User talk:Savidan/Archive 10

Birthright citizenship
Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in the United States
-- Cirt (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beechbone.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beechbone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Juntalocationwheel.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Juntalocationwheel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Based on your edit summary, I'd like to clarify what I think the word "extensively" meant, namely that the case was cited many times, not that extensive parts of the case were cited. I didn't add the word and don't know how many times the Prop 8 proponents cited the case, so I have no idea whether the description is actually true. Nor do I know how many times constitutes "extensively." In addition, I think if one wants to make that point, it would be better to quantify it (e.g., cited eight times, or cited more than four times) and source it rather than using an ambiguous adjective. For that reason, I think your removal of the word is appropriate. If someone wants to go to the work to come up with a number, more power to them. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

aboriginal title - aboriginal case law
I realized this problem yesterday, and reverted by edits to some of the articles. Your proposed solution of "Aboriginal title case law" is excellent, but putting Aboriginal Title as a subcategory of Aboriginal Case Law makes little sense, as most of the articles included in the former are not case law articles. I don't have the time to make the new category at the moment, so I'll just disconnect the two categories for now. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once "Aboriginal title case law" is created, it would be a subcategory of both "Aboriginal title" and "Aboriginal case law." Neither "Aboriginal title" nor "Aboriginal case law" would be a subcategory of the other. Sorry if this wasn't clear from my earlier post. Savidan 16:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Simon Byrne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK response
Please note I responded to your comment, at Template_talk:Did_you_know. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
Hello, your nomination of Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oneida II
Savidan, I did not add that template primarily to annoy you. See talk page for a further questions about where you get your sources from. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Other articles
Is there any article other than the ones you've made refs for, that use the ref format you're using for legal stuff?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 09:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many. Examples: United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, Zarin v. Commissioner, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc, Olk v. United States, United States v. Gotcher, Standing (law), Parker immunity doctrine, Noerr-Pennington doctrine, American Booksellers v. Hudnut, Feres v. United States. Unfortunately, the only Featured Article about US precedent is Roe v. Wade which appears to use no citations at all when referring to the case itself! The irony of a situation where one article is able to become featured without even including case citations, yet another is denied an appearance on DKY just because one user dislikes the specific style of case citations, is hardly lost on me.
 * Every jurisdiction cites differently. Commonwealth jurisdictions (and their associated articles) seem to use Oxford Standard, and that's fine. In the US, the Bluebook is pretty standard, especially for legal scholarship. If someone wants to use ALWD instead (more common for briefs submitted to courts than legal scholarship), I would defer to the primary author. Savidan 17:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cookie
Let's agree to disagree over the issue. Legal cases are not my area of knowledge. BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin too, and have also been around for a few years. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Savidan's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

For a user ribbon you can use, see  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court
Orlady (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
I just wanted to say thanks for all of your good work on law related articles! Verkhovensky (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pratt-Yorke opinion
The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Vatican City station
Ok, no problem. I just do some minor fixes. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts
Can you please unprotect Battle of Hogwarts? It has been over two years since you protected it. It is far too extreme to prevent autoconfirmed users from editing the page. The page currently redirects to a non-existant section in an article that does not contain any information about it.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, but I would advise you to consult the previous AfDs first if you are considering recreating the article. Savidan 05:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Although I have no intention of recreating the article myself; I just wanted to fix the redirect.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please verify the thing I corrected was indeed an error
Hi, I corrected something which I believe was a typo error on your part in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worcester_v._Georgia&action=historysubmit&diff=392626015&oldid=391406604. However I want to make sure that I did not just undo an actual correction that you had made, as I am not familiar with the details of the case.

My edit is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worcester_v._Georgia&action=historysubmit&diff=400220366&oldid=399020572. Thanks!

