User talk:Notecardforfree/Archive3

you are right
Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGriswold_v._Connecticut&type=revision&diff=683826883&oldid=683817280 "...people find the use of the phrase "young woman/young man" condescending, especially if that editor is not in fact a young man or woman."]:

Thank you for that pointer. i was stupid, not considering that "young" could ever be condescending, and you are right. i am so ignorant, i dont even know how to look up a users gender !-- do you? anyway, my sincere apologies. definitely no harm intended. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I hardly think you are "stupid" or "ignorant" -- I certainly think you had good intentions, but I felt the need to comment on a phrase that I think could be taken the wrong way. But I very much appreciate the kind words and the kind gesture of posting here -- there was no harm done whatsoever :-) One of the truly incredible things about Wikipedia is that the collaborative process is "blind" to the age, race, sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. of editors. It is a place where all contributions are valued equally, where editors do not look at the work of others through a biased lens. There is no opportunity to discredit words or ideas simply because they are written by person of a different background. We are judged solely on our contributions and our interactions with others in this space.


 * As far as I know, there is no way to "look up" a person's gender (or age). Wikipedia doesn't require editors to disclose this information, though some editors disclose their age and gender identity through their userpage (sometimes with a userbox), and sometimes individuals disclose this when interacting with other editors. Some users chose usernames that are more commonly associated with a specific gender identity. Although I have considered posting more information about myself on my userpage, I try to reveal as little information about myself as possible so that people do not view my work through the lens of pre-existing biases. The limited information that I have disclosed is really just to give other editors a better sense of my credentials and areas of expertise.


 * In any event, thank you again for reaching out to me here, and I look forward to working with you! Griswold is a tremendously important case, and I appreciate your efforts to improve it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uuh, i'm sorry, but what the heck,
 * i didnt bother, til now, to check,
 * your userpage, your userpage, until just now,
 * your e' la' bor' ate userpage, to which i bow!
 * hat off, i'm no lawyer.
 * maybe more of a sawyer.
 * but i will help if you want
 * hmm, let me see...
 * could we make it GA
 * for its fiftieth anni'ver'sary ?

-:) --Wuerzele (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
The sentence reads, ".... were driving home from a tavern and a bowling alley...." Shouldn't it be "from a tavern with a bowling alley" since they can't be driving home from two different places at the same time, or could it be double vision after leaving the tavern made them think they were? Atsme 📞📧 19:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , the original version of that sentence does make it seem like they were traveling through some kind of wormhole in the space time continuum. It looks like they first drank at a tavern and then continued drinking at a bowling alley. The opinion says: "Petitioner and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley. There was evidence showing that petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight November 12, 1964, when the car skidded, crossed the road and struck a tree." (See fn.2 of the opinion). I'll go ahead and change the sentence to say they "... were driving home after drinking at a tavern and a bowling alley." If you prefer, we could also just remove the mention of the tavern and say "... were driving home from a bowling alley" or "... were driving home after drinking at a bowling alley."


 * Also, I wanted to ask you about one of the revisions you made. You changed the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede from "In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." to "In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony, therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." The modified portion appears in bold. Here's my question: don't you need a coordinating conjunction after the comma? I've never been able to truly master the art of the comma, so I could definitely be wrong here :-) In any event, thanks again for taking a look at the article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a conjunctive adverb and I forgot to add the preceding semicolon and following pronoun needed for the independent clause, but I have since repaired it. Good catch.  Oxford scholars may see it differently.    Atsme 📞📧 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)  PS: me thinks there's a software glitch in WP's beta editor.  I'll return to manual editing. [Atsme pauses; calls Manual into the room].  22:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, . I edited the sentence about driving home from the bowling alley; I hope it is clearer now. As for semicolons, I love them, and I have never understood why some editors dislike them. I think it is blatant punctuation discrimination :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Know any good attorneys?  🙈🙉🙊 Atsme 📞📧 23:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Logos, trademark and copyright
Hello, Notecardforfree, I wanted to follow up on our conversation at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenerife Sea but didn't want to put an off-topic tangent there. First let me clarify that IANAL or an expert in either copyright or trademark law. However, I have dealt with both trademark and copyright in my former career as a graphic designer, and I have learned a fair amount.

Trademark law prohibits someone other than the owner from using a trademarked logo, or a design sufficiently similar to such a logo. This prohibition does require, as you mentioned, that the use could reasonably be confused with authorized use. The primary purpose of trademark law is to protect the images, text and/or sounds an organization uses to create a coherent and recognizable identity for itself.

The purpose of copyright, by contrast, is to protect not identity, but intellectual property. If I designed a logo for a company that then decided not to pay me for my work, the copyright would remain with me; the company could register the trademark, and use that trademark to pursue legal action against any third party that used it or a similar logo in a way that would confuse consumers as to which company was which, but I could also sue the first company for violating my copyright, and I would probably win.

Most often, though, companies and other organizations don't try to steal designs from designers, and the copyright is assigned by the designer to the organization so that it can use the logo wherever and however it wishes.

