User talk:Lawyer2b

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 have any questions, check out Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

-- MicahMN | μ 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal
Hi, I noticed your vote on there and saw some your edits and wanted to let you know a few things

Personally, from your animosity towards Liberalism, I don't understand how your brand of Libertarianism differs from Conservatism, since most Libertarian advocates I know outside of Wikipedia consider Libertarianism half Liberal and half Conservative, just like on the Nolan Test. However, that's a discussion for another time, because here on Wikipedia, you're a Wikipedian first regardless of whatever your political beliefs are. A good person to talk to on this would be MONGO; he's on the right and i'm on the left, but I think he's a far better Wikipedian than many on the left, and in the end that's all that counts.
 * 1) Your vote might not be counted since you're a new voter(i'll paste the template below)
 * 2) You should take a look atWP:CIVIL,WP:WQT, WP:NOT,WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. You had one foot in breaking the third example at WP:NPA, and from scanning some of your edits and edit summaries, you'll probably put the other foot in fairly soon at this rate. If you don't follow those guidelines and others and continue on the subjective advocacy path you currently seem to be on, you'll probably follow a long line of right and left wing extremists such as our friend Rex there as well as Silverback, Ultramarine, Bigdaddy777 and -Ril- who recieved long and potentally permanent bans from Wikipedia.
 * 3) I'm a Liberal and I also voted keep, not because I found that page to have any merit(the content is irrelevant on there), but because precedent on similiar pages was in favor of that page not being deleted, and if a page like that is deleted, I assume that anyone looking to violate WP:POINT will try to delete one of my user pages as some kind of vendetta for something arbitrary.

Here's the template, please feel free to contact my talk page with any more questions. Karmafist 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Welcome, ! I noticed that you placed a vote on Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal. Participation in the community is encouraged, of course, but your status as a brand new user means that your vote might not be counted. Please understand that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, and that it is necessary to prevent deliberate misuse of our voting systems. Straw polls on Wikipedia are meant to measure community consensus, and should not necessarily be taken as literal one-member one-vote voting. However, please do make further contributions to Wikipedia, and express your opinion on policy matters.

Wow!
I must say, i'm really impressed at your edits after the letter there, they exemply WP:AGF. Good job, my friend! I just have this feeling that you're going to make a kickass Wikipedian, and i'm glad I wrote that letter there.

I don't know if I'll hit on all the points of your response, but i'll try..


 * The "New Voter" thing I believe is an unwritten rule, due mostly to sockpuppets, but also due to new voters not having a complete grasp of Deletion Policy, although most users never completely understand it since like real life law, Wikipedia law is constantly evolving. The best thing to do there is understand Wikipedia is a Sociocracy and not a Majoritarian Democracy and focus on non-ad hominem votes and comments. You're probably just past the boundary of "New Voter" --it's around 50 usually, but that's not an exact rule, as with most of the "unwritten rules". Even the actual guidelines aren't enforced by the letter alot of the time, and then there's WP:IAR, which can be awfully confusing at first. I've been around the block a few times(I went over 3,300 edits today), so don't be afraid to ask for advice.

As for the hatred thing, i've seen it all to frequently on both sides, and it disgusted me, along with alot of other things, last year when I was a volunteer/paid canvasser during the presidential campaign and ran for state rep. Desperation and a feeling of disempowerment can cause that, trust me, i've seen the correlation during my time as a Red Sox fan. ;-) I wish someday that I could become a higher level politician and try to change that sense of polarization that we've got in this country right now, but my career is in the toilet and it's beginning to look like it's not feasible.

Oh yeah, have you seen [Political Compass.com? It's basically a better version of that Nolan Test link you sent me(I always score around the edge of Libertarian and Liberal on those)

Your vote counts !
Here is another opportunity to vote on a topic that likely interests you: Talk:Stolen Honor

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Regarding User_talk:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases, we have Trust network, but its not really in use. If you'd like to get in touch w me I'm very accessable, and glad to try to help or discuss or whatever. Incidentilly, I'm not a Libertarian, but I like them alot, and have voted libertarian more than once, w the idea that if nothing else, they arn't going to oppress me! Drop a note @ User talk:Sam Spade sometime, Cheers,

Sam Spade 00:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a re-run
Just so you know ( +  ) /  2 = , seriously, try the mime next time, or the wiki cowboy, far less over played choices--64.12.116.9 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to respond to your post except to say you basically copied the same thing from Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal where I replied beforehand. I'm not a sockpuppet, what can I say?  (shrug)   But please let me know to whom I belong.  I'd love to meet other libertarian non-sockpuppets.  :-) -- Lawyer2b 01:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What part of the mime is funnier aren't you understanding, oh and welcome back after your 3 month vaccation, always nice to meet a not-sockpuppet--172.129.152.98 05:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome back. Hurricane Wilma wreaked havoc down here and created a back-loaded semester so I just haven't had the time to edit that much.  Regarding the mime, I don't get that at all so please do explain. :-) Lawyer2b 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Box (band)
Hi Lawyer2b. With regard to you edit on the above article, is the "good percentage of that song" quotation taken from the website referenced immediately after it? I couldn't find the quote on that site and it sounds odd to me - wouldn't it me more likely to be something like "a good percentage of the earnings/royalties from that song"? Regards, CLW 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * CLW: I thought there might be some question and considered mentioning his lawyer's name, Patrick McNamara.  I just added it so hopefully it will be easier for someone to find the direct quote, which I think I quoted correctly.  His attorney probably didn't use the word "earnings/royalty" because in his world, it's so obvious it goes without saying but I understand your questioning it.  :-) Lawyer2b 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, given that there isn't yet a source for the direct quote, I'll remove the quote marks (and reword) so that it doesn't look like a direct quote. CLW 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You say there isn't a direct source for the direct quote but I just gave it:  his attorney, Patrick McNamara.  If you go to www.danhartman.com and click on the "Patrick McNamara" link there is a page of comments that appear to be typed by Patrick McNamara himself.  On that page is the direct quote, "After much negotiation, Dan ended up with a good percentage of that song."  Let me know if this satisfies the source requirement. Lawyer2b 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I said there wasn't a source ("yet"), because at the time I wrote my previous comment, your most recent comment was that you thought it was quoted correctly and you hadn't been able to find the quote ("it will be easier for someone to find the direct quote"). Now, subsequent to my previous comment, you've found the source. Hope that clears up the confusion!
 * However, I still think the quote should be replaced with my paraphrasing of it - as pointed out above, it sounds odd because it's grammatically incorrect (they would have given Hartman a percentage of the earnings, not a percentage of the song), and could therefore be potentially confusing for users, particularly if English isn't their first language. CLW 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When I typed, "I think I quoted it correctly", I was trying to be gentle because I didn't want to come across as, "I quoted it correctly. Dammit."  But I can see how it could've been seen as, "I'm not sure if I quoted it correctly."  I can also see how that led you to interpret my saying, "it will be easier for someone to find the direct quote", to mean, "I hadn't found it yet", when in fact I just meant it would be easier for others to find the direct quote as I had already.  Sorry.  Let me just say that I did find the quote and knew what I was quoting before I ever edited the Block Box entry in the first place.
 * I guess I see what you're saying regarding the wording. I happen to like how his lawyer put it, as its colloquial, but since wikipedia is unfortunately not about what I think sounds cool but rather making things easy for people to understand, if you change it as you see fit you'll get no objection from me.  ;-) Lawyer2b 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool - looks like we now understand one another! And you could always add the colloquial quote to the article's talk page if you think it will be of interest to others. Regards, CLW 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An excellent suggestion! :-) Lawyer2b 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to Work
Sorry for the delay, I added my two cents in there, mostly just some guidelines from things i've seen in the past. Let me know if I can help out more. karmafist 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Right-to-Work
Thanks for your interest in my view. I have to admit I was suprised, I guess I have gotten used to.. losing! (: I wrote about my opinion on Talk:Right-to-work.