206.10.158.35 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Savidan 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 206.10.158.35 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Couch jumping listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Couch jumping. Since you had some involvement with the Couch jumping redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Scott Mac 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Church of the Theokotos


A tag has been placed on Church of the Theokotos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Alex2006 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Church of the Theokotos listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Church of the Theokotos. Since you had some involvement with the Church of the Theokotos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Alex2006 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TOC centuries
Template:TOC centuries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nonintercourse Act
Hello! Your submission of Nonintercourse Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK question
Hello! Your submission of Fellows v. Blacksmith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Justia/etc in footnotes
Hey there, I've noticed and admired your contributions. I'm an attorney and noted you're in law school :-) Just wanted to suggest also placing the Justia link in the first footnote of your articles so lay people don't get confused as they have in DYK review. All the best. --Bobak (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review
Please, please stop typing on the review page. You have create two edit conflict so far, which force me to retype the rest of my review twice. I have not finished. Please wait until I contact you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I am now finished with my review, and you are free to edit the review page with your reactions and comments. I look forward to working with you on this article. Racepacket (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few minor points at bottom of review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Tureen
The DYK project (nominate) 18:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Narragansett land claim
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nonintercourse Act
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fellows v. Blacksmith
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. However, as the time I have for Wikipedia is limited and unpredictable, I am currently trying to focus on article-writing only. Savidan 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal title in California DYK nom
Hello! Your submission of Aboriginal title in California at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ringsofpower.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ringsofpower.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in New York
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in California
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation styles
Frankly, I've sort of been following whatever I found online (there seem to be two different styles in use). I'll have to stick with Bluebook from now on. There's also been the issue of some article reviewers not totally understanding how legal citation works (and especially not wanting us to use any Latin abbreviations). We haven't found any formal way to balance them. Obviously we should go with Bluebook but that's not been written into the MOS yet (I don't think). Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I looked at WP:MOSLAW and didn't realize that someone has finally come up with a viable case-citation template. OK, that settles things ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that MOSLAW isn't much help ... it looks like someone started drafting it and sort of gave up because there were too many of the unresolved issues you have identified. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
Orlady (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Indian Claims Limitations Act
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in New Mexico
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

GA South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
I have completed my review and placed the article on hold. I am looking forward to working with you again. Racepacket (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Payner
Thanks for all the cleanup. God, I really ought to get my own Bluebook and internalize it, the way I've long internalized the AP Stylebook and, to a lesser extent, the MLA citation rules (some of which my apparent confusion reflects ... under them journal article titles are always in quotes). I wonder if we could create and program a bot to handle U.S. legal citation cleanup.

However, there's sort of a conflict between this edit and this one. While Circeus's point was the punctuation, I think that maybe in a lede it might be more sensible for readers (especially the vast majority with no legal background) to be clearer and have the year be in the text rather than parentheses (the fact that ussc does not require it as an argument suggests that whoever created the template had that possibility in mind. This page notwithstanding, Wikipedia articles are not pleadings, nor are we a legal encyclopedia, and I think some flexibility on an issue like that would be better overall. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Circeus was objecting to double-parenthesis, and in that limited sense, I agree. The lead should use commas, not parenthesis, to offset the citation.  I agree that there should be flexibility, so I won't fight with users over the citation styles in article's they write.  But, I think nearly all articles about court cases conform with the way I've done it.  To me, it is perfectly sensible that the ussc template does not require year as a parameter, because in a variety of contexts, a year need not be part of a citation.  You can view the rough draft of my proposal here:  Manual of Style (U.S. legal citations).  Savidan 19:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Aboriginal title in California
Hi Savidan. I'm reviewing the good article nomination for Aboriginal title in California, and have come across a couple of issues that I'd like to address before closing the nomination. Could you comment at Talk:Aboriginal title in California/GA1 when you get a moment? Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 19:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aboriginal title in California
The article Aboriginal title in California you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aboriginal title in California for eventual comments about the article. Well done! AGK [&bull; ] 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aboriginal title in the Thirteen Colonies
Hello! Your submission of Aboriginal title in the Thirteen Colonies at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary Rader, draft card burner
I think your concerns are met at T:TDYK, regarding the article Draft-card burning. The article already contained a sentence and cite about Rader being arrested.

