteexitsign.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Autorouteentrancesign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Autorouteentrancesign.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Comparisonoffoodlabels.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Comparisonoffoodlabels.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Griffithparkwelcomesign.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Griffithparkwelcomesign.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Siegfriedandroysculpture.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Siegfriedandroysculpture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Drivesoberbillboard.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Drivesoberbillboard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pwcwarningsticker.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pwcwarningsticker.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Centralvalleyroad.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Centralvalleyroad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Harborfreeway.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Harborfreeway.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Harborfreeway.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harborfreeway.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Centralvalleyroad.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Centralvalleyroad.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

UCLA Law School edit
We can do without snide, derogatory edit summaries that are arguably racist. A simple edit summary of "grammar" would be preferable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Question for you Coolcaesar
Are you a member of the California bar association? Im curious since you do reference that your a lawyer but did not list that aspect since going to law school doesn't make one a lawyer. Cheers Woods01 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:lawyer
take a look at your edit -- you got the bot, but not the original IP comment. --S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And you are welcome. I've done the same thing myself and I thought pointing it out to you would provide the same lesson I learned. (Also, see WP:ROLL, which makes it easier to revert those cases where a vandal does multiple edits.) --S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Code of Federal Regulations
As a young lawyer, you should make this article more readable and generally understandable. Why is the USC and the CFR organized along the same 50 titles? Shoefly (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your high handed approach!
I have just logged into wiki after a few weeks and surprised at your accusations of vandalism and threats of banning without full analysis and based on assumptions which considering you say you are a lawyer and erudite one, you should know innocent mistakes and culpability of someone when there is no Mens Rea. It is not called for, and what's more it reflects badly on you especially with your background, and is more suggestive of your ego. As you may have gathered if you bothered to read the relevant parts relating to me that I am new to this Wiki editing and unlike some of you out there, do not spend half my life reading or editing it - just have too many other commitments! The amendment I made to "your" article that you did not agree with are (1) it is my reading of the reported quote else where, you may differ, but I have no objection if you revert it as it is minor (2)the other change done at 06.06 on 6th Sept. I feel is fully justified and contributes to the artcle.Mhakcm (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Mhakcm (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Law school outlines
An article that you have been involved in editing, Law school outlines, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Dear Coolcaesar We are having an argument in the Talk:United States. Demographics of the United States and the addition of the population table in the article United States was the key question in the issue. I will try to introduce my proposal later. Please be patient with me, since this is not the only one or the number one issue to me at moment. Sorry for being engaged with the other articles. It seems for me that you disagree with everything I suggest as a principle. It is difficult. At the same time, I can not help feeling that '' I wish there were more people like you that do not swollow the ideas of the governments without second thoughts and sound critics. '' Watti Renew (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

image alignment on U.S. Constitution
Not done yet, but does the image alignment at U.S. Constitution line up better in your browser now? Thanks for the weather eye. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In State hospital, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

USPS Correction
Fine. Thank you! I thought that someone had forgotten mentioning the name of USPS while creating the page. But after verification from various sources after your message; my confusion is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirAwan (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Fry's Electronics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circuit City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CA Supremes
Coolcaesar: I submit that adding cases to the Supreme Court of California "significant cases" section is purely WP:OR. That is, we have the case name, a citation as a "reference", and then an editor's description of what the case is about. But where is the independent analysis that such-and-such case is significant? I don't think we, as WP editors, read the cases and then seek to describe them. I've made similar comments on the article talk page, and tagged the section as OR, and re-assessed the quality of the article with hopes that interested editors (such as yourself) will clean up these problems. But I am sorely tempted to delete these various "significant" cases as lacking proper WP:RS. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC) To be clear, CC, I am talking out the redlinked cases. Issues as to the bluelined cases can be or should be discussed on their respective talk pages.06:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeloader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
for noticing the vandalJoeyRR's edits to Facebook.96.50.22.205 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please tone it down.
Your latest comment on the Physician talk page was out of line. There is no need to denigrate people based on their chosen profession, and it is very unhelpful to do so. Please tone it down. Yobol (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Over and out
CoolCaesar, I've given up. I've asked to have my account deleted. A couple of delinking Taliban have driven me over the edge. Without links to do some of the jobs of stabilizing the internal links within common law and precedent, I just don't want the task of managing them. And I don't want to have my name affiliated with these articles any more.