Re: Hi, fellow Anarchocapitalist who supports conservative ideas!
Thanks for adding the AnarchCap userbox to my userpage. The only one I could locate was the one that said "This user is an Anarcho-capitalist pig-dog," which I felt was inappropriate. Where did you find the UN stinks one? And the legalize all drugs one? Oddly, my userpage is now protected, and I can't figure out how or why. Also, I'd appreciate your support at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#Suggestion_for_Incorporation_into_Wikipedia_Rules_Regarding_Removal_of_Graphics_from_Userbox_Templates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Suggestion_for_Incorporation_into_Wikipedia_Rules_Regarding_Removal_of_Graphics_from_Userbox_Templates. Thanks!
 * MSTCrow 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest adding your custom tags (Anti-UN, Anti-ACLU, Legalize All Drugs) to the appropriate userbox categories.
 * MSTCrow 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there :)
I just wanted to say that I loved your Anti-ACLU tag. Nice work! Robert Paveza 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates
I undeleted them until the Deletion Review is over one way or another. Tony will basically destroy anything he doesn't like, regardless of what policy he has to ignore. It's Ironic, the ACLU would probably be the first people to protect the Anti-ACLU userbox. karmafist 06:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much all they do from the people I know who have worked with them, but eh, no biggie. I have way to many things to care either way.
 * Thank you for your kind words, my friend. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's tyranny, whether it's tyranny of the individual or the community. Without some basic procedure, we're left with anarchy, which i've seen as almost invariably devolving into a tyranny of the strong over the weak(what Wikipedia is fast becoming), which is perhaps the worst kind of tyranny. Unfortunately, it's tough when it seems like a bunch of people are ganging up on you whenever you have an opinion, citing some drivel somewhere. I don't know how much longer I can keep this up, I have three jobs now, and many parts of Wikipedia make me sick to look at nowadays. karmafist 14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, My Friend
I know it might sound corny, but if it weren't for a few things, yourself being one of them, I'd probably be dead after the last few weeks(It wasn't just Wikipedia). One day this country will be able to get past labels like "Liberal" or "Conservative" or whatever and just respect each other while trying to follow the most pragmatic path, but until then, thanks for letting me know that there's people out there who think i'm worth keeping around. Karm a  fist  03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

sure!
Hi, thanks for your nice grace note! Sure of course you can use anything from my page, don't need to ask. Herostratus 05:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Helping Hand
I still think of myself as a Wikipedia newbie, even though it is over 6 months since I joined. However, I have had some lapses of almost 2 months when I might only sign on once a week and just contribute a small amount to the RD, no time for anything else. I recognize that different people on Wikipedia have different sense of value for various aspects of support for community of people mutually helping learning curves at getting better at presenting information into the ultimate encyclopaedia, so that my effort to make my user page combine lots of info with a pleasingly good appearance, as not being good bang for WP buck, since I am so slow to learn how to apply that aquired know-how to encyclopaedia articles.

Your user page impressed me because you had researched many places worth remembering the links. My watch page has growing volume of places I want to remember exist. I had been contemplating moving some of that to a secondary page off of my user space, like the archives, but it is easy to lose track of what we have for what purposes, even with WP links. Since I am still learning here, I feel honored that you have asked me to soup up your user page appearance. User:AlMac|(talk) 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberlaw project
Given your user signature here, you might find some interest in exploring links from this page.

Also --TantalumT] told me about WikiProject Law andWikiProject International law, which may also be of interest to you, assuming you are involved in the law, and depending on your speciality there. User:AlMac|(talk) 19:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice the sysop of the Harvard Wiki appears to be the same User:Sj who started the Cyberlaw project. After I signed up to help it, and suggested some ideas on the talk pages, I said hello to the other folks who had signed up before me, and I was encouraged by Sj, in a way that I interpreted as an invitation to help out in a variety of ways. I hope I have not been a kiss of participation death, since I not seen anyone else from WP contributing after I joined. One thing I learned from The Harvard Wiki is it is easy to lose track of secondary pages that I might create, since WP not seem to come with an easy way to locate all of them again, unless I create and maintain links as I create them.

For example, I might remember I created pages like these, but forget where I placed them. etc. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * next bottlenecks
 * Educators who set bad examples
 * Internet users false expectations
 * News stories relevant to topics mentioned in the law school classes
 * I also stumbled over Association of Members' Advocates which is like an ACLU for Wikipedians. If some editor feels overwhelmed with preceived bullying, or unfair treatment, they can ask for an advocate to make sure their case is fairly considered. Again, you may be well aware of some stuff I am sharing, but I just thought since your sig here has "lawyer" embeded, and I figure "2b" means you are on a path to lawyering, this might also interest you.
 * User:Alex756 has shown up a couple places as being someone who perhaps is deserving of a barnstar.


 * 1) First Coordinator of the above advocates organization, resigning on Martin Luther King Day to inspire election of successor.
 * 2) Wikipedia registered as a Trademark thanks to this user.

Thanks for touching up my user page. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
Oh go on! You know you want to! :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU and the United Nations
Why do i not support the UN and ACLU?

UN - I outright HATE the united nations becuase all they do is fart around and do nothing, while genocides happen (Rwanda, Kosovo, Liberia, Congo/Republique Democratique du Congo (Formerly Zaire). They let millions die while sitting on their tushies.

Keep in mind: in 1949, NATO was created BECAUSE the UN was already too idiotic to get anything done. That was when the UN was just 4!

The ACLU: it does nothing to defend other minorities, other than blacks and jews. Chinese, latinos, arabs/muslims, hindus, native americans, and so on, are hardly, IF EVER, defended by this organization.

Other than those two reasons, i do support them. They just need a major overhaul.

Raccoon Fox 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defeding the truth
Category:Real Americans

Hi
Sorry, but I live in Jacksonville, which is on the northeast. --Revolución (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberal POV?
From your user page:

''I look at this picture and forget all about the liberal POV on wikipedia. (sigh) Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. :-)''

If you think Wikipedia has a liberal "POV" it might just be because as a whole the world is a lot more "liberal" than the narrow spectrum you see in America. Regardless, I don't think this polemical statement is appropriate at it can only lead to unpleasantness. -- Cyde Weys 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Liberal Troll above, I assure you that America is far more conservative than what your immediate neighborhood in Kalifornistan would lead you to believe. Yes, Wikipedia, like the internet in general, is overrun by liberals and liberal POVs. I am used to it, but denial is so blatantly stupid, it is almost offensive. Welcome to middle America, and enjoy your coffee. Thank you and good night, --PistolPower 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much like what Lawyer2b's says about liberal POV and I think Psitolpower is right about cydeweys being a liberal troll. --UNK 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL
LOL thx. I thought that would disappear into the void and never be seen... Perhaps you'll appreciate the addition of the "diagram needed" template here... Herostratus 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

