User talk:Eastlaw/Archive 4

Why the FS1037 mentions?
Why are you mentioning FS1037 in so many articles? Is there evidence to support your statements that some of the article contents were taken from there? Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking Your Feedback/William H. Brown, III
Hi Eastlaw - I created my first page - William H. Brown, III - and was hoping for your feedback since you have more experience at this that I do, and you have an interest in legal topics. I welcome your thoughts! Best regards, --Cbrobeil (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

reply
I replied to you at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance. ~EdGl  (talk)  15:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!
Thanks for your help on the William Brown entry! Best regards! --Cbrobeil (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal Circuit cases format
Hi! Cquan asked me the following question, to which I have no answer:
 * "is there a reason (good or otherwise) that in all the fed cir case articles, the case citation is given in the first line as a reference rather than actually giving the citation inline, such as with the SCOTUS case format? I understand that there isn't an actual "official reporter" on the lines of the U.S. Reports, so the case citation will probably end up biased towards West, but since it's so universal I don't really see an issue...Let me know your thoughts when you can. Thanks!"

Would you have by chance an answer that could help him? Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges
Lots of conversations going on here that could perhaps use more views/input. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated link
Hello,

The web page http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/ has moved to a new location. I have automatically updated a page in your user space accordingly here. You may want to update any links to this web page you have outside of Wikipedia (such as bookmarks in your web browser). If you have any questions or complaints, let me know.

--DeadLinkBOT (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

marc dreier/ shelia gowen conflict
Since you appear to have both the legal background and the content knowledge of wikipedia, is is ok to include dreier as a defendant in a federal case for patent theft against iviewit.com? the owner elliot bernstein's car was bombed. bernstein was introduced to dreier attorney joao and now she is the trustee on dreier's bankruptcy and joao and dreier are now defendants in a case she referred to them. http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/03/a_hot_summer_awaits_marc_dreie.php

"From: Eliot Bernstein,

I smell BIG CONFLICT - is Sheila Gowan formerly with Proskauer who introduced me to former Dreier Raymond Joao who put 90+ patents of mine in his own name, read on. MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + ALBERT HU = PROSKAUER ROSE Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation. Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford's attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer's assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.

Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case. The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit www.iviewit.tv. The Federal Court cases United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT (07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. (07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al., (08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al., (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al., (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al., (08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and, (08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. (08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

Posted on: March 25, 2009 9:02 AM"

thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

logos in Include-USGov
Hi, Eastlaw --- I was under the impression that re-use of logos from departments of the United States is not generally allowed. It's not copyright: I believe that there are one or more federal statutes that cover it. I thought it was safer to just have a generic PD logo than run a risk without much benefit (IMO).

With a name like "Eastlaw" :-), could you research that? Am I being too cautious? —hike395 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that I prefer the PD-logo, and you are mildly leaning that way (as I read your comment), it sounds like we've reached consensus and can leave the template the way it is. I don't think that the admins or even the bureaucrats can legally bind WP on the decision, in any event. If you'd like to get more community input, we could post a notice at WT:Non-free content and WT:Logos that refers other editors to this discussion. —hike395 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA
I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Taylor v. Louisiana
Thanks for the many small edits. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

US contract law
Any chance you (or someone else) might write this page - or the US tort law page or US corporate law? Or at least more cases? I get the feeling that Americans are quite fond of old English judgments, is that right? :)  Wik idea  16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Category sort of court cases
I noticed that you changed the sort on some Massachusetts law articles with "Commonwealth v. Something." Are you sure that sorting based on the second party to a case where the first party is the government is a good idea? For example, where would something like United States v. One Book Called Ulysses go? O, 1, or U? Or even worse, a case typically known by a shortened name where the full name of the second party starts with a different letter? I think the best way to handle that kind of thing is to just have them go to C in the case of Commonwealth... they'll be sorted alphabetically there in the categories anyway. SnowFire (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that cases are sorted by case number, then by year? Since this is impracticable on Wikipedia, I'd think that letting the default sort would probably be the best move, right? SnowFire (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current bankruptcy
Template:Current bankruptcy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