Now I have make the hook into a double nomination, adding a new article about Gary Rader. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:west virginia?
Bad copy/pasting, sorry about that. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Aboriginal title in the Taney Court
I have placed your review on hold. I am looking forward to working with you again. Racepacket (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for State v. Elliott
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking exception to your self-exculpation
Your self-exculpation for saying one thing when you meant another (viz. "When one is forced to repeat oneself over and over again, that is bound to happen") does not impress with its candour or demonstrate any capacity for self-criticism. The mistake was made in a post stamped 2 March 2011 in the first line of a new section created by you (nobody "forced" you to write anything). The previous post by you was on 18 November 2010 on an unrelated issue. The first and only reference by you to "history of the papacy NOT history of the Catholic Church" (before this month's mistake, that is) was exactly one year ago. So, one correct statement is followed exactly one year later by an unforced incorrect statement, and the excuse is. . what, again? I take exception to your churlish attitude which flouts the best principles of wikipedia cooperation, courtesy and openness to suggestions by others. Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title in the Taney Court
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Montauk Point land claim
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Holy See
Hi Savidan, Could you tell me more about the plans you have for User:Savidan/Economic history of the Holy See? I'm working on a draft of an article on the economic history of Christianity (here). Your page in userspace came up in a Google Search. Do you have plans to turn that page into an article? I would appreciate your feedback on my draft article. I'm trying to figure out how to organize it (i.e. chronologically or by topic). If you are planning to turn your page into an article, I would like your thoughts on how to link your article and mine. Thanks. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mine's way on the back-burner. Feel free to snatch any of my content if you wish (but at your own risk).  It does seem that by organizing it by topic, you are really talking about theology as it affects economic issues.  My article was organized chronologically, but it was about the economic functioning of an institution.  For your article, I would suggest a title more along the lines of "Economic issues in Christian theology" (working title).  Savidan 00:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ladies' Night
I finally found the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania opinion that established that Ladies' Night is unlawful gender discrimination in PA. The previous court opinion in the article was from the Court of Common Pleas, which is a trial court. As you know, trial court opinions have no effect on the hundred of other trial courts in the state, only the litigants involved in that particular case. On the other hand, the Commonwealth Court as an appellate court in this particular instance is stare decisis. I no longer have access to free westlaw or lexis, so you may check Shepherd's to see if it is still valid. The opinion is nearly 30 years old. Nevertheless, the PA Liquor Control Board has declared that it will cite bars who hold ladies' nights. Indeed, the fine can be as much as $1000.00. Practically speaking, many bars in PA hold Ladies' Nights and the Liquor Control Board doesn't have strict enforcement; nevertheless, it often serves as a basis for law enforcement to enter a bar and conduct surveilance. In the following link, law enforcement visited a bar because of a Ladies' Night, but ended up observing the sale of liquor to a drunk. There are dozens of these examples.