GROUP HUG!!!!
Lol. Don't ask. Hey did you see my revision to the diagram over at Talk:Cum fart. A slight improvement I think... I wonder if I should nominate it for picture of the day... Herostratus 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Response
I have responded to you in the discussion about the template. --Revolución (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

your comments
Hey there, I don't appreciate the comments you directed at me on Talk:Cum fart. Thanks.  An An  01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, I just wanted to mention it rather than to let it stew.  An An  03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

help yourself
User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page
 * you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a fun userbox about deleating userboxes, I thought you might like it...Mike McGregor (Can) 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Template"
Please excuse, Lawyer2b, but may use the 'Anti-UN" 'user-box' upon my 'user-page?' (I apologise if I eavesdropped.)--Anglius 19:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark Levin
Thanks for the kind words. Currently, the same anonymous vandal is intent on adding advertising links, POV and deleting any links to anything less than a Levin fan site, and then ranting about it ad nauseam on the Talk Page. It might be helpful if you stopped by the Talk Page to give your thoughts. Take care. Eleemosynary 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Words
Thanks for the corrections! --Analogdemon (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, My Friend
I'm sorry I lost that e-mail -- I had a few more of those moments, but hell, I got through them. I just have to remember that the only person that can beat me is me. Oh, and I thought you'd get a kick out of thisIf somebody can't make fun of themselves, they need to lighten up and drink a few beers, or for that matter, join a political party sponsored by beer ;-) Karm  a  fist  04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reinstating Template:User CCW
Hi. I believe you deleted Template:User CCW which stated "This user carries a concealed weapon in their home state, and is licensed to do so." When you deleted it, your edit summary said it was divisive. I would like to ask you reinstate it and reconsider its deletion as I do not feel it is "divisive" in the sense that is being used to justify deletion of many POV userboxes. Template:User CCW doesn't express a point of view -- it simply tells something about the user, namely that they are licensed to carry a concealed weapon and do so on a regular basis. Thank you. Lawyer2b 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "information" provided by this template is not valuable to the process of writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the possession of concealed firearms is a controversial topic throughout the world.  Given the combination of these two facts, it is my conclusion that this template offers no positive value to Wikipedia, while at the same time creating the risk of a division within Wikipedia.  (I can see no practical reason for an editor to declare this other than to express a political point of view, which is a highly disfavored purpose of a user page.)  As such, it should not be allowed to exist.  There is no reason why Wikipedia needs to provide a generic "warning sticker" for people to put onto their user pages for the purpose of making this declaration.  Note also that this userbox would not be permitted under the proposed userbox policy as it fails to be "of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia".


 * Having considered your request, I feel compelled to refuse to grant it. You may, of course, include within the personal details on your user page the statement that you elect to carry a concealed weapon (in whatever format appeals to you), although I would discourage you from doing so as such statement carries no significant interest to editors of the encyclopedia.  I would instead suggest that you declare an interest in firearms or perhaps expert knowledge about firearms; such information would be of use to Wikipedians who need assistance in editing articles about firearms or related topics.  Kelly Martin (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas page
Hi. If you get a second, would you mind stopping by the Clarence Thomas Talk page? I'm in a dispute with a user over whether the fact that Thomas performed, at his home, Rush Limbaugh's third wedding should be mentioned in the article. I think it should. The other user does not. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Eleemosynary 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

cool pic
Awesome pic on your main page. imho, you should change your user box to say that you disagree with MOST of marx's ideas. For example, he said that "Machinery is knowledge objectified." or even the vast majority. TitaniumDreads 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * alack, i don't know anyone in south florida let alone hard core communists. For the record, i think the terms Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Democracy are all utterly worthless.  At least unless they are qualified to reflect their various flavors.  example, to say the US has a freemarket system is horrendously vague.  Do we promote enterprise? yes but heavily subsidize most industries to promote the public good which is decidedly not free and of course that's a very optimistic view, some cynics would say that's just cronyism.  The same terminology and implementation problems persist for democracy, socialism etc.
 * Also, what have you read by him? imho, he was a brilliant analyst of how economies work, he just didn't agree with the outcome.  Probably the people that would be more interesting to talk to would be anarchists, are you familiar with crimethinc?  The book i recommend most to people is Days of War, Nights of Love.  it's only 8 bucks and it comes with a bunch of stickers if you buy it from the site.  You won't agree with everything but holy shit parts are brilliant.

http://crimethinc.com/days TitaniumDreads 07:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC) ps. lawschool, oi
 * Heh, i typed in that uri wrong, but it's pretty interesting to follow it anyway http://www.crimethinc.com/a/days/ will do you right

2006 custodial workers' strike
Just wanted to let you know that your decision to create a separate page for this topic makes sense, especially if it's an issue that's going to be around for a while, as looks likely. Good move. MiamiDolphins3 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this opinion. Excellent decision. 69.180.103.161 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:24.163.205.147
Hey Lawyer2b. Why don't call Brit Hume up and just ask him about it? How many sources do you want. I mean Christ dude you even looked up the ABC news report yourself. Why don't you call that service and ask them for a copy of Brit's report?

It's not my fault that you don't understand the relavance of the story. To repeatedly delete it is exactly what the entry is about. You are a judge and jury who thinks you have some obligation to protect people from reality. Just like Brit Hume thought he had an obligation to keep quiet about illegal weapon sales to China.

Call Wolf Blitzer, Bill Plante and Wendall Goler. ask them if it is true. Oh I guess it is easier to just delete someone's entry and give a lame excuse on the talk page?

You act like you are God's gift to Brit's wikipedia page. If you had actually researched Brit you would have come across the Ouellette issue and started wondering for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxx (talk • contribs)

Sorry
Sorry I wrote Ann Coulter is a stupid whore, but I: just can't stand that she really wants women to give up the right to vote to allow Republicans to get relelected. I understand it wasn't write to write that there.