William Hawkins (serjeant-at-law)
Hi, I noticed you asking for feedback on Charles Matthews's page. You may have been unlucky in basing that one on the DNB, since according to DNB confuses a barrister and a clergyman. According to Venn and the ODNB entry the serjeant-at-law was educated at Oxford rather than Cambridge.Dsp13 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several different entries for the name "William Hawkins" in the DNB. Are you sure these are the two which were confused?  The other source I cited says this William Hawkins indeed attended Cambridge. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no prior knowledge, but J. H. Baker's recent ODNB entry for the Pleas of the Crown Hawkins gives his dates as 1681/2–1750. Re his education Baker says "He was sent to Pembroke College, Oxford, at the age of fourteen in 1696, migrated to Oriel College in 1698 (graduating BA in 1699), and was elected a fellow of Oriel in 1700 as of Milton, Oxfordshire. Some authorities have confused him with an older namesake of St John's College, Cambridge, who became a prebendary of St Paul's, and there was another contemporary of the same name in the Middle Temple." Dsp13 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Fraud and Fraud on the Court
Dear Eastlaw;

As anyone can plainly see - through circumstance - I have become a maven of sorts upon the issue of conflicts of interest in bankruptcy proceedings and of Dept of Justice fiduciary requisites thereof.

Many parties contact my website and search for items related to these topics.

Most subject matter out there has a veiled agenda to soft dance around the issues with a tilt toward assuring that culpability is avoided or deferred at all costs.

This has become a national issue of importance - worthy of a more perma-fixed location than this bereft of funding party's websites or blogs.

It is my desire to become a permanent editor on these issues - in a totally unbiased and informative manner.

Having grown beyond the original emotional plane of my individual angst to the point of understanding the conflict of issues requisites here - are there any suggestions and guidelines that you would direct me to - in order to begin?

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Laserhaas (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of War Before Civilization
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article War Before Civilization, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Art LaPella (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SCOTUS-related thread
Hey there. Any input here would be much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Preemption law category
In reply to your comment here, I don't care whether you have a discussion as long as the new name does not include the unnecessary parenthetical, which equally bugs me.--chaser (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion re-started here after accidental premature renaming.--chaser (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I commented on that CfD. Thanks for letting me know. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 06:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