Pennsylvania requires equal treatment based on sex under section 28 of its constitution. Gx872op (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In a legal brief, one might well exclude trial court opinions if there is higher authority. In an encyclopedia article, it's  a different story, especially when the trial court opinion predates the appellate decision by decades.  Savidan 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
Thanks for your feedback about Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton. It's been fixed now, it was actually a human error (mine) not the bot. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for That Portion of the Cayuga Indians Residing in Canada v. State
Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pope Pius XII theology
Category:Pope Pius XII theology, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S. case law articles
Please don't remove categories for case law under specific amendments just because the general subject of the amendment is covered in another category. It is not redundant to state both the amendment and the area of law, because they're not coterminous in scope. For example, you removed Category:United States First Amendment case law from Gitlow v. New York, but not all free speech case law involves the First Amendment, and not all civil due process case law involves the Fourteenth Amendment. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:United States free speech case law is a subcategory of Category:United States First Amendment case law and Category:Incorporation case law is a subset of Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law. Savidan 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible the general U.S. free speech case law shouldn't be a subcategory of First Amendment case law; the First Amendment is the most important provision of law regarding free speech, but it's not the only one. Cases are also decided purely on statutory grounds, under state constitutional provisions...  So stop removing the Amendment categories, ok?  It's also a problem that you're rapidly making a lot of category edits with no prior discussion that I've seen, and you're not leaving edit summaries.  postdlf (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Currently the free speech category is just for Constitutional cases, based on its own contents and categorization. If you think there is need to make it a wider category (including decisions grounded in statutes or state constitutions) that can be done. Given that all the cases currently in that category are constitutional, I think it makes the most sense to take your case to WP:CFD and suggest a move to "Category:United States First Amendment free speech case law" and then create a new "Category:United States free speech case law" category with that broader scope of which the former would be a subcategory. That is a separate issue from whether an article about a case based on the free speech clause of the first amendment should be in both a First Amendment free speech clause category and a First Amendment category. The larger point is that categories like "Category:First Amendment case law" should be container categories. It's not useful to lump all the free exercise, establishment, speech, press, and association categories into the same category (at least not compared to the alternative of having them in sub-categories unified by a First Amendment case law category). Savidan 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But treating the category as "United States First Amendment free speech case law" is exactly what you're doing, by treating it as redundant with the First Amendment category, when the free speech category is not expressly limited to the First Amendment regardless of whether those are the articles it happens to have at present. And we don't take something to CFD just based on what its current parent category is. Parents aren't always perfect overlaps, so that it's not always the case that all members of a subcategory are members of the parent as well, and as I said, maybe that parent should be removed.  Whether such subcategories should be created for the overlap of certain amendments with specific areas of law is another issue, which we should discuss at the link I posted below. So will you agree to stop for now until some more people have joined in their thoughts on this? postdlf (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been treating the current "Category:United States free speech case law" category as only including cases involving the free speech clause of the federal constitution (which it currently does). I don't know that we have any articles about cases dealing with statutory free speech rights or the free speech clauses of state constitutions, but if we do, I still think it makes sense to have a single category that is only for the free speech clause of the federal constitution. And, and a purely administrative matter, it is easier to move the existing category and then create a new, broader one. Do you not think it makes sense to separate speech, press, establishment, free exercise, and assembly? Savidan 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases regarding your changes, so please stop for now and we'll discuss what to do about this with other editors. I appreciate that you're trying to do a constructive thing, but the way you're going about it just isn't the best.  postdlf (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Animalnouns
Template:Animalnouns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removing citations
Please excuse my presumption on this point -- I presume a lot of things about how Wikipedia works (or should work) since I've been an active contributor for over 9 years now, & have been told often I've been wrong -- but I would presume that all the material above a footnote is sourced to that note, as far as either the previous footnote or the beginning of the paragraph, & if someone needed to break up a block of text sourced to one footnote, they could clone that footnote. Putting footnotes at the end of every sentence -- especially to the same source -- implies that someone is either insecure about the content, or that there has been a nasty edit war over that section of the article. Other than that, I'm in the process of rewriting this & several other related articles, so this text will be changing further anyway. -- llywrch (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Template Aboriginal title in the United States
Hello Savidan. I am currently working on an article to be titled Cherokee Commission. ETA on publishing the page is probably a week or so down the line - still researching. Question: Should this be listed as one of the statutes on the Template:Aboriginal title in the United States? If you are unfamiliar with the Cherokee Commission, here is my Sandbox where I'm working on it. Maile66 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. I believe you are correct.  There is a Template:Native American rights that is more fitting to the Cherokee Commission. What happened in Oklahoma under this commission, was pushing the Native Americans off into itsy bitsy allotments, giving away their reservations to the land rush homesteaders. And, yes, all those tribes originated elsewhere.  Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Small Business Economics


The article Small Business Economics has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article is written like an advertisement. No references are given other than its own website and no notability is established.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oneida cases
Hi. I saw your page moves. They look fine. I was mostly annoyed by the page title using an abbreviation ("Cnty.") more than anything else.