Response to Iraq war dilemma
Thank you for your respectable comments and statements. There is one thing however that bothers me, why do we finance the terrorists we fight? It would seem logical not to support a terrorist organization that we are trying to battle and potential resolve. It seems American business interests are more of a concern than that of the safety of U.S. citizens or people of other nations. There is much evidence, and you will find on the link I posted in my article in the Iraq war discussion, to support the idea of war-profiteering, grafting, money laundering, and finacial fraud and manipulation in the U.S. It is astonishing to know that even the bin Laden family's interests have stocks in the NYSE that we support readily and wholly. Not to mention Afghanistan has not been denounced as a terrorist supporting nation by the U.S. yet Iraq seems to have fallen under that category. Why aren't we over in Pakistan, the largest terrorist supporting nation in the world, except America. Here is a brief layout of some weird facts: -The U.S. funded the Taliban and supplied them with weapons, the CIA even trained them for combat. -Osama bin Laden and much of his family are very wealthy and powerful thanks to the NYSE and the CIA. -Hussein was provided with bio-weapons from the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran war. -Hussein was put into power by the U.S., today he is in U.S. captivity. -The Bush family and the bin Laden family are close friends and are part of the same business assets. -A couple of bin Laden family members actually have residence in the U.S. (e.g. Omar bin Laden), ironically he lives right next to the CIA edifice.--Existential Thinker 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate the support. Let me know if you ever need some help or an additional opinion. I'm 100% within the limits when it comes to helping another person with their own project. Haizum 04:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for you support. booo-ya! Isarig 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Oreilly
I dont think the liberal consedrvative moderate trichotomy will hold up. THere is little consensus on consensus politics. My politics are old and krusty. I am apparently living in the 90's and no longer know what is liberal and conservative anymore. Mrdthree 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for the compliment, I hope those changes stay permanent, but with the Wikibias around here... anyway, in case you haven't seen the Talk:Laura Ingraham page lately, I think you were right about those sources, so I re-added them. However, I ended up changing some of them to links to the videos of the criticism, so they'd be primary sources instead of secondary. Let me know what you think on the talk page. Thanks again for the kind words!Karwynn 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1992 FBI UCR pdf
Can you put this on a website or an ftp site somewhere? Yaf 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't how to do either of those things. If you can provide some instruction, I'm willing to try. Lawyer2b 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG Wikistalker!!!
...just kidding! ^_~ But seriously, did you read my LJ or something? I didn't think I'd mentioned my state of residence on Wikipedia. In any case, I live in Bradenton, which is sort of like the poor younger sibling of Sarasota that nobody loves. Alberto just took a soggy swipe at us but he turned out to be all wet. :P Kasreyn 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Tropicana is in Bradenton... at night in the summer you can smell the orange groves and the plant, which has kind of a more chemically tangy orange smell. They've recently laid off a lot of workers though, which hurt the town some. Kasreyn 01:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warriors girding for battle
You might be interested to note that Fellow-edit is assembling the troops to do edit war upon us "liberals" over at Ann Coulter. I'm of the opinion that this sort of behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And here you and I had such a harmonious bipartisan atmosphere going! Kasreyn 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative_notice_board
Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham
The disputes are being renewed! If your still interested in the direction of this article, your input is welcome! :-) Karwynn 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Moyers
Hi, Lawyer2B. I amen everything you said about Bill Moyers-- he is a truly self-righteous, dishonest (politically and religiously) and wholly left-wing biased commentator. Nonetheless, to say he is the "godfather of negative political ads" is stretching things considerably. On television, he may be just that for all I know. But negative ads in the arena of politics are as old as politics itself. Good job being fair & balanced. -- Gerkinstock 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:WOT
You may or may not want to comment on this. Haizum 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT
Right now there's a free-for-all, your input is highly appreciated and probably contradictory to my own, but fresh blood is always welcome :) --kizzle 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

quick comment

 * While I agree that there are now more terrorists in Iraq than before the war, I say, "good!". The U.S.' number one goal is to prevent more terrorist acts in the U.S. It makes perfect sense to create a "front" in the war that gets terrorists to fight there instead of in the U.S. While its terrible to have any American troops die, I'd rather see terrorists attacking our armed, equipped, and trained troops than our citizens at home.

Another front is nice, but I can't see how it could possibly be morally justified to invade a country for this expressed purpose. Are we truly to say that the Iraqi civilian casualties were justified simply because we wanted to create another target for them overseas? --kizzle 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for the comment. I'm starving for a good civil discussion/debate with a self-identified liberal.
 * If that was the only reason, then no, I don't think we'd be morally justified to invade another country. But that wasn't the only reason.  Another good, in my opinion, justification it that Iraq was being ruled by a tyrant who abused the human rights of his people.  Going in and removing him was a good thing.  A third reason is that I think while Saddam might not have had much relationship with Al-Qaeda, eventually I think they would've been driven together a la "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and you would have an even more powerful country than Afghanistan trying to aid Al-Qaeda to pull off major terrorist attacks in the West; something I think Iran is liable to do unless there is a regime change there as well.  As a libertarian (who agrees with liberals on all the personal freedom issues but thinks they need a lesson in reality economics) what really steams me is the hypocrisy I see when liberals (who are supposed to be concerned with human rights, personal freedom, etc.) don't express any pleasure in seeing a guy who gassed women and children (Kurds) and put his enemies through a wood-chipper get his comeuppance. Lawyer2b 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well technically, according to the liberal hard-line, we're not supposed to take any pleasure in any enemy's death but revel in the deaths of our soldiers, as they make Bush look bad ;) Of course I'm happy to see Saddam get his comeuppance, but such pleasure to me is like enjoying an ice-cream sundae if I'm a diabetic. One eternal rule of foreign policy: every action has a reaction.  Yes, we've provided another "front" for Al-Qaeda to focus upon.  But in addition, we've fanned the flames of jihad against us and lost the respect of the world.  These were not necessary consequences, and are hurting our legitimacy in the world.  How can we possibly claim to other countries that they are not allowed to practice preemption when we practice it ourselves?  With North Korea developing "defensive" nuclear missiles to combat what they see as a threat from the west, how can we morally persuade them to leave such a program be when we practice preemption ourselves?  Ask yourself two questions:  Was Iraq a more dangerous target than Iran or North Korea?  Finally, the "McDonald's"/Democracy rule (no country that is a democracy or has a "McDonald's" goes to war with another country of the same type) is not infallible.  Are there conceivable consequences (i.e. civil war) in your mind that would outweight the benefits of ousting Saddam Hussein for the purposes of removing an oppressive dictator? These two questions don't even address that the stated reasons that we invaded Iraq all proved to be false. --kizzle 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing like barring the door after the horse has left the stable. Don't you think the flames of jihad were already fanned enough before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan?  I mean, come on, they flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of Americans.  While I would like America to have more respect in the world, after that I think our number one concern has to be not have another September 11th.  If that means we lose the world's respect, so be it.  If there was/is at least as good a way to prevent more terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would not involve us losing respect, I'm all open to it.  Unfortunately, from the left I don't hear a counter-proposal -- just "mmmm.  war, bad.  america, evil".  Regarding the "how can we tell others to do as we say and not as we do", you are presupposing that NK can be morally persuaded and I disagree.  Their leader is as bad, if not worse than, Saddam.  Perhaps the only reason we haven't invaded there is the cost of life would be too great; Korea has a more powerful military than Iraq and worse, China might get involved.  Iraq was a target of opportunity, in my opinion.  Was removing Saddam the single best thing we could do to reduce terrorism?  Probably not, but for our cost/benefits compared to all the alternatives it was GREAT ROI.  I agree the McDonald's rule is not perfect but it sure is close and its logic make sense.  Ironically, a peaceful democracy is not just best for the U.S. but also for the Iraqi people.  Why not try to set it up?  Is there a conceivable consequence that would make the invasion not worth it?  Absolutely.  If Iraq ends up being a bigger aid to Al-Quaeda and terrorism than it was.  That would be a disaster. Lawyer2b 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya enjoying myself, comment coming later, gotta go party first :) --kizzle 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you ; )
YOU...are hilarious. That's really all I have to say. I was thinking it, and I thought you should know. And everyone should know what I think.Stanselmdoc 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter poll
Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Coulter edit
Well done! Lou Sander 03:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent John Stossel Edit
Glad you liked the edit. I try to be NPOV and use good documentation. In future, I may put my suggested edit on the talk page first to avoid ruffling feathers.

Anarcho-capitalism
I'm looking for users how now something about anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Any help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perpetual motion
Hi, I'm the guy who removed perpetual motion from the list of holy grails. I saw it on the list before and left it there, but when someone edited the ist to include interdimensional travel, I had to draw the line. I removed interdimensional travel, because it's much more SF than science, and decied, while I was at it, to remove perpetual motion. If you think that perpetual motion belongs on the list (that is, it's attainable, or might be, in some useful sense) then I'd be happy to add it back on.

As it is, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, so if you think it belongs there just add a comment on the talk page and add it to the list. It's not crazy like intrdimensional travel, but it's also not in the same category as room-temperature superconductors.