On Wikipedia, what we are most concerned with is copyright (though I suppose there's a slight chance someone other than a moron in a hurry could confuse a Wikipedia article with an organization's official website). This is why a Fair Use rationale is required for use of logos on Wikipedia, to explain why an exception to the rule that people other than the copyright holder shouldn't republish copyrighted words or images should be made.

Don't feel bad about conflating trademark law with copyright law, though. It's a very common mistake, one I've even seen lots of lawyers make. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , that was an excellent explanation! You clearly know your stuff, and it is so important to have editors who are competent about these issues at Wikipedia. When I was in law school, I stayed away from intellectual property classes as much as possible, and I never encounter intellectual property cases in my real world work, though I do enjoy reading about some of the more interesting patent and trademark disputes. For example, this recent 9th Circuit opinion includes a fascinating discussion about whether you can copyright a yoga pose (or a sequence of yoga poses). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm blushing now. Thanks for the link to the yoga copyright opinion — that was an interesting read. Patent law is not something I'm as familiar with as I am copyright and patent law, but it did seem like patent would be the appellants' recourse, if they have any at all. I don't read legal judgments all that often, mostly when Popehat.com links to a particularly juicy one; they can be quite enjoyable to read, though, even to a layperson like myself. Out of curiosity, what is your area of practice? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , my work involves a range of topics, but it is primarily clustered around administrative and constitutional law, often at the appellate level. If you want to read more about the humorous side of the law, you might enjoy this blog, called "Lowering the Bar". There are other good law blogs that often share details of sordid cases, but many focus only on one area of the law (or one jurisdiction). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note
to thank you for the effort you made at Third Intifada, to get some shape into a lamentably poor stub. I hope you saved a copy, so that your additions are not lost, in case, in the future, something like this article is created. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your kind words! I also appreciate your help, assistance, and guidance in this matter. Thankfully, we can always go back through the "view history" page to retrieve old information if we need to. It looks like the edit wars are already starting to get serious at the Intifada article; it's really too bad because I think you found some really good sources about the academic debates/discourse with regard to the definition of the term "intifada." Now, it looks like editors are more concerned with how we should characterize recent events, rather than serious intellectual investigation of the history and theory of the term. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , and thank you for your hard work as well -- it is so important to have editors like you, who are both civil and creative. I applaud your efforts! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tenerife Sea
Hi. I thank you and for the assistance. The DYK got promoted while I was away. Concern: I actually had more than five DYKs, but those were accumulated before QPQ was required. --Efe (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I have noticed that the DYK counter often does not include old DYK credits, and sometimes it provides an inaccurate reading. I'm not sure if there is any easy way to fix this -- I suppose editors could go through the nominator's talk page(s) to count old DYK credits, but that seems a bit cumbersome. In any event, thanks for writing the article! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, Efe. As for having missed a QPQ due to the counter not registering older DYKs, you could always do some reviews and not put them towards future DYK nominations of your own. (I've been doing the opposite thing, banking reviews before I need them.) And as Notecardforfree said, thanks for writing and nominating the article! — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello to both of you. Will do. --Efe (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Does your FAC need a jump-start?
You received 3 supports and image clearance from Nikki. No word about it being promoted, yet? Atsme 📞📧 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have some jumper cables in your car? I haven't heard anything from the FAC coordinators, but I understand the process can take some time. The oldest FA candidate was nominated September 26 (it has three support votes), while Schmerber was nominated on October 6. I'll definitely let you know if I hear anything. Thanks so much for your help with the FA review and for checking-in. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Notecardforfree!!! The article was promoted to FA today!! Atsme 📞📧 20:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your diligent efforts to help improve the article! Hopefully I'll be able to work on many more Featured Articles in the future :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats Notecard :) Minor4th  21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong redirection
Hi, regarding your reversion of my edit, I think there is just consensus about redirection not the relevant destination. Thus, I oppose your reversion. Seyyed(t-c) 05:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the decision to redirect the term "Third Intifada" to "Intifada" was based on This AfD, in which you participated. The closing admin found that consensus existed to "redirect to Intifada". Furthermore, the closing admin also noted that according to the consensus developed at that AfD, "it's not clear whether [the article] should cover any past or ongoing conflict, or a potential future conflict". Indeed, there was significant discussion in the AfD about the fact that it was WP:TOOSOON to label the current events in Israel/Palestine as the "Third Intifada". The closing admin also suggested that the article could be recreated "via a RfC on Talk:Intifada", but no such RfC has taken place. If you think a different redirect is appropriate, I think the best approach would be to start an RfC at the talk page for Intifada, per the closing admin's suggestion. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. God willing, I will make it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sources
I'm guilty of clogging that page, so, since you appear to be interested in the issues raised by these articles, have done good repair work, and are even handed, I thought I might drop a few articles on the Intifada here, that you might find useful.
 * Yuval Diskin, 'The Two Jewish State Solution,' Tablet 3 September 2015
 * This came out 3 September, a week before the first formal inkling an uprising was in the air (9 September), and is by a man whose insights have been invariably penetrating, as ex-head of the Israeli secret services.


