User talk:RidG

Is this thing on?

Wabash Case

 * RidG, sorry, I was not following guidelines, as I did not know that there were any (should have known for Supreme Court cases there would be, please excuse the brain fart). I was simply following my own judgement. Please feel free to re-edit to conform to standards. I have as yet had no problems with any edits anyone has done to my work, and hope that my luck will continue the same way. Certainly I have no problem with you reverting my removal of the Bench section in this case, particularly as it will then conform once again to current practices. Thanks for the heads up! HyperZonktalk 02:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll revert to include the Bench section - no harm done. Feel free to continue editing my future stuff - editors are always welcome. RidG (talk)  04:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

VfD
You wrote: delete this pompously pretentious drivel. Wouldn't pompously pretentious prattle be better? Smoddy (t) (e) 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Good call; I can't believe I missed a chance to complete a P-trifecta. Bah. RidG (talk)  21:52, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your comments on New Hampshire Grants. I'll get to work on your suggestions, including the court case citations. Thank you! jengod 23:27, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could help. I should note also that the article is rather well-written, and reads very easily. Kudos. RidG (talk)  23:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Moore v. Dempsey
Congratulations on your article -- I think it is a very good one. I've taken the liberty of adding a little chart which I've copied from Marbury v. Madison. Do take a look at it and tell me what you think. The only problem I have is that there are some sections in the chart for which I do not have the data. If you have the information that's missing in the chart yet feel uncomfortable filling in the chart yourself (it looks very strange when you edit the article), then if you could send it to me, I'd be glad to add it myself. Zantastik 01:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Zantastic. Thank you for your nice comments, and huge thanks for the table; it's actually something that I wanted to add, but had no idea of how to go about it. You and an anonymous user has already done quite a good job of filling most of the information in the table; I will do my best to fill in the missing information, and see if it's something that I can insert by myself without having to bug you to do it - if, however, I end up breaking the page, I'll just send you the relevant info. If you are ever in the mood to add a similar table to any of my other recent SCOTUS articles (i.e., Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado, or any of the other articles listed on my user page), please feel free to do so. I believe that every SCOTUS case in Wikipedia should have such a table for easy reference, but unfortunately, I haven't had much luck in trying to use that particular template. On a semi-related note - how did you spot this particular article so quickly? I think I only added it less than 24 hours ago ;). Thanks again, RidG (talk)  18:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS
I did consider and I might contribute. I have a completely stupid reason for doing so: I need to initiate articles starting with the letters "e", "k", "x", "y" and "z" in order to have the entire alphabet covered. so I have my eye on Youngstown Steel, which certainly deserves it, and Zdanok v. Glidden, which I've never understood the importance of. Or Zorach, which sounds like Superman's uncle. I'm also a member of the eventually-to-be-formed Labor and Labor History Caucus, but there appear to be only two of us in that area. Italo Svevo 23:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatever reason gets you working on SCOTUS cases is absolutely fine by me ;d. If I were to pick between working on the two Z-cases, I think I'd go with "Zorach," just because of the name alone (but then again, I'm weird like that). Do you guys have a project page for the Labor / Labor History Caucus? Let me know if you do get one up; there's a *TON* of interesting SCOTUS decisions in the early 20th century that I would love to contribute. RidG (talk)  00:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Youngstown Sheet & Tube is done; I only hope it's not too long. Someone should look at the long-term impact; because the facts were so extreme and the government's lawyering so bad, the case itself is somewhat sui generis, as Huey Long used to say about himself. But if there ever were a time to look at the limits on executive power, this is it. I may tackle Zemel next, by the way,
 * As for a labor caucus, we are, ironically, unorganized. I'll let you know when that changes. -- 24.126.41.116 22:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) aka Italo Svevo

Bradwell v. Illinois
Just a quick note about the article. They style guide says that section and subsection titles should only have an initial cap. So that, "External Link" is improper and "External link" is right. Nice article though. BrokenSegue 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nix v. Heddon
Anything! If you can expand it, please, go ahead! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS articles for WP:1.0
Thanks for your contact on my talk page. The size of the initial release(s) of WP:1.0 is/are still being debated - IMHO I think we may do a test version with just 1000 or so articles, then expand to perhaps 20,000 for an initial release. Of course ideally we want both the most important subjects, and we want these all to be A-Class or FA quality! The request for quality articles looks like it will be just the start of an ongoing dialogue, and we will in time contact the WikiProjects about compiling a list of their major topics something like this list. If you could get a list like that together of the "top twenty" court cases, that would be absolutely great, and also any other key articles like US Supreme Court - we'll use as many as we have room for. If an article is Start-Class quality or lower, though, it may well get missed out of the initial release. We hope to greatly improve and expand some hierarchy "trees" that would look something like this, only prettier! Ultimately I would see every WikiProject having at least one such tree or its equivalent.

One other thing, if you could give us your assessment of the Brown vs BoE and Texas v Johnson articles listed here, I'd really appreciate your expert opinion. It's hard for a non-specialist like myself to judge the quality properly, but I suspect these may be both important cases and A-Class in quality. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 05:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and especially for working on this. Probably the best approach would be to think "Which are the twenty most important cases?" and review those first - then move on to less important cases if you need to. If you identify serious problems in the major cases, then probably these should be priority articles for the WikiProject to work on. Thanks also for your opinion on those two articles I mentioned. All the best, Walkerma 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if I ever got back to you to thank you for your hard work on putting together the list. I thought I had, but apparently not here, so please forgive me if I missed this, I recall I was quite sick at that time. Anyway, I am using your list as an example of the sort of thing we should ask all of the projects to supply - subjective though it is, it is clearly well thought out. I really appreciate it, and we will try to get as many of your top twenty as possible into the test releases (hopefully this fall). Many thanks, Walkerma 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS case project questions
Hey Ridg. In belated response to your questions, we seem to have arrived at tacit consensus about format (I think this is what you were referring to). Both the old format (minus "the bench") and Postdlf's alternative have been listed on the project page for several days, and no one has commented or changed, so I'd say here's our format standard. As to the PCA, just go to the PCA page to vote on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchase02 (talk • contribs)