Further, I'm not a physicist. If you have specialist knowledge of the field I'm willing to let it stand. However, in any case you'd do well to put a note on the talk page so someone else like me doesn't delete it.

I have nothing against the perpetual motion article, I just didn't think it belonged on that list. Perhaps it does. In any case, have a nice day! CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-UN userbox
I moved your userbox to User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN, I hope that's OK. I also added it to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Regional Politics. I collect religious ones but not political ones. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm so sorry. I was not aware the page I was sticking my Anti-UN userbox was on your personal userboxes page.   Thank you for posting that notice up there.  I can only imagine what you must have been thinking as I kept sticking in a userbox with, ironically, the opposite point of view as one of your current userboxes.  LOL  Sorry, again.  As for putting it in my userspace, it's okay so long as I don't get in trouble for creating a userbox in my userspace.  I thought we weren't supposed to do that and instead only use the designated user's (such as yourself) userpages for creating userboxes.  :-) Lawyer2b 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no, using your own userspace is fine. There was a big argument about where userboxes should go, and eventually we settled on German userbox solution. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your note
Eh, adminship. But thanks. Call me when you pass the bar, then we'll really have a party. Malkin, meh, but I do agree that she's hot. I'd go out with her if she didn't talk politics... Herostratus 13:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For organizing my jumble of a user page.

I appreciate it.

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior
Hello, Lawyer2b. I noticed that there was some dispute over the wording of a specific paragraph on the Protest Warrior article. I have had my hand at it and have kept the rationale provided, moved it up to the methodology section, and tried to make neutral the criticism. (In making the criticism neutral, I have changed instances that seemed to overrepresent one side of the debate- many I changed to some, for example- and tried to eliminate all judgement or commentary in the article to make it conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.) Have a look at it and let me know your opinion, please. Thank you, and happy editing, --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was inspired to try to create a compromisable version after seeing your comments about weasel words on the talk page. Thanks for calling it to my attention; controversial articles such as this one are something I've been spending a lot of effort on recently. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Userbox
Thanks for contributing; have any others you've made? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'm quite proud of the ones I've made.  I actually made the survivalist userbox as well and wish it was hosted on one of my userpages simply as a matter of pride, but its no biggie.  If I remember any others I've made I'll add them too.  Thank you for hosting all the ones you do!  :-) Lawyer2b 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, putting all that together took a lot of time. I'll be happy to have some more boxen :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NeoConsBeGone

 * Is there anything that can be done to stop his incessant harassment?


 * I've already made it clear that I have no intention of communicating with him-which is why I'm no longer contributing to the utterly useless "talk" discussion related to Protest Warrior-and yet he is still vandalizing my talk page with his warning templates.


 * Is there anything that can be done to refer him to the proper administrative authorities? Ruthfulbarbarity 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. --Neverborn 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably something we should have done awhile ago but it's as good an idea now as it ever was. I won't be online much longer tonight but I can get started on it tomorrow.  If someone does it tonight, I'll join it tomorrow. Lawyer2b 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have left this exact request on yours, Ruthfulbarbarity's, and Tbeatty's talk. If we all begin gathering diffs and citations, we could put a huge one together. From what I see of the RFC page at Requests_for_comment, it's a serious process that requires some time to put together. --Neverborn 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS has gotten himself re-blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. Think the time is right for an RfC? How did you do on your LSAT? I'm 3rd year undergraduate and transferring to a notoriously difficult college. I took my first cold timed LSAT w/o practice and got a 168. =) --Neverborn 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the time is always right for an RfC on User:NBGPWS. LOL Re the LSAT, Holy Macaroni! That's a great score! I took the June '06 and got a 166. Make sure you practice and you'll do even better! And don't forget about the writing sample. :-) Lawyer2b 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was originally planning on taking one of those 1600 dollar LSAT courses to prepare, but I may end up just self-preparing. I am pondering either Feb07 or June07. I just set up the e-mail user thing. :P Feel free to email about anything - NBGPWS or law school. I'm transferring to the University of Chicago, and it scares the crap out of me. We can swap IMs in e-mail if you like. --Neverborn 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pet graph
Re: User_talk:Travb They say that immitation is the highest form of flattery, so I welcome you adding my original research to your user page.

Thanks for the awesome compliment. I am in a fierce battle with a crafty POV warrior, whose main weapon is wikipolicy, so it is nice to see two awesome compilments on my user page today: makes me feel like I am not alone :) and my work here is not in vain.



Travb (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I will give some advice to your User:Ruthfulbarbarity friend too. I am a 3L BTW. you practicing (and if so, what law) or still in law school? Travb (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome for the compliment. I haven't started law school yet.  I just received my MBA and took the June '06, LSAT and am in the process of figuring out which law schools are likely to make the disastrous mistake of accepting me I should apply to.  I would love to fight for "unpopular civil rights" from a libertarian perspective against what I perceive to be a leftist-cum-totalitarian encroachment on both personal and economic freedoms.  For example, I would fight for gun owner rights, the rights of businessness to discriminate, etc. and against speech codes that limit freedom of expression on campus, pro-union legislation, etc.  Where do you go to school, if I might ask? Lawyer2b 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. User:NBGPWS has been violating policies for over a month at the Protest Warrior talk page.  I've documented his behavior here.  Please have a gander make your opinion known.  Lawyer2b 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Do NOT, go editing a page at whim because you do not like what something says. This is not POV. This is documented. You can look up the newspaper columns yourself. If you find something is wrong, please feel free to let us know, but do not just go deleting information. You also broke the three-edit rule. Failure to comply with the rules will result in being locked from editing. Stewiegfan 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to disabuse you.


 * 1) Unlike your decision to post this ill-conceived "warning", I did not edit anything on a "whim".
 * 2) That material is documented does not mean it is not original research.  I suggest you read the policy at WP:NOR with a more critical eye.  Let me know if you still can't figure out why.
 * 3) I did not violate the three-edit rule.  When you're done figuring out what original research is, read WP:3RR paying particular attention to what is considered a "revert" under that policy and go back and count what how many times I did that.  Lawyer2b 08:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage
I think I might have a suggestion for you as regards to your userpage. It seems your reason for keeping the about me section off the front is so that you can get to it quickly, which is fair enough. However, are you aware that you can add a link to a rough page like yours to your top bar (wherein lies talk, prefs and watchlist etc.)? If you'd like to do this, let me know and I'll help you to sort it out. Otherwise, whatever - it's your userpage :) &mdash;Xyra e l / 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate the suggestion. I am very weak in the skills necessary to do that so please feel free to either tell me what to do or (even better!) be bold and edit my pages yourself.  The worst I would do is revert if I didn't prefer the new layout.  :-) Lawyer2b 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

in re: Dennis Miller article
When my reversion of the Miller bio was gutted no one bothered to consult me about it. Therefore I feel no reason to consult anyone else about reverting to the state it was in after my rewrite.

I will be reverting it.

PainMan 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to posting our discussion, sparse as it is, to the discussion page. However, if I may ask, why did you not revert the major reversions of my rewrite of the article? Why the sudden concern with quasi-democracy?

PainMan 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Counselor (assuming you're a real lawyer but even if you aren't, you walked into the moniker), we need to move this discussion to either your page or mine. It's getting confusing bouncing back and forth.

--->Note: since I don't know you, you shouldn't take this personally. Unfortunately, you decided to insult me, tho' I don't understand why.

