User talk:Eastlaw/Archive 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!  Nivus | (talk) | (desk)  09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Greetings!
We can always use more lawyers, so please consider joining WikiProject Law, and adding yourself to Category:Law student Wikipedians. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll get the hang of it - it comes quickly, but if you have any questions, just ask! bd2412  T 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:zappa
Sorry man - didn't know you were editing it. In the future though, please do not leave sections blank without content. Please add the sections after you have completed some content to go in them. -zappa 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cort v. Ash
Have a look at the edits I just made to this one to see the ideal citation format to use in the intro paragraph. Every case article should start with an intro paragraph that works like this:

Party v. Party, XXX U.S. YYY (YEAR), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held X.

External link
[Link to Findlaw.com article on the case]

Cheers! bd2412 T 10:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another tip for cases
When I make case articles for cases with compex names (like American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.), I like to make a bunch of redirects from alternate possible stylings of the name (e.g. American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler, American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co., American Well Works v. Layne and Bowler). Keeps people from mistakenly trying to create the articles under those names. I also like to make redirects to the cases from their citations (241 U.S. 257 or 241 US 257). Cheers! bd2412 T 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing to apologize for - after all, we do this for free. Pace yourself - building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever known may take a little time. Also, remember that this is a collaborative effort (more so than any other writing project in human history), so if you don't get around to putting something up, eventually someone else will, and if you put up something that needs work, eventually someone will work on it. Best of luck with your internship! bd2412  T 02:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Template for easier ideal citation format
I've added the following template: Template:SCOTUS-case - to start a new U.S. Supreme Court case article, just type  name of case  (example:  Muskrat v. United States ). This will automatically create the external link to Findlaw, and year-in-law category. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Law question and new userbox
Hi there, as I read you are interested in law and from the US, can you explain me why George W. Bush is not in jail although he broke the UN Charter? Furthermore, as you are concerned about the oil peak, maybe you like a userbox I created: user pro aviation fuel tax. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of movement
Greetings, Eastlaw. I'm aiming to get Freedom of movement (a fascinating and important topic) up to featured article status by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Received your message - probably would be helpful posted at Talk:Freedom of movement. Thanks - bd2412  T 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Metal Poll
Hello there. I am an overseer of your brain. I have come to tell you that the Wikimetal Project is holding a poll on the inclusion of certain genres on the heavy metal template and footer that goes onto metal related articles. This poll has a closing date, however, and so here i am, reminding you to vote if you want to, by pumping strange chemicals through your veins. Its hard work being a brain you know!

If you would like to help in this crucial part of the project, the page is here. No, thats not it? Oh my! I posted those pictures of myself, what a devil i am. No the actuall link is here on this link.

I guess ill see you at breakfest when you finally recover from Wikipedia. Bye for now body, your Brain 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

s
Hi Eastlaw,

I notice you've been adding European related law articles to. Unfortunately none of the articles you've added really belong there. The stub is for EU related articles and not merely law articles on the domestic law of EU member states. You might want to consider creating a. (I admit the stub category name is somewhat ambiguous, but hey I didn’t write the thing).

Caveat lector 15:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Intoxicating Substances Act 1985
Why: it is a word-for-word copy of a copywrited page. Does the fact that the original page is short make it any less of a copyvio? Whitejay251 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So is that summary of the act from the law? Or is it someone else's summary of it. In the former case I would agree with you and would gladly withdraw the copyvio tag. In the latter case, I'm not so sure...Whitejay251 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nice work on Overkill
Hey thanks man - Overkill rules! Just wanna give the good ones from my era (late 80's/early 90's thrash) some props around here. I'm trying to get every band's page more like the Overkill one(with bio, discography, members, dates, facts, ect), and get every album a page with info and cover. \m/ Skeletor2112 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:206.176.100.20
He seems to have stopped hours ago - I'm off to sleep, so keep an eye on him and find an awake admin if he strikes again. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cat
on the Reading for Cohoes pipe case. John wesley 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! That's a better name for the category of canonical academic case law by Cardozo. John wesley 15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cases involving Justice Cardozo
The title is unfortunately flawed for two reasons. "Cases involving" would seem to imply any decision in which he participated, not simply any case in which he wrote an opinion, which would then include every decision handed down while he was on the court from which he did not recuse himself (not very helpful). "Justice" Cardozo also limits this category to his SCOTUS tenure, while his most valuable opinions were written when he was on the New York Court of Appeals.

