User talk:Law/November 2008

Halloween
Thank you for your interest in WikiProject Halloween! There is now sufficient interest to create this fledgling WikiProject. Please visit the project page and sign up. There is not much to the page as yet, and your input in helping us focus our efforts and recruit new members will be invaluable!--otherlleft (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great - signed up! Lawshoot! 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's-up on the template - templates are NOT my forte, so I'm going to have to find someone wiser than I to figure out the details . . . --otherlleft (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever page(s) you templated should be showing up in a category by now!--otherlleft (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * . . . . and there's a userbox! I think most of the busywork is done so perhaps we can actually work on Halloween now!  ;)--otherlleft (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Featuring Halloween
I have started a discussion thread about getting the Halloween article up to FA status. Your comments and participation are most welcome.--otherlleft (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you, that was very kind. Here's to getting a nice FA in time for next Halloween!--otherlleft (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Interstate Income Act of 1959
I renamed the article for the sake of consistency, because most of Wikipedia's articles on statutes use the full final name of the act (as opposed to the name and number of the original public law). I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the search engine issue will be a problem. Both names of the law are in the first line of the article, and the redirect created by the page move will send visitors to the same article anyway.  So I don't foresee anyone having any difficulties finding the article.  --Eastlaw (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a bug, Cornell Law School's server goes on the fritz occasionally, from too much traffic. Yeah, it's annoying but the link will probably work again by tomorrow.  --Eastlaw (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
I heard a song recently that asked what you are good for. The conclusion the singer reached was "absolutely nothing". I think this is harsh, quite frankly- but what are your thoughts on the matter? 58.174.228.85 (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to 'war' being good for nothing. Are you asking 'what I am good' for? I'm not quite sure. Let me call my folks and get back to you. They always know the answer to these things. Lawshoot! 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Child labour
I tried to move the page to "Child labour" but it would not let me, saying that the page was already taken (?!). So I tried Child Labour. To be honest, my priority was getting rid of labor, and replacing it with the spelling consistent on the rest of Wikipedia, and the English speaking world (and of course, more accurate when you consider the pronunciation).

Thanks for moving it. How did you manage? Btline (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to laugh, not at you, but you do know you have 300 million Americans who disagree about the spelling and the adding of the 'u.' Remember, we pronounce words differently by virtue of the fact that we have different accents, so the arguments about accuracy don't apply. 'Labour', in American English, would be pronounced, 'Lay - Booer.' 'Labor' is 'Lay-ber' - which is how we Yanks say it. No matter, I agreed with your page move because the article was started with that spelling. I tried to move it as well, and got the same message. There was a redirect page in its place. The warning was specific about NOT cutting and pasting, so I figured the only way we could correct the move was to request the redirect page be deleted, so I added a deletion tag on it and the rest seemed to work out fine. Cheers. Lawshoot! 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Well I would pronounce labor as "lab - or!" I say labour as "labe - ur." Btline (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know we don't pronounce anything right over here. The less letter in a word, the less work for us. LOL. Lawshoot! 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha!
Thanks! This edit made my quota for the week! Law s shoot!  22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you dont get much bettet than that. I was on huggle this week and had some tremendous edits that sent me off laughing afeterwards, although they are vandals, they do give some intresting and humerous times! Andy (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:My User Page
Sorry about that. I was trying to close up the white space on your page. Chris (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I have to be anal in my job too though it is in quality control/ quality assurance. Chris (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Mate, I don't normally work in categories, which is one reason why my usual technique is to add and let others do the work. The only other category I think would be appropriate is. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Significance? an AfD you may know more than me about
Hey Law, is ths SCOTUSblog notable? I thought with your name you may know a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Casliber! Judging by the afd, it clearly is :P (hindsight is great). However, I know law as it is applicable to taxation, so I really wouldn't have been able to say, off the top of my head if the blog was notable. Looks like an article with potential. Why don't we do some work on it in the near future? Lawshoot! 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page?
Hiya. I've never touched List of people that were on lists. More to the point, I'm not an admin and therefore have never deleted a page. // roux   editor review 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your email...
Do I, um, know you?--Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)