Here's the post I just put up on the Miller Discussion page:

''Perhaps you are unaware of the policy against personal attacks? I suggest that you acquaint yourself with it. It would be unfortunate if I had to make a complaint about your insults. So keep attacks like "childish" to yourself. Or explain how they "foster consensus" or other PC.

The policy about personal attacks isn't the only one you should make yourself familiar with. The guiding principle is "merciless editing" and not weasely PC dreck like "consensus". (Just to make it clear, my scorn is for the concept of political correctness and not your bad self.)

Finally, where do you get off telling me to "simmer" down? I don't remember any vote that appointed you wiki-nanny?

''

Now, to what you just posted on my page:

''If other major changes (to any article) are being done without some sort of discussion and consensus, please point them out. I would object to them as well.''

Show me where "merciless editing" violates wikipolicy? If you object to editing artciles, whether a minor or a major one, I don't really know what to tell you.

The "3revert" rule was put in place to cut down on chaos and edit wars. Though, frankly, I don't have a problem with a good edit war, personally.

(An important, if not directly on point, er, point...) Wikipedia is not for the timorous. It's pretty rough and tumble. It's also overwhelming anti-conservative, for an almost endless amount of proof of this I suggest your check out user Morton devonshire page. He's compiled so many examples of Left-Liberal-Leninist POV, propaganda and straight out lies it's breathtaking.

PainMan 05:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it offended you

Apology is not necessary, tho' I find it interesting you feel one is needed (and, yes, I've been told I should go to law school myself). I prefer people not to repeat the behavior (one of the results of being a parent).

Basically it breaks down like this: if you use words to describe someone as "childish" and tell them to "simmer down" how else would expect them to take it?

I was piqued but not angry. If I'm angry, you won't need to ask. ;o)

I'm not looking to make an enemy here, I've had a number of people attack with undisguised hostility (esp. for daring to "desecrate" their page; you want to see some geeks go ballistic, alter just a sentence on the Rush article!).

People sometimes mistake my laconic tone for having been offended. If I'm terse it's not because I'm hostile (well, necessarily, anyway).

I also try to use humor as much as I can, unfortunately, the static nature of wiki content often fails to communicate that. "Wikinanny" was not meant as an insult, but a joke; something I might say to you over a lunch.

PainMan 05:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not saying I was sorry because "I did something wrong". I meant, I'm sorry "if your feelings are hurt" because I care about all people's feelings -- even those I have only talked to through a computer.  And yes, it was sincere.  :-)  FYI, I am a libertarian with conservative values and completely agree there is quite a bit of liberal POV on wikpipedia.  I try to be on constant watch for it.  I also think "political correctness" is ridiculous and once I am a lawyer would love to fight that concept through the courts.  Please see | What I will do once I'm a lawyer. If merciless editing doesn't cross 3RR, you may be right, it may not violate "policy" per se; and to someone who enjoys a good edit war (chuckle, rolling eyes) it may seem productive.  I don't like edit wars, though, and unless a consensus is coming up with  something ridiculous, I like the concept.  I'm just reading Whatever Happened to Justice by Richard Maybury and consensus seems a little like common law, which I think I like a lot.  There's my "lawyer" coming out. I think I took your "wikinanny" comment in the spirit you intended. :-) Lawyer2b 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

''I meant, I'm sorry "if your feelings are hurt" because I care about all people's feelings -- even those I have only talked to through a computer. And yes, it was sincere. :-)''

My comment came off as a bit wise-assed, which wasn't my intent. Again that static thing! Same problem with email. Since plain text can lack nearly all emotional context (which I wish emoticons were useable, I know some people consider them silly and not "encyclopedic"--whatever that is supposed to mean!--but they can be helpful in avoiding miscommunication, imnho, i.e. in my not so humble opinion, I hold my opinions after researching them, having something to back them up and my analytical ability and, for lack of a better word, 200 IQ [which would mean something if IQ tests meant something, which, of course, they don't, ;o)] are what I got in this life, I have the athletic skills of an arthritic centenarian and I haven't noticed any females fainting when I walk by...)

I appreciate not trying to go out of the way to offend people or hurt they're feelings, but this can be pushed too far. Some people--not yourself!--can just be too sensitive and use that in lieu of reasoned debate. As Elizabeth the Great said in the recent bio pic about her cousin Mary, "Let us see if sweet reason can reason her from her unreason", this pretty much somes up my take on the proliferation of whiny little b***** in our country (US).

I don't mind edit confrontations, "wars" if one wishes, if the points are serious and not just disguised personality conflicts. If person A sincerely believes X and person B sincerely believes Y, they why should there by "compromise"? Compromise is just another way of saying that one doesn't really hold a particular belief all that strongly (hence, as a Ronald Reagan conservative with libertarian leanings, my disgust with the wishy-washy Republican leadership).

Finally, I'm glad you took the "wikinanny" comment in the spirit I meant it. A lot of people, well certain people, would have been in high dudgeon.

PainMan 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm enjoying our discussion and I agree (and like the way you described) the "emotional context" which plain text makes it more difficult to express. I find emoticons to be eminently useful so "emote" away!  :-)   At least politically, I also hope it seems we have much more in common than perhaps you thought.   I try to not offend people and also not be offended by their actions; something I try to do in "real life" and, in a case of classic irony, find I am more successful at with complete strangers than with family!  (I think it has something to do with "expectations"...what a nasty word). As a libertarian though, I believe one has a right to be "offensive" and trying to legislate "sensitivity" (or morality, for that matter) through bullshit "politically correct speech codes" is both impractical and immoral.  I generally support Republicans due to my conservative values (also q.v. Why I'm generally discusted with liberals but I too am disgusted with the Republican leadership at this point.  To have controlled congress for as long as they have (along with the presidency!) and to have not made the tax cuts permanent, repealed the estate tax entirely, totally reformed Social Security, and put up a wall on (at least) the southern border is a disgrace, IMHO. Do you ever chat using an online chat program like MS Messenger? Lawyer2b 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

David Horowitz - Discover the Networks - reliable?
You may be interested expressing your opinion on whether Discover the Networks, which is connected to David Horowitz, is a reliable source on Talk:Discover the Networks. Thanks, DRK 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise
I'd appreciate your input here. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and at Laura Ingraham. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be "de-admined".
Back in November, you protected the Protest Warrior article because User:Shortbus requested it. You did this due to "edit warring", apparently without checking the factual accuracy or the conformance to policy of his edits and actions. Not coincidentally, the edits you froze in the article were his. Shortly thereafter I pointed out to you that it was he who recalcitrantly refused to discuss edits on the talk page. Despite this you did not take any action to help the situation nor even deign to respond to my comment. Now, it turns out his edits (the ones you froze in the article for two weeks) have been proven factually inaccurate. While you conformed to policy, I find your handling of this matter clumsy, frustrating and offensive and not performed with the due diligence I think one should expect from someone in your position. If the opportunity ever arises for a movement to see you stripped of your administrator status, you will find my efforts firmly in that direction. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your wishes were not fulfilled quicker, but I don't believe anything happened incorrectly here. Pages are often times protected – even to The Wrong Version – to halt edit- and revert-warring (which indeed was occurring on the Protest Warrior article). The protection is meant to encourage dispute resolution through the appropriate means: discussion on talk pages. --  tariq abjotu  20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi L2B,