But I'd also like to urge you to create an annotated list article instead of a category. Simply grouping together every case in which he wrote an opinion is not sufficiently useful, and just results in extra clutter on the article (a proper category title would have to be lengthy, like Category:Cases in which Benjamin Cardozo submitted an opinion; imagine the effect on cases in which there were several concurrences, dissents, etc.). An annotated list could organize these opinions chronologically or by subject matter, and essentially become a detailed description of his jurisprudence once summaries of his opinions are added. I'd love to see such a list article for every justice. A similar category was created for Scalia some time ago; I'll see if I can dig up the discussion that led to its deletion. Postdlf 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a reasonable solution - it could be linked at the bottom of every Cardozo case in a "See also" section. bd2412  T 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe from a footnote added to the infobox? Postdlf 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of including important cases whether they produce a memberable quote of formula like in Meinhard v. Salmon on fiduciary duty owed to partners the "punctillio" or Learned Hand's rule for Judge Hand. I would like to do Hand's tax avoidance after Marvin Chirelstein. John wesley 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, could someone with free Westlaw or Lexis access pull up Meinhard v. Salmon and: a) fill in the missing info in the infobox on that page, and b) copy the whole text of the case over to Wikisource. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Postdlf 00:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done - I've divided the case on Wikisource between the majority and dissent for space. bd2412  T 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia that was created and deleted last year. I don't think a list was ever created to replace the category. Should a list/category be created for all the major judges/justices past and present? NoSeptember   talk  06:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A list, absolutely. Category, absolutely not.  The problem with generating the list is of course the sheer volume of cases one would have to document; Scalia, for example, has been on the Court for 20 years now, Stevens 30 years, and they're probably the most prolific Court writers as well.  I promise I'll start one for Scalia after the end of this SCOTUS term in June, however (and I actually started taking notes for this a few months ago); remind me if I lapse on this task.  Postdlf 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know I developed a list format for opinions by justice; see 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito for an example. Postdlf 10:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

HALP?
Can you review International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for me please? good sir, kind sir... ;) -- Andy123  (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Inuse template
Please don't use inuse for week long periods as in Cooper v. Aaron. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA
I notcied that you've left messages for Zappa.jake on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages.  I have asked him to stop here.  Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here.  Sorry, zappa.jak e  (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
I have recently begun reviving the Supreme Court case project since the founder is inactive. You're welcome to drop on by and help us out if you are still interested. There's also a discussion going at the project's talk page. Enjoy your Memorial Day! --Kchase02 (T) 06:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed your wikibreak notice. Sorry to see you go. Feel free to add things to the projects to-do list if you've left anything incomplete or see things that need to be done. I'll get to them personally as I'm able, but hopefully we'll have plenty of people working on them. Many hands make light work. Cheers! --Kchase02 (T) 07:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KChase,


 * Just so you know, I am not so much on "WikiBreak" as I am in a state of temporary semi-dormancy--I am taking summer classes at my law school, so I will probably have less time to edit stuff here on Wikipedia. I will occasionally add an article when possible, or make a few edits here and there, but I will be a lot less active than i have been over the past few months.


 * Anyway, I read some of what you wrote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, but I have a few questions about article format. I liked the sample outline you created, but have you come to a decision about in-article case citations?  Personally, I only cite to the case and page number when 1) directly quoting the opinion or 2) citing to a different case.  I do this because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, rather than a law review, so citing every single proposition is probably (in my opinion, anyway) unnecessary and inappropriate (it might be confucsing to the casual reader).  Let me know what you think.  --Eastlaw 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the implicit agreement Postdlf and I came to was for a suggestion about how to cite, instead of a hard-and-fast rule. It's listed in the phases section We didn't really discuss when/whether to cite, but I like your standard. BTW, it was Postdlf's sample outline, not mine.
 * Do you have more free time during regular semesters? If so, then law school is not how I've heard it described! Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 04:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I got your message about the citation issue. By the way, I go to Northeastern University School of Law, which has a cooperative education program--in your second and third years of law school, you take one quarter of classes and one quarter of internship (alternating, i.e. you can have class in the fall and spring quarters and  interships in the summer and winter, or vice-versa).  We are the only law school in the USA to do this.  I was on internship at the Massachusetts Land Court during the Spring Quarter, so now I am back in class.