You've been a big help, and good colleague. Rome is being sacked by vandals and huns, and I'm getting out while I can.

Boundlessly (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing Troll
Please change the tone of your edit posts. Your comment was inflammatory. I encourage you to change your editing behavior. Please comment on the actual edit rather than resorting to personal attacks. I will seek help if you revert me again.

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editor at Talk:Global city. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank K. Richardson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

MERS Article Edit Help
Thanks for the helpful tips - I hope the new addition is more in line with wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.239.160 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Coolcaesar:

As I clearly do not take a large portion of my day to edit wikipedia, I wonder if you could help me out by clarifying your thinking on undoing my recent MERS article edits so that I can more adequately comply with what you believe to be the wikipedia policies and more competently get relevant information to wikipedia's readers.

First, in light of your undoing of my edits, I have read and now understand the policy that wikipedia is not a collection of random information. But can you please help me understand your thinking; are law review articles cited by courts around the nation in MERS decisions random? I thought that such law review articles would be pertinent, and not random, to anyone perusing this page for a general overview of what MERS is. This is especially so given the relatively haphazard and incomplete (dare I say, random?) compilation of cases already contained in the wikipedia article, which are unlikely to be helpful to anyone seeking a complete overview of MERS. In fact, the article by Profs. Hunt et. al. cites the articles in the list as examples of "some of the most widely read law review articles of the past few years." Please help me convey this information to readers in a way that you feel would not be random; alternatively, please let me know how I may best show readers (and you) that the articles are not random.

Secondly, if the issue is writing in prose, as you suggested, can you please help me by letting me know the best way you think such information should be presented? For example, the readers, when presented with my initial edits, viewed a simple and concise list of noteworthy and well-read articles. Having now read the wikipedia policy generally frowning upon lists, should I assume you believe wikipedia's policies would have me state, "The supreme court of XXX cited Peterson's article entitled XXX for the proposition that XXX..." and so on and so on for every noteworthy article? Any direction you could give would be helpful. In not presenting the articles that way initially, I thought the short, concise list would be a worthy, easily navigable addition to this incomplete article.

Any assistance or guidance you could offer me on complying with wikipedia policies in adding this information to what is now an incomplete article on MERS would be immensely helpful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.239.160 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

literary allusions
At Talk:United States I made answer to say there is no need to fear the immigration from the south, making some literary allusions. I would appreciate you checking behind me to see if I got it right. Or if you would add to the discussion one way or the other. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about 'common law'.
Coolcaesar, I was wondering if the common law article Common_law should include references to 42 USC §1983and 42 USC §1988?

I may be utterly lost and usually am lost in law. Don't these two statutes allow common law to address violations of any civil right inferred from the Constitution and not protected by statute? The rights of authors to control original creations should be protected by Congress for a time. This civil right not protected at all by US Copy[rite]? I am not looking for representation but just an opinion. Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5208) CurtisNeeley (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Trust deed (real estate)
As to the Trust deed (real estate) article, if you "have extensive experience in real estate law", excellent, as you can help cleanup that article. I think the intro is way too long; it should give a short description (in layman's terms), note why it is important, and a brief explanation of any significant relationships (in this case vis-a-vis mortgages). I also think the relationship with mortgage law should be broken out into its own section, as it is the main reason I personally find the article important (as I'm sure many others do to). I think its relationships to mortgages is a separate concern than its structure (concerning both trusts and deeds) and its other relationships (recording etc.)