I welcome your arrival to the Free Republic article (really). Please participate in the discussion as well. We have some new editors who have great zeal in defending FR, but, IMHO, not the knowledge of WP that you do. I encouraged them to look for inclusionable sources praising Free Republic, as my searches keep turning up only criticism (all inclusionable) even from conservatives like Sean Hannity, but these suggestions have been ignored. As I said on the talk page when the article goes to mediation or RfC, and I submit 10+ RS V sources condemning FR for extremism, encouraging violence, Islamophobia, etc, it will be helpful to have some contrasting views of FR. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested
Greetings, I wanted to invite you to leave a comment at Talk:Nova Southeastern University. Another user and I disagree on the use of a POV tag, and I think a third opinion could help us with this. Thanks for taking the time! Best, -Anthony Krupp 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For User:Lawyer2b, for being reasonable. --Anthony Krupp 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

-- CHOMP! CHOMP! (mmmmmm!) :-) Lawyer2b 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from article talk page

 * Hope you aren't insulted L2B, but I'm not at all convinced of your 'libertarian perspective'. Your page with links to 'Politics' only lists one somewhat libertarian link, Volokh. You include Newsmax (!) but not Lew Rockwell or even Mises? Color me skeptical. Sorry. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly am a libertarian and I'll try not to be insulted but it's hard to not think you've just accused me of lying.  Using a list of links on my userpage to come to that conclusion seems an extremely weak argument.  I would invite you to peruse my About Me page to find out more about my politics as well as why, for the time being, I sympathize more with conservatives than liberals.  Since I'm a pragmatist, when taxes and government entitlement programs are cut by more than 50% and the left reclaims its formerly-occupied high-ground of being interested in hearing dissenting/minority viewpoints I will gladly tilt more to the left. Lawyer2b 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of lying. I like to see myself as a moderate. Compared to Noam Chomsky I am. Please read some Ron Paul. Notice that he, unlike you, rallies against the post 9/11 Bush admin plus their GOP minions, and their assault on the constitution and our freedoms, along with the Bush admin's own liberal tendencies - not 'the liberals' who aren't even in power, and who have been marginalized the last 6 years under complete GOP control. IMHO, the list of links to 'politics' also reveals much about your stance, and IMHO and many others, Newsmax has no credibility, is solely a partisan attack site, with a documented history of unfounded attacks like the 'Clinton hit list'. Your list is an 'endorsement'. It's 70% mainstream to -far-right conservative, 10% partisan far-right fringe, 10% libertarian, 10% mainstream liberal. If it were 70% libertarian, I would have never noticed or commented on what I see as the discrepancies in your claims. Cheers- F.A.A.F.A. 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounded like you were saying, "you're not libertarian." Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by being "skeptical" of my "libertarian perspective". I'm sorry if I don't fit the image of how you believe a libertarian should think based on my reactions to current political events.  I take a much broader, longer-term (and I believe pragmatic) view of things than others, other libertarians included.  To me, whether liberals or conservatives are in control of Congress (or the Presidency, for that matter) is not as important as the state of the country as a whole.  As I state on my "About me" page, I perceive society to have much more personal freedom than economic freedom.  Therefore, currently, I put a premium on economic freedoms.
 * While I agree with you that the GOP (conservatives?) hasn't advanced economic freedoms (at all?) anywhere near what I thought they would/should/could I don't see Democrats making what I consider to be serious movement to increase personal freedoms. I don't consider the Patriot Act to be anywhere near as large a threat to life or liberty as the insane war on drugs and the FDA.  So basically, "a pox on both their houses".  That being said, my cultural values are more similar to conservatives and I perceive a much greater tolerance for dissenting points of view and less in-my-face hypocrisy from them than liberals; hence, why I describe myself as "libertarian with conservative values" or "libertarian with conservative sympathies".  I hope I'm explaining my perspective clearly.
 * Lastly and least, you shouldn't become so attached to what you have decided in your mind my list of political links is that you make judgements before checking first. The list is not an "endorsement".  That was a preconception on your part.  It was just a partial list of the websites I have been meaning to read on a regular basis to which I never got around.
 * On a personal note, as a Buddhist, (yes my Buddhist beliefs are different from most Western Buddhists as well but I am Buddhist nonetheless) I practice (and fail miserably) not to have preconceived expectations or to recognize and check them vs. reality as fast as possible so as to avoid Dukha (suffering). Lawyer2b 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I am enjoying our debate/discussion. It is both civil and stimulating.  I hope you feel the same.  :-)

Lawyer, what is your view on Fair use?
Lawyer, what is your view on Fair use? I came here after posting on User:Fairness And Accuracy For All's page, and I saw you have some links to fair use.

I got banned for copyright violations after fighting the most powerful admins about Fair use. Someone was nice enough to unboot me, after days of me debating on my wiki talk page to be unbooted.

I am a 3L. Do you practice copyright law?

If we have the same views on copyright, I would like your help changing fair use policy on wikipedia. I have learned so much since my boot, how wikipedia really works, that I think with the right help and assistance, I can be successful.

You can email me if you like []. Travb (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chin
There are two alleged reasons why Vincent Gigante is called "The Chin". Yes, he was given the name by his mother, "Chin" being short for Vincenzo or Cinzo. The author of "Gangbusters", Ernest Volkman has stated in an interview that I have taped that the other reason is the fact that he was a boxer and very frequently knocked out due to his glass jaw (that's slang for a weak jaw), so he was called "The Chin" by his freinds and associates in boxing cirlces. Anymore questions on Vincent Gigante, let me know. rjrios100@yahoo.ca

Free Republic
Please be advised that FAAFA has withdrawn from mediation. As Jossi anticipated, both FAAFA and BenBurch have refused to engage and reserve the right to attack the article after we are done with it. In order to get RWR8189 completely on board, I've removed the Robinson quotes. Please be prepared for a revert war. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thank you for the userbox!
Thank you for making this userbox User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN since the original Anti-UN box was deleted. I read your page and do not agree with your political views, but I agree that UN undermines sovereignty and is now corrupt and too soft to dictatorships. Cheers! Wooyi 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to and promoting attack sites
Hello, per Harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny  ( talk ) 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping to make sure my userpages follow wikipolicy. :-)  Lawyer2b 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (this message also left  at User_talk:DennyColt)

Fair and Accuracy
Looks like wikipedia administrators finally realized he wasn't very fair or accurate, after all. ;-)  Unfortunately it took several months longer than it reasonably should have.  Lawyer2b 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say? The wheels of justice, they turn slowly, but they're still faster than the Wikipedia bureaucracy.  :p  This is the first I've heard of it; I've been avoiding political articles lately.  Though I'm sure we'll all miss our favorite Senior Wiki Master.  *Chuckle*  Rogue 9 07:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Billy-Ego case
I believe you are interested, and I could probably find 3 or 4 more people interested also, into possibly re-looking the sock-puppet bans of Billy-Ego?

It seems logical to me, that it would not just be a lifting by Jimbo Wales that would work, but shouldn't another ArbCom decision be able to overrule previous decisions?

This wouldn't just be about User: Anarcho-capitalism's case either, but a more in-depth look into all the user banned by that action, and whether they really were User:  Billy-Ego.