 * Oh and about the "Memorial Day" thing--I can't understand why that would offend anyone, even if they were non-U.S. residents. Anyone who gets upset about something like that needs to get a life.  --Eastlaw 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cooperative education in law school is an interesting idea. I've heard of some (a very few) attorneys who skip law school and still take the bar after three years of apprenticeship, but this sounds less radical. Thanks for the reassurance about the Memorial Day msg. I'll take down the blurb on my talk page. --Kchase02 (T) 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections
Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shreveport rate case
Hi. Good work improving the article. I wrote it in class while we were discussing the case.

Classes here are amazing. I am still a lowly 1L and don't have much experience here yet. UTexas's highest ranking is in the category of quality of faculty, and I can say that all my profs are super-competent and engaging in their own ways. Classes here are small. I have three classes with about 100 students, and one class with about 25. The entering class size is 430, but we're divided into four sections and 16 societies. I have 3 classes with my section and one small class with just my society. There's plenty of opportunity to get involved in organizations and events. I just joined the American Constitution Society.

Good luck in law school. Thanks for working to bring articles on these cases to Wikipedia. Argyrios 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in. Thanks for the invite! I will mostly just be checking the wikipedia article for whatever case we happen to be on, writing it if it does not exist (like this one), maybe copyediting where it does.
 * Argyrios 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a Con Law and Tax law guy
Not interested in all of SCOTUS. I like tax. Chivista 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Church of misery
I saw that.. It did not meet criteria for speedy. User also Proded my song stub which I removed.-- Dakota  07:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you need the link, why not bookmark it? The article is dwarfed by the external links, you could write more about the band if you're a big fan.  Dei zio  talk 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that BNR is a well-known site in the metal community, although it's a bit of a one man show and I'm not sure it meets the WP:RS bar. I don't understand how your "A" reason for reinstating the link, "I was editing from work while on my break", relates to my concern. Pages should be linked to if they provide substantial information on a topic above and beyond what the Wikipedia article would contain if it were to reach its ideal length, as opposed to what is contained in the article "as is" at a particular point. A general exception to this is the official site of the article subject, or sites considered "encyclopedic" in their own right, such as IMDb for movies, actors etc. or allmusic.com for music and bands. As BNR is just a site with reviews and general information it need not be linked. That it contains some information about the subject at hand is not enough to meet this requirement. This can be a bit of a grey area at times, but when a short article contains several external links as a) a shortcut to actually fleshing out the WP article and b) to the point where the links section is comparable in size to the main section of the article, it's not really appropriate. All of this can be found at External links. Hope you understand, nice one.  Dei zio  talk 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As noted on the WP:HMM talkpage, if you can highlight the compliance of BNR with WP:WEB in your AfD comment it will be given more weight by the closing admin.  Dei zio  talk 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, we're not voting to remove BNR from the internet. In these cases you have to differentiate between what you find useful and what fits the WP guidelines. Speaking as an admin, there would be an absolute downpour of bullshit to stay on top of if the guidelines were relaxed to a point where BNR qualified.  Dei zio  talk 11:52, 26 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 as I'm not certain on this), but feel free to edit it anyway. Thanks, --Brand спойт 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Barking drunk
Heya. I saw you placed a db-reason tag on the above article, which I just now replaced with a prod tag instead. The reason for this is simply that neologisms aren't a target for speedy deletion, since they aren't an example of pure vandalism or patent nonsense. Please take this kind of article to proposed deletion instead, and remember to always warn the creator using PRODWarning. Thanks! :) Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's no problem. There are a lot of things people never tell you about newpage patrol, so I just thought I should mention it. It was a pretty minor thing anyway. :) Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