Besides Postdlf (who works on everything), you and I are the only ones from the WP:SCOTUS wikiproject who worked on Clinton v. NYC. How do you feel about closing it and moving on to to a new case?--Kchase02 T 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining!
I'm happy to see that you have signed up at WikiProject Law - we aim to make Wikipedia the world's most comprehensive source of free legal information! Cheers! BD2412 T 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

DVR FACE!
I take you up on your offer to put this term up for debate. I don't agree with your reasons for deletion.Pryzbilla 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I will put up the article for AfD. Let me know if you have any further questions. RidG Talk/Contributions 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear RidG,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.  fetofs  Hello! 12:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Acadame north
IM on your talk page, please state the reasons for deleation
 * Thank you for your questions. The article is being debated for deletion because it does not appear appropriate for inclusion to Wikipedia under current guidelines, particularly WP:NOT and WP:NOTABILITY. You may participate in the debate by clicking here. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~ . RidG Talk/Contributions 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * please state the reasons for deleation.
 * I will ask again that you please end your comments with four tildes, like so: ~ . It makes it much easier to keep track of conversation. Please also be sure to add your messages to the bottom of the page, rather than the top. The reason that your article will most likely be deleted is that we cannot seem to find any confirmation from an unbiased source that Academe North does, indeed, exist. Further, if such proof is to be presented, it has to be determined that its existence is well-known and notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Again, WP:NOT and other guidelines address this pretty thoroughly, so I suggest you re-read them. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is it I had it I am informing Wikipedia of your incompetence and I am requesting that you are stripped of your editing privileges, removing warnings after they HAVE expired is not vandalism, I will not stop there i will go above and beyond u will not delete my page again.
 * I have asked you several times to read the appropriate Wiki editing policy guidelines in order to make you understand why your article, as it currently stands, is not appropriate for inclusion to Wikipedia. It does not appear that you have done so. I am uncertain what else I can tell you, aside from asking you yet again to become better acquainted with Wiki policies. You are of course free to attempt to pursue this matter further. RidG Talk/Contributions 07:54, 10 July 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 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP security plates
That page is worse than a copyright violation, it is just plain spam. Get rid of it forever. Thanks. Luxomni 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very much with you. I can't stand these copy & paste jobs so many companies engage in. If and when the author decides to reenter the content, assuming that there are no significant modificatoins to the article, I will likely prod it or put it up for AfD as WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. RidG Talk/Contributions

Metal Skool
Hello, you mentioned on my talk page that a page I created was tagged for speedy deletion (Metal Skool). I've added a note to the talk page of the article about it, and added some citations and more information about their notability. I also made a note at Speedy_deletions. Please review these and remove the deletion tag, otherwise get back to me and move the article to AFD if you still think it's non-notable. I'll have you know I'm a member of The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, so not only will I put up a fight, I'll bring friends ;). Thanks for your diligence. (note, this comment is duplicated at User_talk:BaseballBaby, who didn't seem to have much to say about the sources I added, but told me to format the page more like Simple Plan for instance, a wise idea. However it grows late and I'd rather get some sleep if I can do so without the article being deleted whilst I slumber. Anyway, please keep me posted and happy editing. ---Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Matthew, thank you for your note. I've reviewed the changes and though the page may still not survive an AfD debate, it definitely passes the speedy deletion muster. Accordingly, I've removed the tag I placed earlier. Kudos for sourcing your content. I'll leave it for someone else to pursue AfD if they so desire - I think it's bad form to fight tooth and nail for deletion of every article (though my Wiki philosophy is diametrically opposed to that of you crazy Inclusionist Wikipedians :D).
 * In reading your note on the discussion page, I notice you've complained about the "rampant bullshit deletionist campaign plaguing Wikipedia." In all fairness, Wikipedia is pretty bloated as it is, and is filled with cruft that can be removed without affecting the overall quality of the encyclopedia (though I'm inclined to think you'll disagree with me). Nevertheless, I wanted to suggest that future such hasty attempts at speedy deletion can be avoided if you make it clear that you are indeed planning to expand the article with sources, assertions of notability, etc., either on the discussion page or in the edit summary. Cheers! RidG Talk/Contributions 10:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply. I agree that many, if not possibly most articles could be lost without much loss at all (Pokecruft springs to mind) but for someone, that knowledge may be invaluable, and we would never know it. Metal Skool probably straddles the borderline, but I was just apalled at how quickly the page got tagged. This is why I don't usually make new pages, I guess. Anyhow, thanks for the advice, and take it it easy!
 * (P.S. You probably know this (it seems you've been here awhile) but some editors expect replies to their comments (on others' talk pages) to be posted on their own talk pages, since the big orange box comes up when that happens and the conversation can happen more quickly. You can duplicate the message on your talk if you want it to be readable. Just a thought.) -- -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits)

Cat Cleanup

 * Was poking thru some categories and noticed your user page was in and .  I didn't know if it was supposed to be in there, but I didn't want to break anything by removing, so I thought I would let you know. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I have no idea why my userpage is in there, but I'll look into it. RidG Talk/Contributions 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North
Your question about me the user Acadame North what point I was trying to make was that the wikipedia administrators was deleting the page Acadame North because they have anti-socialist views the fact is Socialism is why we are he today would we have won WW2 with out the Soviets or without Tito's Yugoslav partisans I didn’t think so questions comments please go to my talk page--Acadamenorth 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)