Interested/Think it's workable? Fephisto 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed! At this point, though, I not have researched wikipolicies enough to know what's the right way to get this started.  Do you know? Lawyer2b 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really, and unfortunately, I shouldn't work too much on it until May 5 (Finals). I'd like to be able to check the user IPs.  Fephisto 13:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawyer2b/NRA
Hi, I've created a similar userbox here: User:Kimon/userboxes/nra. Perhaps we can combine our efforts? -- Kimon talk 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm game. What did you have in mind?  Lawyer2b 02:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. - Please note my User:Lawyer2b/CCW and User:Lawyer2b/Carry as well.  :-)
 * That's exactly it. We may be able to create a series of pro gun-rights userboxes. After the VT shootings, we're at a disadvantage as anti-gun groups are gearing up to outlaw guns completely. -- Kimon talk 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We could make turn some pro-gun bumperstickers into userboxes: "This user thinks that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Please see my blog entry as to why the Virginia Tech shooting hurts the anti-gun crowd.  Lawyer2b 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun-free zone semantics
I agree that the term "gun-free zone" is a misnomer. It is however in common use and is the intent of laws such as TPC §30.06. I think it therefore is the best descriptor of the laws and the zone they create for public context such as WP. The question of their effectiveness and whether the term fits logically is a topic for the section, not to be hashed out behind the scenes. I will accept re-wording, but the use of the term "gun-free zone" is too commonly used not to at least mention the term.Liko81 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A Patriot's History of the United States
Your userpage was (before) the only link to this unwritten article. FYI, you have the author as Paul Johnson. Actually, it is co-authored by Michael Allen and Larry Schweikart. Cheers! --207.206.137.118 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sertillanges
I noticed that your talk page cites AD Sertillanges, with a red link. I wanted to let you know that today I created an article, under Antonin Sertillanges. You might want to make the link turn blue by directing to Antonin Sertillanges, or creating some kind of redirect. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it popped up in a Google search. (It had not appeared when I searched for wikipedia articles mentioning him -- perhaps the default search doesn't include user pages?) theloavesandthevicious (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Gainesville, Florida - We're trying to plan a meetup closer to you. :) -- Donald Albury 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of your comment on Sarah Palin talk page
Was not intended to be disrespectful to you, but in keeping with "notforum". Hipgnostic (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN
User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Be assured, the screwup was mine, not yours. I'm sorry, and I've withdrawn the Mfd. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

apple v franklin
Thanks for the update on Apple v. Franklin - looks relevant now! Tempshill (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
WELCOME!! Hello, Derek R Bullamore! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself in the new user log and the list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. Wikipedia is held up by Five Pillars...I recommend reading about them if you haven't already. Finally, it would be really helpful if you would sign your name on talk pages, so people can get back to you quickly. It's easy to do this by clicking the button (next to the one with the "W" crossed out) one from the end on the left. If that's confusing, or if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page (by clicking the plus sign (+) next to the tab at the top that says "edit this page")...and again, welcome!--

Dongding12 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dongding12
I noticed your message to Dongding12 on his talk page. Take a look at his edits and notice that he is simply copy-and-pasting the same message to several different users. I guess he forgot to change the user name on the one he posted on your talk page. Not really vandalism, but is freaking annoying. Ccrashh (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adbusters
Hey Lawyer2b,

In my attempt to NPOVify the 'culture jamming' section, I made some changes that are based on my memory. I mean, I read this book Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn a while ago, and got the gist of it. So I cited the whole book. Could do with a little work, but I lost the book almost a decade ago. SO it's situataed a little better. Thanks for the criticism!--Elliotb2 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Harris v. Balk
Hi Lawyer2b! I noticed that since December 2009, there has been a slow decline in the quality of the wikiarticle for Harris v. Balk. It had reached the point where one was no longer able to have even the most basic understanding of the facts of the case or its final determination. So, I reverted the article to a version from mid-December and then copy edited. However, while we do study American case law from time to time, cases regarding jurisdiction in the American constitutional setting would have little bearing for those studying jurisdiction in the Canadian constitutional setting. Consequently, I feel confident that I never studied this case all those years ago at law school. Therefore, and since you are the creator of the article (two years to the day!), would you be so kind as to read the current version I have edited — if it has not already been reverted or vandalized — and see if it is okay? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  19:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I notice that, as it reads now, the wikiarticle seems almost more about the civpro aspects of the case at the court of first instance than it does about the Supreme Court’s decision. Do you think you could add a little something about the case being appealed all the way to the USSC? For instance, did the decision at the USSC change the law? Or, did it reinforce existing practice? Was the decision unanimous or was the Court divided? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Spike, thanks for the message and good suggestion. Unfortunately I doubt I will have time until mid-May to do what I consider to be a quality job improving the article as you describe.  I took it at it as it now stands (after your rv), however, and I think it's fine.  (I should be expected to say that because it looks like you reverted it to a version I created!)  I have marked it in my calendar to-do in May and if something changes allowing me to get to it earlier, I will.  :-)  Lawyer2b (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lawyer2b! Now, is there a way for me to diarize a reminder on Wikipedia … [[Image:Smile.png|16px]] —  Spike Toronto  04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards
Actually, the point is that awards of any sort should not be mentioned in the lead sentence of the article. If I recall, the issue was about adding "Academy Award-winning" as a descriptor in "Joe Blow (born January 1, 2001), is an American actor". In undue weight, that is covered by "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Most actors who win an award will likely win several and it is a huge mess to include them all. Take Johnny Depp as an example (and because I just like talking about Johnny Depp. If all awards and nominations are covered in the lead sentence, as it should be to balance it, it would say "Johnny Depp (born June 9, 1963), is an Academy Award-, BAFTA Award-, Broadcast Film Critics Association Award-, Satellite Award-, Saturn Award-, and Chlotrudis Award-nominated, Golden Globe-, London Film Critics Circle Award-, Screen Actors Guild Award-winning American actor." And that is ridiculous and doesn't even cover ALL the awards and nominations. Imagine doing that for Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet. Specifically, the wikiproject governing actors states this specifically at WP:ACTOR. The specific MOS section that covers this is Manual of Style (film), which says "Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence to maintain a neutral point of view and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section." What I meant by see any other actor article is just that, we don't do it. Hopefully that answers your question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That "[a]n article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject," does not mean that all awards an actor wins are equal and must all be included in an introduction if any are...which is what it sounds like you're saying. I think the specific MOS section you cite is just a bad rule but, thank you for making me aware of it and, obviously, I'll have to follow it.  Lawyer2b (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike 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 high-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. Secret account 08:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd
Greetings!

Seeing that once upon a time you requested notification should there ever be a Wikipedia Meetup in Gainesville, Florida, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Lawyer2b/Sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Lawyer2b/Sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day meetup at University of Florida on January 15
Remember when you asked to be notified about the next Wikipedia meetup in Gainesville, Florida? Good news! I'm organizing a meetup to celebrate Wikipedia Day at the University of Florida Marston Science Library from 4pm to 7pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. You can find more about the event on its event page -- I hope you'll be able to join us!

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Thank you so much for your attention! -- Gaurav (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism editathon in Gainesville this Saturday, March 16, 2019
The Harn Museum of Art in Gainesville, Florida is organizing an Art+Feminism editathon this Saturday, March 16 from 11am to 4:30pm. You can find out more on their Outreach Dashboard or on the Harn's website.

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- Gaurav (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Hi. I would like to delete the following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/About_Me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/Userboxes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/Carry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/CCW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/Anti-UN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/Userboxestext

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawyer2b/Sandbox2

How can I do that? Lawyer2b (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You can request deletion of pages in your own userspace. Using the source editor, place this template code at the top line of page: db-u1 and press the  button.
 * This will alert administrators, and one of them will come along and delete the page for you. If you want more help, please visit the Teahouse or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much! Lawyer2b (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)