User talk:Eastlaw/Archive 5

Userfied
It's at User:Eastlaw/Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott :-)  - Philippe  21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:United States Constitution Contract Clause case law
Sorry about the mess up on this. I saw it at speedy and decided to process it immediately since it resulted from one of my typos in an old nomination. Then it was placed in the queue, but I think somehow it got spelled wrong (again), and it wasn't processing because it was set to rename to itself, so I was doing it manually, and then got interrupted and forgot to create it after moving the articles. Thanks for creating it and it seems fine now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies
Hi, Eastlaw. There is a discussion concerning a proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies. Beagel (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

CFD notice (category name too long for a title)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
Greetings! I'm looking for additional input in this discussion - please comment if you have an opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Togo
Hi! I applied PC1 protection to Togo, as I feel more comfortable applying longer-term protection (3 months) for PC1 than with semi. I'm not necessarily convinced this was the right approach, however. PC1 will still require you and other reviewers to revert vandalism, it simply won't get seen by the majority of readers.

I'd definitely consider 1 month's semi as an alternative, but with no recent history of protection I'd be reluctant to go beyond that. So... is PC1/3-months OK, or would semi/1-month be better? TFOWR 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Heavy metal instrumentals
Category:Heavy metal instrumentals, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 19 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 03:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw
Hi Eastlaw,

This is Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP because I've been using WikiBreak Enforcer to try to squeeze out a little scholastic productivity. Clearly that's failing. I'm here because I learned that I am currently the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, over at Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw.

There's no question that I own both accounts, nor are people questioning that I use this second account for the legitimate purpose of making edits that are not associated with my real-life name. However, the investigators rightly point out an occasion when I really did use the JD_Caselaw account to engage in sockpuppetry. It was in May 2009, during my first month on Wikipedia, and my response is that it was a long time ago and it was a mistake. And that's where the question stands: Given that I behaved pretty scurrilously, once a long time ago, can I be trusted now?

We've worked together in the past, so you have some relevant insight into that question. I'm just letting you know the page exists.

-user:Agradman, forced by WikiBreak Enforcer to edit as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

argumentum e contrario
Hi there. Since you are probably one of the most prolific law-related editors here, could you have a look at the mess I created at argumentum e contrario and fix it up with what you know about it? Regards  So Why  19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi Eastlaw,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, your expertise in law would be really valuable to the project, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the | Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Maps of American ancestries. It's an interesting article, but IMO not suitable for an encyclopedia. Feel free to disagree, or agree. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bypassing template redirects
While I am a fan of doing this (by and large), it is probably not worth making separate edits to change these in general, certainly it is frowned on. Also "Main" is simpler to learn than catmore/catmain, there's no value to replacing this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
 * In addition, catmore itself is a redirect to cat main. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:History of the Internet in the United States
I went to Category:History of the Internet in the United States to reclassify items, since this category has been proposed for deletion. So I was surprised to see your addition there. This is just a heads-up that you might either want to reclassify items or weigh in on the deletion discussion. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Day Pitney


A tag has been placed on Day Pitney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Day Pitney for deletion
The article Day Pitney is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Day Pitney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring
Hi Eastlaw,

Your name popped up in the revision history on a bunch of articles that fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. Your expertise in environmental law would be a real asset to the Initiative. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * hi Eastlaw,
 * If you can, we would LOVE your involvement. A new assessment round is posted. The assessment metric we are using is at WP:USPP/Assessment. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
 * The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
 * On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
As discussed at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica, we are not allowed to link to the .ch fork, as it violates the copyright of ED, which makes it fall under the rules of WP:ELNEVER, so it cannot be used as an external link. Silver seren C 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's alright, you didn't know. Since you seemed to be an established editor, I felt it was better to let you know about this rather than going for, say, templates or something. I'm glad I did now. Silver  seren C 08:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:USPP Spring Assessment 3
hi Eastlaw,

If you have time to assess a few articles it would be very appreciated. There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment, and both sets have a few legal cases where your input would be valuable. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, hopefully the randomly selected articles will show it to be high quality. Please, let me know if you have any comments or questions about research with the Public Policy Initiative. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Last Public Policy Initiative Assessment
hi Eastlaw,

If you are interested, at least 5 of the articles in this round are recent legal cases. This is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, so if you get a chance check it out. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration on US Supreme Court case article improvement

 * Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

Hi, Eastlaw, I noticed you had previously contributed to this article.

Wehwalt and myself will be collaborating together to improve the quality of this article. You are welcome to help out with research, writing, and copyediting. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Eastlaw, a quick update regarding above. Just a heads up, and I decided to do a Quality Improvement Drive on a different article to start out with. I just created the article on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Hill. You're welcome to contribute and/or help with research, at the new article's talk page. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Categories by function
Category:Categories by function, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 18 August 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)

Superior Electoral Court
Hi, Eastlaw. I've updated the Superior Electoral Court article and, as you were the last one to edit it before me and due to your Legal collaborations to Wikipedia, would you mind giving me an advice on it? I know it's not supposed to be an official advice, but well...if you don't mind! Cheers! --Jgsodre (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cooper v. Aaron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integrated (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) 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Baryte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 10:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Supreme Court of Canada case articles without infoboxes
Hi Eastlaw! I've decided to start taking a crack at going through the articles in Category:Supreme Court of Canada case articles without infoboxes and adding the SCC infobox. Since you were the one who created the category, I wanted to check with you to see how the category was populated, so I can make sure nothing is missing... Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I created this category for Supreme Court of Canada cases which don't contain the Template:Infobox SCC. I really just went through a bung of the articles on these cases and added the category for those articles without the infobox.  I don't work much on Canadian law, since as a Yank, I don't know all that much about it.  I have done some work on Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes though.

Hope that answers your question. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 06:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Singularity42 (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discipline Global Mobile: Categorization
Hi Eastlaw!

Would you briefly review my novice categorization of Discipline Global Mobile, please?

Thanks!

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks alright to me, bro. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha!
I have finally caught you in an error! It took me over three years to notice, but I finally did. TJRC (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, whoops...sorry about that. Truth be told, I don't even remember making that edit.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 04:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, just taking the opportunity to pull your chain over the rare Eastlaw mistake. TJRC (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Travel Act
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Please read carefully what  you  are tagging  and be sure to use the correct  CSD criterion -  Troll Entertainment  is a hoax and/or vandalism, and/or an attack  page and must  be deleted quickly. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK...it looked like a bunch of made-up nonsense to me, so that's why I used that tag. Hardly matters now, right?  ;-) -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 03:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly matters now, because as an admin partolling  new pages and the pages patrolled by  patrollers, I  was quick  to  delete it. NPP  is only  worth doing  if kit's done properly, otherwise it's probably best  to  leave it  to  people who  read the contents of the new pages first.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss Western Tradition first
Please discuss at Talk:Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana before changing any redirects associated with this case. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  03:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dora Deliyska
Really, going to slap a notability tag on an article barely 9 minutes after the page was created? FYI: She is just as, if not more, notable than the 18 other living Bulgarian pianists with stub articles on WP. 3 albums, several major European awards, and successful 13-year international concert career. But instead of finding that on google, you immediately doubt notability. Jumping the gun a bit too quickly, aren't we? --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry about that. I just get a bit too accustomed to people creating articles and then leaving them with no further indicia of notability.  Carry on, good sir.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 06:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit and categories
It was rather late when I did that article (Edwin Deakin) and I didn't run it through Word to catch my awful spelling and immediate grammar problems. But thank you for getting to it so quickly.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)