Out of curiosity, though, which reporter were you referencing in the move summary? I looked for a definitive source before doing the page moves myself, but couldn't find much that used "... of New York State". --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The United States Reports. I viewed them on HeinOnline. Savidan 20:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting.
 * I looked at this a bit more closely and it looks like it's
 * "ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, ET AL."
 * and
 * "COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, ET AL. v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK STATE ET AL."
 * One uses "New York State" while the other doesn't. I'm not sure it really matters in this context, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Had to blink. My intention was to go with the case name in the reporter. I changed the 1974 one back. Thanks. Savidan 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Tomb of Pope Leo III.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Tomb of Pope Leo III.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for United States constitutional criminal procedure
The DYK project (nominate) 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another attaboy
In line with the posts above, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for the excellent job on the Crim Pro article! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited United States constitutional criminal procedure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Improvement
Hey Savidan -- if you have any free time in the future, I would love your input on how I can improve Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which I would like to nominate for FA some day. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a look sometime. Savidan 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC
Hi. I've done considerable work on the Wong Kim Ark article in the last four days since you posted your most recent comments four days ago. I'd be grateful if you would be willing to go back to the FAC page and let me and others know what you think about the article now, and whether you view any of the points you raised earlier (or any new points you might see now) as still being unresolved issues standing in the way of this article's promotion. Thanks. — Rich wales 16:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of work on the article last night, and I went through your list of still-outstanding concerns and commented on each one. I believe (and hope you'll agree) that I've satisfactorily addressed many of them, and I think it would help if you could go through your list again and cross out whichever items you agree have been resolved, so that we can narrow our focus to the concerns where I still need to do work and/or where you and I still disagree on what the proper thing to do is.  I'm sorry to have to say that there are still a few issues on which we are not in agreement.  —  Rich wales 15:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted this on my own talk page, but just to be sure you see it: Since our exchange has become so lengthy, I'd like to propose that we collapse the material we've already produced, and copy all our still-unresolved issues into a single group (outside the collapsed material).  I'm concerned that other participants may be put off by the chaotic complexity of what we've currently got — and I think it would help everyone to focus on the important things that remain to be dealt with.  I'm willing to try my hand at doing this when I get back to the article in earnest tonight (about 6 hours from now).  Would that be OK with you?  —  Rich wales 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reorganized the discussion along the above lines. I'm pretty sure I caught all the issues you've raised so far that haven't yet been handled to your satisfaction, and copied them after the collapsed section.  If you see anything I missed, please let me know and/or feel free to copy it yourself to the end.  Thanks.  —  Rich wales 03:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I want to thank you for the input you've been providing on this article.  Even if it doesn't make FA this time around, hopefully this FAC will help me get the article to that point in the next few months.  I do want to ask one favour of you, though — could you review Calliopejen1's comments and offer your own thoughts?  Calliopejen1 is urging an approach that would lean heavily on law journal articles (using them as secondary sources to guide the analysis of subsequent SCOTUS cases that interpret/apply Wong Kim Ark, in contrast to your approach where I should shepardize WKA and discuss the subsequent cases myself).  At the very least, I'm concerned here that no matter which way I might proceed, either you or Calliopejen1 would oppose promotion on the grounds that I needed to have gone the other way.  If you could respond for the record to what Calliopejen1 is saying — and if you do in fact disagree with her, explain why you believe Wikipedia sourcing policies support your position as opposed to hers — I believe that would be very helpful.  And if it turns out that you find Calliopejen1's advocacy of using law journal articles acceptable, how would you propose deciding which articles to use as sources (as opposed to possibly needing to use all 300+ of them so as, presumably, to avoid the risk of cherry-picking sources)?  Again, thanks for your comments in this FAC, which I believe have already helped the article and will continue to do so as I continue working on it.  —  Rich wales 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Vicinage Clause
Hi Savidan. I've reviewed your dyk nom over at Template:Did you know nominations/Vicinage Clause. It looks great. You'll just need to review another entry and it'll be good to go. Cheers, Gobonobo  T C 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anchors
Check out my sandbox... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Vicinage Clause, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dickinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Savidan,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hello. How are you these days? I was about to ask you question related to DYK stuff, since as I can see, you are on of the reviewers there. I nominated a hook from "Hate That I Love You" there on January 9, 2012, however, its not yet reviewed, I mean passed or failed and all the others from that date are done. Why is that? Thanks for the response.— Tomica1111  &bull;  Question Existing?  00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vicinage Clause
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Vicinage Clause
You noted:
 * I think you missed this sentence: "The Vicinage Clause places no limits on the prosecution of crimes committed outside the territory of a state. Thus the Supreme Court has thrice held in murder cases arising from the Indian Territory,[21] Navassa Island,[22] and the No Man's Land of the Oklahoma Panhandle.[23]" Savidan 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Those cases all arose in connection with crimes committed in territory with no government, yet claimed by the United States. Other instances of extraterritorial jurisdiction have arisen in places with governments, such as Pakistan, or on territory of a different nature, such as Guantanamo Bay, or on non-territory, such as aboard aircraft in flight. The rapid recent growth of claims of extraterritorial jurisduction cries out for, at the least, an acknowledgement of this apparent conflict. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC (restarted)
FYI, SandyGeorgia has "restarted" the FAC discussion "for a fresh look" on where everyone stands on this article. — Rich wales 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "I will give the article a completely fresh look when I have time to read it all in one sitting. In the meantime, I think my previous comments should give you a good indication of what I'm likely to think."