JEL Codes
Thanks for working on this. I started it up a while back, but I've been too busy to do much on it lately.JQ (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can at least add my pale chime to the first sentence. On the 1st part of the 2nd sentence, don't be fooled — it is a shameless understatement (-).  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Association of American Educators
Hi Eastlaw. Saw your changes to the categories of one of the pages I monitor: Association of American Educators. You removed the category "Education in the United States." Was hoping you could clarify? I looked through that category's articles before posting here to be sure that I think AAE belongs as a listing. The NEA, to which some consider AAE a competitor, and some other Trust for Insuring Educator (TIE) members, including the NSTA are included. Perhaps there is a broader overhaul of the category going on that I don't know about, but if not, I'd argue that AAE belongs in the category. 72.75.10.251 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your response explains everything, much appreciated. Given the benefit of having those subcategories, perhaps the two groups I mentioned above should be moved to Category:Teacher associations based in the United States instead of Category:Education in the United States, and any others so that latter category isn't so crowded. Just a thought. Best, 72.75.10.251 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Judicial, legal, and equitable remedies
Hi, I noticed that you semi-recently created Template:Judicial remedies. You have judicial remedy linked in that template, but it's been a redirect to legal remedy for a while. I would prefer that a lot of this information be displayed on one page: the judicial remedy page. What do you think about remaking the judicial remedy page? The difference between equitable and legal remedies can be confusing and counterintuitive (one might presume that an equitable remedy would restore 'equity', ie net worth). What do you think? II | (t - c) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian libraries
We seem to have parent and child categories sitting together - was that intentional? I always thought that the parent category shouldnt double up on article categories SatuSuro 12:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And unless there is some obvious and very definite precedent issue - I cannot help but see the categories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_State_Archives as being mutually contradictory - and confusing. State archives do serve purposes for the state governments - but the state libraries dont - and also the archive category was fine by itself - I am not sure why there is a need to duplicate the issue and conflate 2 separate systems/issues - cheers SatuSuro 12:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your goodfaith response - will put it to other australian eds - cheers SatuSuro 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! By the way, I've really admired how your work is reflected in most of the existing law articles I've visited. I've just gotten involved in Wikipedia these last few months and I plan to stick around; keep me in mind if you're looking for someone to help with any law-related projects. Agradman talk/contribs 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I'm a rising 3L in the New York area, and when school starts in 6 weeks I'm planning to start a "student wikipedia-hornbook editors" club at my law school, while also encouraging students at other law schools to start one too. If you can help me get in touch with people who'd be interested, that would be great. Agradman talk/contribs 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS here it is!!! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your update of Kate Stith
You may want to make a further update now that YLS has named a new dean to replace Koh (and Stith). PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yale Law School
There is a problem with this page. The link to new Dean Robt. Post goes to a singer of that name, not the academic. Can you fix it or get someone to do so? A link to the correct Robt. Post is http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29097 - but some renaming of the singer page (such as adding (singer) after title) and other fixing is needed. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Enjoy your vacation.--chaser (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive
Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay, back from vacation!
Hi Eastlaw, I'm glad to see you're back from vacation.

I truly hope you'll take a look at WP:Hornbook. Its noble mission: "To assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education -- "to turn hornbooks into footnotes."" We could really use editors like you. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Once again, our messages crossed paths! I think outlines of each casebook are helpful, because they become the "entry point" for students using that casebook. For example (don't tell anyone, it could be a copyvio) here's one: user:usjd/c. Obviously it needs to be paraphrased to avoid the copyvio, and indeed, that is one of my top priorities. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WOW crazy fucking coincidence. Amazing!!

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Deletion
Hi Eastlaw,

I noticed that you have been involved in disputing the speedy deletion of law firms' pages (Cozen O'Connor) and I could use some help with a similar matter. I've been working on a page for Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., based in Wilmington, DE. It was speedily deleted twice and has been re-written three times. It finally stayed on wikipedia for a few days without being tagged for speedy deletion. It was tagged yesterday, but the tag was promptly declined by an admin who stated that the page could use some copy editing but did not deserve to be deleted. Another admin seemed to feel differently and moved the page to my user subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., deleting it from the main namespace. I am now trying to get editors to look over the page and move it back to the main page but thus far have been unsuccessful. The page currently has 60 references to reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure where to go from here, but I do believe that Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. is notable enough to have a wikipedia page based on the statistics I've come across during my research. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide in this matter. Thanks so much, Steph0513 (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I've been going to the pages and pointing them to articles instead of disamigs. Have you seen the new New York Court of Common Pleas?

Next up is circuit court. Neutralitytalk 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A. N. Yiannopoulos
Just to let you know.. I have created the requested article. --Edcolins (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability guidelines
cool, thanks for getting in touch. User:Ironholds and I were talking about it at WP:Law, and then I contacted him directly and invited him to take a crack at writing the guideline as WP:WikiProject notability (law), at which point we would move the discussion to the talk page of that guideline. I'm suspending my efforts until I hear back from Ironholds, but he'd probably appreciate your getting in touch with him. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Userspace draft moved into mainspace
Hi,

I recently moved one of your userspace drafts into article space in order to repair a Cut and Paste move than an editor had performed earlier. You can read the notice on our administrators' noticeboard here. They copied the editable text from your draft, pasted it into a new window and made an article. This is bad for us because it means that you, the creator of that content are not properly attributed. In repairing the move I had the option of either simply deleting the content from article space or moving your draft page over their article. Since the draft seemed good enough to be an article, I chose to move your draft page over their article.