eagle01.*
Hey there. I was looking at eagle01.ref wondering what the heck it was when I noticed that the creator had written Stitch Pipeline which links to all those code pages (like the one you were looking at, eagle01.look). I proposed a merge, but on second thought, I'm thinking about nominating this for AfD since it doesn't appear notable to me (and I think the user may be writing a how-to using WP instead of an encyclopedia article, which violates WP:NOT). What do you think? Gzkn 05:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases/PCA
I was going to start votes for closure here, but thought you might want a delay until after law school finals so we can all work on some Erie doctrine cases together. If you don't care, I'll just start getting consensus to close it.--Kchase T 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I understand. Best of luck with your current commitments.--Kchase T 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Law Portal
Hi Eastlaw, I noticed you've been doing a lot of pages on case law in the States. I am doing some updating on the Law Portal, and there's a blank space for a 'featured case'. I thought you'd be a good person to ask: perhaps you could recommend or pick a case to put up there - maybe one you've come across or editted, that's good quality, a few pics, and complete with all the detail? Thanks, Wikidea 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to insert this in [Zionism] and the people who own that page, won't allow any of it. Maybe you will have better luck.


 * (spam removed, see history). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

2007


All the best in the upcoming year and a wise laws to all of us :) --Brand спойт 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade Featured Article Review
Hi Eastlaw, I was wondering if you might have time to visit the ongoing review of the Roe v. Wade article. Your input would be much appreciated.Ferrylodge 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note
You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

US Constitution template
Do you think executive privilege should be added under "interpretation"? Kaisershatner 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

John Malcolm Duhe, Jr.
I thought I'd point that there is an effort to delete this article. I thought you might be interesting in trying to keep it since he's a former circuit court judge. I know there is some sort of a law group on Wikipedia, but I don't keep up with it. Chicken Wing 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Test at Thomas Paine
you put four [[Media:Example.ogg]] in Thomas Paine article. as i can see you are quite active user and tagging test1 template would be stupid, so i decided only to write down a note. thanks. West Brom 4ever 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * omg, i made bad mistake. it wasn't you. i deeply apologise. West Brom 4ever 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck
on your finals, Eastlaw. Coming back East for work after 3L? -- Y not? 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 3L at Fordham, my last hurrah. I mistakenly read "Northwestern". Of course you're already "back East", so my earlier question makes no sense at all. -- Y not? 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on WP:AN
One thing you can do is: Every time you see a revert is done to an earlier vandalized version, leave a message for the revering user. Automatic edit summaries, unless they mention multiple consecutive edits by the same author even if he left a summary, aren't necessarily enough to keep all users aware of this issue. Od Mishehu 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
I tried to turn the page into a redirect to Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe but my edit was reverted by User:GGreeneVa. We were discussing it for a little while, but I just had two weeks of exams and got a little sidetracked. We found sources that cite it both ways. Maybe it needs a discussion. Good catch. I probably would have forgotten all about it. --Cdogsimmons 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck
Good luck on the bar exam. ---Axios023 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings, congratulations, and best of luck on the bar exam! Yours, Famspear 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy from Texas! I guess your bar exam is over by now. When are the results posted? (In Texas, the July exam results are posted in November.) Famspear 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DOJ Tax Division
Thanks for the comment. I am currently working on a project concerning the agencies of the federal executive departments and appreciate the help. If you can go through any of the other departments and add pages for the agencies that lack an article where ever you can would be much appreciated.Rougher07 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: your report to WP:AIV
Hi, do you have a list of the IPs this user used to insert these spam links so I can investigate them a bit? That single IP only did 3 edits and wasn't warned, so it is unlikely it will be blocked without further evidence. Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:User template coder-0
I have speedy deleted a category you created, Category:User template coder-0, as recreation of previously deleted material. Please see this UCFD, resulting in delete. Thanks for understanding! VegaDark (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases
I'd be glad to help. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I just started my new job for the summer and I've been pretty busy. I'll make sure to add any case articles I start and I'll try to help out on the cases that are floating around out there. Good luck on the bar! --Cdogsimmons 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