Unfortunately, I did not have time to finish my train of though yesterday, so I will begin anew today. For example, there are many other subjects in the MERS article that are not California-specific, or perhaps even state-specific. I have been searching Google Books, as well as my local library (here in California), for non-state specific information, but I just didn't have time yesterday. So stay tuned for my next edits; as I know you are watching this page now, I will try and keep each edit cohesive and standalone so as to make judgement about the edit's righteousness easier. Int21h (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Lawyer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''"You are profoundly ignorant..." is the offending phrase. Please focus on the article content and not the knowledge of the contributor. The phrase is still there, but I urge you to substitute it with something like "Please look at the [complex history etc.]. Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Caesar, for the modification. Your integrity is showing through! . – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Administrative Office of the United States Courts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Federal building


 * Liability insurance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sophie's choice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Security interest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahoy
Hi Coolcaesar. As you may recall, we've bumped into each other a few times over the past few years. Seems to be a bit lonely in the legal editing world, especially from the American perspective? I'm dropping by to say hi. You may have noticed that I've been editing legal articles a bit more aggressively lately. Have you had a chance to review much of my editing? I'd feel better if I knew what I was doing was getting a little review. Since you seem to be one of the very few editors in the law area, I've been checking out your edits. II | (t - c) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Vienna Convention on warning signs
You wrote today in Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals: "For example, the Vienna Convention's internally inconsistent color scheme and preference for small triangular warning signs is irreconcilable with the public policy espoused by the U.S. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, under which a consistent color scheme is strictly enforced and warning signs must be large, diamond-shaped, and yellow." But if you care to read the Vienna Convention or the article section on Road signs you would see that the Convention allows yellow diamond shaped warning signs. There are other things with the convention that the US would not like, but I encourage you to write a better example. --BIL (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at United States federal judge, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact information
I am an attorney representing Dr. V. Please provide me with direct contact information, including your full name. As an attorney, you need to be extra careful about violating the law, including posting false information on websites. I think it would help if we had a conversation. You can reach me at my office at 949-812-4781. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.211.58 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge of New York Statutes
See my merger proposal to merge New York Statutes into Law of New York. Int21h (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of banking in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Money transfer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden Fleece for Aspen Movie Maps
Rather than have a perpetual reversion war on the article itself, I thought I would post here. The Aspen Movie Maps folks themselves say they never received the award (Michael Naimark and Nicholas Negroponte) indicate they never received the award, but did receive runner-up status. (I can forward/copy and paste if so desired.) Even ignoring these due to policy, the Wisconsin Historical Society's list of all award winners does not list the project at any point. It seems Brand may be extrapolating from runner-up status, though I haven't found documentation to indicate runner-up status apart from email from Negroponte. Regardless, the current wording on Proxmire's page is incorrect. Pm06420 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please contact me
Hello, could you please contact me at slaporte@wikimedia.org. I have an urgent matter to discuss with you, and I would like to send you more details via email. If you wish to preserve your anonymity, you may consider having an attorney contact me on your behalf. Thank you, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. I would keep your real name out of this. You never know when someone is going to hit the WMF with a Doe subpoena for a SLAPP. Int21h (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, could you contact me again? Thank you, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State governments of the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Labor and Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Love your edits on Frozen, but disagree with the combative edit summaries. Remember that the Burbank-based Disney is your word, not mine. Happy editing! ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've lots of grammar books right here, but I prefer editing Wikipedia to reading them. But I'll try to eat through those materials. By the way, that's why I love Wikipedia: just do what you want, and someone will correct anything wrong. ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Books? How can I use it? (One more thing, thanks for sparing your time and explaining things for an editor like me =)) Do you often encounter people of this type? ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 14:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, assume good faiths! Yes, you're right, I'm still young, and I want to improve myself. And of course I know Google Books, but the thing is, how can I "run through the phrase" when GB only allows us to browse books by their names and abstracts? ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry for troubling you again :-D But could you verify if the links are appropriate for use in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Thanks. ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 15:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Occupation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walt Disney Animation Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Goldberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)