 * Understood. I just wanted to make sure everyone who had been involved with reviewing the article so far was aware of the current status.  I sent a similar message, BTW, to everyone who has commented up till now.  —  Rich wales 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Tacchi Venturi
Hi,

I've begun a review of your article at Talk:Tacchi Venturi/GA1 and made some comments. In general, the article has great potential and it is a very interesting topic, but it needs to be filled out&mdash;the statements need context. The general reader needs to be given some background and orientation.

I'll put the article on hold while you work on this. Don't hesitate to contact me and ask questions if what I'm saying is unclear.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have one question - what are the Five Powers? However, I'm going to pass the article now, before your answer as it is not critical to the article. You did an excellent job of setting context. I knew nothing about this subject before and you have opened up a world for me.  Thanks!  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * United States constitutional criminal procedure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Conspiracy


 * Venue (law) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Conspiracy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement
Hi,

I've looked over your nomination and have done some copy edits as shown at Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1. Actually, I think the article is excellent, if concise. Do you have any comments on my edits? Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Left a small query at Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1. Actually, I'm ready to pass it and trust you will fix what is needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A few more nitpicks: (R-CT), (D-CT), (R-ME) - should these be spelled out for the non American?
 * non-Indian gambling - should this be "non-Native American" gambling?


 * I passed the article, as these nitpicks aren't enough to hold up an excellent article. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you help with FA candidate?
Do you have time to look at Featured article candidates/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1? This is an important article, which has attracted two reviewers, but the FAC clock is ticking, and it needs one more reviewer. It has passed GA, and been through a Peer Review; and the two FAC reviewers that have reviewed it thus far have done a thorough job. I'm committed to implementing any and all suggestions for improvement that reviewers recommend. Thanks for considering it. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lateran Council of 649
I've reviewed your nomination of this article, and I'm afraid it needs more work to reach the Good Article criteria. I've left some detailed information about ways to improve it on the Review page, and please don't refrain from asking me for any further advice. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Request your consultation
Hi,

I'm reviewing an article for GAN - Foley Square trial. It seems that this is primarily a political case, and I'm concerned that the law is being lost. Would you be willing to cast your eyes over it and give me your opinion? I just want to be sure that I'm not ignoring something wrong. My comments are at Talk:Foley Square trial/GA1, but I may be going astray. (I've inquired about the title and apparently this is the best one for the article.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. It's such nuances that I completely miss and why I shouldn't review legal articles! I just knew that the editor was using journalists as sources and not legal scholars.  MathewTownsend (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vicinage Clause GAN
I don't know if you noticed it, but I left a GA review for Vicinage Clause several days ago. If you haven't had a chance to get to it, no problem, I just wanted to make sure you saw it. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Been busy on- and off-wiki. Will address as soon as I have time. Savidan 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gabriel Duvall
The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Savidan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica at FLC
Hey Savidan, just wondered if you were going to address any outstanding concerns here or if you wanted to remove the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Got distracted with other matters. Will try to resolve them as soon as I can. Savidan 13:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, just a gentle nudge! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination is getting a little long in the tooth now, would you prefer me to archive it? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States constitutional criminal procedure
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article United States constitutional criminal procedure you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 4 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Connolly15 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Looking forward to your comments. Savidan 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in reviewing the article. I got busy in real life. I should be able to get to this next weekend if that's ok. Connolly15 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. Take your time. Savidan 15:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