This is reversible! You can view your draft as it was when you last edited it by clicking on the page history and viewing the revision which bears your name. If you feel that the draft does not belong in mainspace, contact me or any other admin and we will simply move the article into your userspace and delete the redirect. You can reverse the move yourself if you choose, but please remember to place a speedy deletion template (such as db-house or Db-r2) on the resulting redirect from the article to your subpage.

I'm sorry that your work got mixed up like this. Please let me know if there are any problems or if you need help with anything. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edward L. Chavez
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Edward L. Chavez, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.supremecourt.nm.org/images/2004%20Chavez%20shortbio.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unaccredited schools vs. Resume frauds and controversies
Hi. I see that you categorized Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning as a subcategory of Category:Résumé frauds and controversies. I'm interested in hearing your reasoning, but I believe this was an inappropriate change and should be undone -- in part because it defames some unaccredited institutions. Not all unaccredited schools are associated with resume fraud -- nor any other type of fraud. Some are unaccredited because they lost accreditation for financial reasons or other issues (for example, Knoxville College and Morris Brown College), some have not sought accreditation for philosophical reasons (such as most of the entries in Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges, and a few avoid the issue of accreditation for their credentials by not awarding degrees (such as Trump University).

Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning is not synonymous with diploma mills, and should not be treated in that manner. This is why the category documentation states "This category contains articles about unaccredited institutions of higher learning, including both diploma mills and legitimate institutions that lack educational accreditation." In the past, only institutions that are documented to have been involved in résumé frauds and controversies have been placed in that category. --Orlady (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

After reflecting upon the situation, I removed Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning from Category:Résumé frauds and controversies to avoid defaming the institutions in the unaccredited category. However, I have not re-added any individual institutions to Category:Résumé frauds and controversies (awaiting your input). --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Case closed. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings,. I'm posting to let you know that I have listed you as an editor who had an unsuccessful RfA in the not-too-recent, not-too-distant past on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running for administratorship (or not), or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. If you might be interested, but would like some private confidential feedback from experienced observers, I would be happy to propose this via the new vetting service. Regards, Skomorokh  18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Credible witness
Thanks for the help. I'll continue to work on this in the next few days, as I find more sources. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have copied your talk page templates onto my talk page, giving you credit in the edit summary. Thanks! Bearian (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Recess appointment
Regarding Recess appointment, you removed Category:Constitutional law when you added Category:Recess appointments. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but since the latter category is not a subcategory of the former, I went ahead and restored it. If you had a valid reason for deleting it, feel free to revert me; I don't deal in categories too often. -Rrius (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines
In September, it appears you tagged the The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein page regarding notability guidelines for an organization. After reviewing the organization notability guidelines, this article seems to meet the guidelines with a number of independent sources cited, both regionally and nationally. I'm hoping that you can help by providing some insight on this, as you have more experience in the Wikipedia community than I. As a major contributor to the article, I would welcome your suggestions so that I can help make this article meet all of the guidelines. Docket42 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15
Hi, I'm just notifying you of this nomination. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw the nomination if you are against it. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdrew it. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomic links
Template:Taxonomic links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomic references
Template:Taxonomic references has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Credible witness
I'm done for now; I hope you like it. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for admissions
With articles like this that are barely more than a stub I like to encourage expansion and verification. I don't see how the link helps with either, but it is promotional in nature and will tend to attract more of the same. The fact that this link has been spammed against a coi for over three years is reason to be extra cautious with it. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:BD2412/200,000th edit party
You're invited! bd2412 T 03:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ex Post Facto
I have nominated Ex Post Facto, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ex Post Facto. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rockfang (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP cat
Hi, what do you think of this ? Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)