 * Ramzy Baroud, the obvious truth: Palestinian Authority vs. the people Ma'an News Agency 27 October 2015.
 * Jeremy Kalmanofsky, How the Middle East Conflict Is Warping Judaism The Forward 27 October 2015
 * These last two are expressive of a deep dissatisfaction from both sides about their internal elites' respective handing of the issues, prompted again by this current 'Intifada'. Only a small sampling of an unusual consonance of internal anguish about the area. Hope this is not intrusive. best Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for sharing these very interesting sources. The Diskin article is particularly fascinating. As for your contributions at the "Intifada" discussion, I certainly don't think you "clogging" the page. You have done an excellent job raising some of the deeper definitional issues with regard to the discussion about the Third Intifada, and I hope that others will be willing to address these issues as well. Your contributions have certainly helped re-orient the discussion in a positive way! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are a few more editors that start to work this material, I hope you notify me. I'm slowly gathering material, but don't like to work with urgency until the larger perspectives of the analytical literature come on line, which means one bides one's time. One needs more legal minds capable of cutting to the chase through the thickets of emotional things like this. Best regards, and thanks for your work there.   Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

re A toast for your help with Schmerber v. California!
Many thanks for your work to help Schmerber v. California achieve FA status. The article was promoted today, and I hope you will raise a glass with me in celebration! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations,, and thank you for your work improving Wikipedia's quality WP:FA coverage related to WP:Human rights ! Unfortunately, I'm suffering from a bit of a stomach bug today, but I'll have some soda for you later. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I had a fruit smoothie and toasted to your WP:FA contribution, it was delicious. I'll definitely order myself up a pint o' Guinness sometime soon when my stomach is more fully recovered. :) Congrats again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Prado Navarette v. California
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Notecardforfree, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Biblio worm  17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Blank pad rule
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry about that! Meant to do my Sandbox (for an unrelated project). I thought I fixed the errors made to the actual page. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowque (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, . No need to apologize. Just out of curiosity, what project are you working on? It looks like you have copied a large portion of the article for the 23rd Amendment into your sandbox. Please keep in mind that pursuant to WP:UP, you should only keep that material there on a short-term basis so that readers do not confuse your sandbox for the article that currently exists in mainspace. Of course, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you need assistance. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Honorable justices
Thanks for your message. I did found your edit summary to be somewhat misleading: you stated that it was common practice to have it in the infobox, but in fact it seemed to have only become common (and only among the living justices) because you added it to all of them. A quick sampling of older justices pages did not give me any one of them with "The Honorable" in their infoboxes (granted, I only checked about 6-8 of them, and mainly just names that popped into my head). That's the main reason I reverted the edits. If it is indeed common practice for retired justices to be refered to that way, then you may want to explain the addition in the relevant talk pages and add it back to Souter, O'Connor, and Stevens. Regards, Magidin (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor all had "the Honorable" in their infoboxes before the November 29 round of edits, so I assumed that it was common practice to include the honorific in the infobox for all living Justices. I'll go ahead and add the term for the living retired Justices, but I'll need to do a little more research to determine whether the term is used for deceased retired Justices. I have a hunch that the term is not used for deceased Justices, but I haven't found a source that answers the question. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weird. I honestly do not remember those being there, though going back it seems they weren't linked until recently, so I may have missed them. In any case, it would seem we are in agreement about how to proceed. My only suggestion would be to add a note in the talk pages if you go through a bunch of them, rather than just in the edit summary. Magidin (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Scotland in the early modern era
Thanks for all your help with this review. Much appreciated.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 21:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your professional and courteous responses to my comments. You are certainly a talented writer! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful tip
Thanks for your helpful tip on the DYK page. I'm new to the whole DYK process as you can see. Good luck! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear my tip was helpful! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the DYK process or Wikipedia in general. Thanks so much for your fantastic contributions to the encyclopedia's rock and roll articles! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost here...

 * Thanks, ! I hope you are enjoying a wonderful holiday season as well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy holidays to both of you. Cheers! Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Many thanks, ! I'll raise a glass in your honor. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Animals, Property, and the Law
I'd like to thank you for your helpful comments here. I now see the subject definitely is notable, with the help of your additional sources and useful arguments. Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words, . I truly admire your professionalism and open-mindedness. And if I do say so myself, you have one of the more fascinating user pages on Wikipedia! Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown
I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Notecardforfree!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Notecardforfree, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, Rubbish computer! I hope are enjoying the celebrations! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Circuit split
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Circuit split you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Squirrel Conspiracy -- The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy! I appreciate your willingness to review the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. My initial review has been completed. There are some issues to address before the article can be promoted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been promoted! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking on the GA review, The Squirrel Conspiracy! I truly appreciate your prompt and thorough feedback. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message


 * Thanks for the kind wishes, North America! I hope you are enjoying the celebrations! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sensibilisations
Hello Notecardforfree,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sensibilisations for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Glik v. Cunniffe has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello,

I have just approved the above nomination. I want to add my personal thanks for your work on this important civil rights issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD of Possible Interest
Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Drayton
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. Drayton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)