DYK for Glasser v. United States
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK compliment
Thanks. And I'm not even quite done with McMahon. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Foley material updated
Thanks for supplying comments re the Foley Square trial article. I've update the material .. please see Talk page at here. If you have time, could you see if the material is okay now? I'm planning on nominating the article for FA, and want to make sure all open issues are resolved first. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input requested
Savidan: Thanks for providing constructive criticism of the Foley Square trial article. As you know, I'm trying to get the article ready for FA, and I think good progress has been made on the title issue. I want to resolve the other issue you raised: about additional detail on the appeals process. I've started an RfC here to focus the discussion, and to get input from uninvolved editors. Your input is welcome, of course. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Savidan: After scrutinizing several more sources, I found a secondary source that contained a bit more info on the appeals process, and so I was able to add some more details (see diffs here).  I've also requested a second Peer Review here.  I want to make sure your concerns about the appeal process material are addressed before the FA nomination.  Could you look at the improvements and see if they address your concern?   It would be a bit disruptive if you were silent now, yet later brought up concerns during the FAC.  Thanks in advance. --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One more read?
I realize you are probably tired of reviewing Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders, but I really value your opinion, and the article has been significantly improved in the past week due to your input in the Talk page, as well as a detailed peer review at Peer review/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive1. If you could just scan through the article one more time, and identify any prose, accuracy, or emphasis issues you find, I'll address them. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will do so when I have a chance. Savidan 04:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again. I'm ready to submit to FAC, but before I do, I want to ensure that your concerns have been addressed.  Some of the issues that you raised, and were corrected, were: (1) article title; (2) more legal/case detail: (3) dedicated sections for each of the five SCOTUS cases; (4) more nuance and detail on jury instructions;  (5) more nuance & detail on clear & present danger; (6) More specifics on individual defendants and cases.  The article also has more direct quotes from the majority opinions of the SCOTUS cases.  There have been a couple of  peer reviewers that have given the article a go-ahead, but they probably don't have the same legal knowledge that you do.  I'd appreciate it especially if you could review the legal terminology and make sure it is correct.  Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I've been very busy off-wiki. Savidan 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nexus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No article yet exists for the meaning I intended. Savidan 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Proposed Collaboration
I'm in. I'm still working on Compulsory Process Clause articles, but I'd like to help in any way I can. If you could, ping me back on my talk page on what I can do and I'll get started over the weekend. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I created the criminal law article and the template. Would like to see more topic-area articles sprout up before I would personally take a crack at the main article itself, but feel free to work on whatever aspect you like. There's plenty for everyone. Savidan 02:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of United States state and local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Reynolds, John Murphy, John Rogers, Robert Craig and Michael Russo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The intended targets do not yet have articles. Savidan 12:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tax Anti-Injunction Act
Hi. Are you aware of the discussion at Talk:Tax Anti-Injunction Act regarding this article's title? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not. Savidan 22:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States
I've reviewed and there are a couple issues. Could you reply at the nomination? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States
Orlady (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of United States state and local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses
Orlady (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar
I have been editing Wikipedia off-and-on since March of 2006 and this is the first time I have been speechless after looking at a list article. I am interested to know how you went about compiling the information contained in these two articles. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 08:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Reference questions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule
Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Helpful  One  11:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal law in the Marshall Court
Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

GAR started on Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
I have started the GAR on Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy. It looks promising, but it may take me a little while to go through it completely. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Diego von Bergen
Hello, I (finally) completed the review of this article's GA nomination, and unfortunately, have chosen to fail the nomination for the reasons outlined at Talk:Diego von Bergen/GA1. However, if you feel you can address the concerns, please do so, renominate and let me know. I will give it a new review without the long delay at the GAN queue. Regards, Resolute 23:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Narragansett land claim
Hi there! I've started reviewing the GAN for Narragansett land claim. The review is located here. There are a number of issues with the article that need to be fixed before it can be given GA status, though they are all quite doable. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies 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..