in re: Warriors for innocence
Hi, I'm trying to clean up and generally wikify this article, could I change the tag to a "Need Help" type thingy? Please give me your opinion. CyntWorkStuff 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind reply. If you feel that it is OK could I trouble you to take the tag off (or chnge it to one you think better fits).  Since you put it on it might look persumtious of me to take it off.  Thanks CyntWorkStuff 06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As I'm sure you've noticed this entire subject has brought out some rather intemperate people who appear to be rather fierce partisans of this group or that. They seem to be determined to personally destroy anyone who says anything they don't quite like about there pet cause . . .  sigh.  I'm going to finish up and back out of my participation and leave them to their gods and certainties.  CyntWorkStuff 07:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eastlaw! I've listed Warriors for innocence on the Articles for Discussion page. Since you are one of the more active editors of this page, I felt it would be nice to let you know! Have a nice day! Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force
Hi Eastlaw, Please come by and check us out when you get back from your wikibreak! We could really use someone with some corporate law knowledge, since the records we're dealing with are frequently US DOJ settlements... GL on exams, Cyrusc 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: A fellow NUSL graduate
Hey, Eastlaw! Thanks for your message!

My professors so far have been Dalton for Torts, Woo for Civ Pro, Baumann for Property, Zoltek-Jick for Crim, Phillips for Contracts, and Burnham for Con Law. I loved Burnham, so I'll definitely try to get her for Fed Courts - thanks for the recommendation.

Best of luck on the bar! From all the law-related articles you've worked on, it looks like you know your stuff, so I bet you'll rock it. : ) See you around!  -Sasha 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Idem sonans
Thanks for your help with this article. Rotsa ruck on the Bar exam. Bearian 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

News
Just to let you know, there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Motörhead.--Alf melmac 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Information economics category
Hi, I'm doing some clean-up of articles related to contract theory, and in particular pointing traffic away from information economics for the reasons indicated on that article's talk page. I saw that you started Category:Information_economics, but that category inherits the problems of its main article. Hence I think it should be deleted (it remains nearly empty), but I wanted to check with you first. Thoughts? Moving it to Category:Contract theory would be fine by me as an alternative. Jeremy Tobacman 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Eastlaw-- It seems some people studying business performance and IT do refer to something called "information economics," and applied information economics survived a vfd, so I wasn't going to press for deletion of information economics. However, I do think most of that article's content belongs in asymmetric information or contract theory, and that readers should be directed to those articles instead. Jeremy Tobacman 09:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Two questions for you
Hello BD2412, long time no see. Having finally graduated law school and taken the bar exam, I am now unemployed and wasting more time spending my free time adding content to Wikipedia. Anyway, I have two law-related Wikipedia questions for you:

1. I wanted to write an article about Intervention in U.S. civil procedure (you know, FRCP Rule 24 and all that). However, I see that someone has already written and article entitled Intervener, which was apparently written to describe Canadian practice (and frankly, I'm not sure how accurate a description it is). I was wondering if I should add my content to this already existing article and/or move the page when I am done, or if I should simply write a new page and link it to the old one.

2. I noticed that the Lists of United States Supreme Court cases have finally been divided up by Chief Justice. That is quite good, but how exactly did you transclude all theses lists onto the master list and still keep them divided up by decade, as you had with the older versions?

If and when you have time, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Eastlaw 07:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As to question 1, I think (just my opinion) that you should add to the existing page; as to question 2, I had no hand in the division by Chief Justice - came as a surprise to me! Cheers! bd2412  T 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rule in Wild's Case
This rule is so obscure that I see no benefit to adding it to the property template. It is no longer in use, and (so far as I know) not part of any law school curriculum (unlike the equally useless Rule in Shelley's Case). Still, that's just my opinion - if you disagree, go ahead and add it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Intervention (law)
By all means, change it as you will. My work on the article has been minimal and my knowledge limited. I may turn my mind to it later on and see what I can make of it. Cheers! -PullUpYourSocks 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)