Savidan, I notice that you are an experienced Wikipedian, and that you know your stuff regarding editing for WP and with legal articles. I must admit, I'm pretty much out of my element, but I wanted to help with the huge backlog at GAN. I'd like to make a few suggestions, if I can, and please take them (and my review, for that matter) with a grain of salt. Perhaps one of the reasons that this and some of the other articles you nominated for GA languished for so long (six months in this case!), is that these law articles are simply too scary for the typical WP editor like me. I recommend that you try and elicit other editors, like you, who know about the law and are better suited to review them. I noticed that you currently have nine articles at GAN; I also recommend that you submit fewer articles at a time. I only submit one at a time; I submitted more than that once, and then got overwhelmed when they were both reviewed at the same time. I also make it a practice, for every article that I submit for any review (GAN, FAC, PR, ect.), I review another one. That way, I don't add to the backlog that's a part of every review, and help things out a bit. Again, grain of salt, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. As for recruiting more law-interested editors, I agree and have certainly put a lot of effort into this (mostly off-wiki). As for submitting one article at a time, I am less sure. It seems like many reviewers tend to review what they are interested in, and they may be interested in one article, but not another. As for not being a reviewer, that's mostly a function of my limited time to contribute to Wikipedia. Different people contribute in different ways, and I prefer to focus on content-creation. I have participated at FAC on articles which I think I know something about, and might do the same at GAC. Savidan 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Criminal law in the Taney Court at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Please complete your QPQ. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal law in the Taney Court
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Iván Guzmán de Rojas
Hey, I assume that you have the DYK nom watched, but I thought I'd leave you this message because I might not get a chance to get back for another 16 hours or so. While I made the initial translation on the 29th, the article wasn't actually created until June 4. The nomination was actually 35 minutes after I moved the article to the article space. Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good faith?
I'm a bit puzzled about the timing of your comments on the Smith Act trials article. As you know, I requested input from you in March and April (see User_talk:Savidan) and you declined to provide feedback. Yet, only a few hours after the FAC is initiated, you find time for extensive comments. I'm tempted to bring this up at the FAC Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oy vey. None of my comments should be a surprise to you in light of my extensive prior comments on the talk page. In each visit, I have consistently said that the article needs more legal background and analysis. With regard to some of my comments (e.g. the article's claim that the clear and present danger test had already been established), I have raised the exact issue verbatim with no results. During March and April, I was busy studying for law school finals Now, I have slightly more availability. While I regret that I was not able to repeat my concerns again on the talk page, I think you should have known that they had not been addressed. While I won't stop you from impugning my good faith wherever you please, I suggest that the more productive route would be to focus on improving the article. Savidan 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

comment
Don't know if you remember but I asked you to weigh in on an article now called Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders when I was reviewing it for GA at the end of January 2012, and you made some very helpful comments. In the end, I remained uncomfortable with the article and didn't pass it.

The article has continued to bother me, so I appreciate how very clearly and concisely you outlined (in your FAC comments on that article today) the very issues that I found troubling but was unable to articulate. Whether or not the article becomes a FA, it will certainly be greatly improved by your comments. They addressed exactly the issues that I feel need to be addressed. I wish I had your fine mind. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal law in the Chase Court
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Glasser v. United States
Hi there,

I have made a few minor comments at Talk:Glasser v. United States/GA1. To summarize, a fascinating legal glimpse at US Constitutional rights and how they are evolving through case law. I actually understood the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked a follow up question, but really for my own curiosity. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal law in the Waite Court
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Crimes Act of 1790
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested reading
WP:REDNOT which states '''Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.'''...William 20:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the template talk page. Savidan 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Read this again- 'Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.' They're coming out....William 22:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes... The exception clearly applies... If you think otherwise, more than mere quotation, rudeness, and condescension may be necessary. Savidan 22:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is one exception, that's for a series, this is not a series. Why can't you read that is beyond me....William 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why you are so sure this is not a series is beyond me, but, as I explained on the talk page, it is a whole set (the part you didn't bold). Savidan 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brown priest


The article Brown priest has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable - a term apparently used by one author, whose book is the source of this list. Not sure the list is useful - most members of the list are not notable. We don't have lists of, say, businessmen who were Nazi supporters, why have a list of priests?Brianyoumans (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not notifying you of the AFD promptly - I was going to, but got distracted putting kids to bed, and then saw you had already noticed it. Comment: If the page does get deleted, I would suggest renaming Category:Brown priests to something vaguely like "Category:German priests associated with the Nazi Party". I think the category, if applied judiciously, is a useful one. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criminal due process
Template:Criminal due process has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30
Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)