User:BD2412/Archive - Law (first 50)
I have separately archived law-related discussions here. Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe[edit]Are you sure this if from the Three Stooges. I could have sworn it was from the Marx Brothers. Nelson Ricardo 22:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC) Federal citation system[edit]There's nothing unique in the U.S. about the way federal cases are cited. Volume/Reporter/Page is the format of every case reporter in the United States, state or federal. This information is already at court citation, so I will redirect your article there. Postdlf 03:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Court case infobox[edit]I created instructions at User:Postdlf/court case infobox to aid in the use of my infobox. I've been planning on adding this to the SCOTUS project page but haven't gotten around to it yet. I hope it's of some help to you on future articles. Postdlf 03:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Req. for Sony v Betamax[edit]Great work on all the legal/case law articles. I don't think wiki has an article on the 1980's Sony v Betamax supreme court case. I think that's too important a ruling to be left out of wikipedia. Any chance you can throw together a stub? Feco 22:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apple v. Microsoft[edit]Hi there -- you commented in editing Apple v. Microsoft: "There have been more complicated software cases since Apple Computer v. Microsoft". Have there? Any pointers are welcome. Tempshill 21:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks for merging the articles[edit]Hello: Thanks for merging the two Erie R.R. v. Tompkins articles---you did a great job of integrating both of our contributions. My apologies again for creating a separate article by accident! --Coolcaesar 17:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Req. for your work on Sony v Universal[edit]I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology. Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Intellectual property[edit]Question: Do you know how the GFDL applies to comments posted on talk pages? I'm asking because I'm planning on adding some essays/commentaries under my user space, and I don't want to have to include a revision history or anything like that if I post them somewhere else. I also want to retain normal intellectual property rights in regard to comments that I've posted on talk pages. I'm happy and honored to have my contributions to Wikipedia articles licensed under the GFDL, but my comments are my own. I'm asking you rather then the "general population" because you are an expert on intellectual property. (OK, you're just a "student" at this point, but you're an expert compared to 99% of the population, and you will be an expert soon if you aren't already.) - Pioneer-12 06:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC) re: Intellectual property[edit]
What do I have to do in order to officially use the ©? I know that you have to apply for patents and trademarks, but I also know that authors automatically get certain rights. What's the deal with the copyright symbol? - Pioneer-12 22:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the info. I'm happy to be quoted; I just don't like to be misquoted. And I don't want people to think they can take my words on talk pages and slice and dice and salt and pepper and fold and bend and flip and toggle and wiggle and twist them. (No one has really tried yet, but I want to know and assert my rights just in case. Premptive strike.) - Pioneer-12 22:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) How's my copyright (and copyleft) notice look? I wonder if I'm the first on Wikipedia to explicitly claim copyright of signed contributions... Lots of people talk about muti-licencing and such, but I haven't seen a copyright notice on a Wiki page yet.... until now. :-) - Pioneer-12 23:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Janice Rogers Brown[edit]Thanks for your work on the Janice Rogers Brown article - I appreciate having my occasional biases reigned in. I do think it's important to get a good start on articles for everyone on Bush's "potential nominee" list, as these pages will all get very hectic when Rehnquist actually leaves the court, and are likely to go through vandalism hell when someone actually gets the nom. btw, turns out there's quite a few of us law students here! -- BD2412 thimk 22:13, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Intellectual property redux[edit]Hi, could you poke your head in on the ongoing discussion about Pioneer-12's licensing of contributions, over on his talk page? You've apparently become our legal expert on Wikipedia. ;) Perhaps the question is best flipped over to the Village Pump or some other venue; I'm not sure. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Blackacre[edit]There is no question that Blackacre is by far the most frequently used wording, so I can understand a preference for the Blackacre title. I think my motivation to adding the generalized term is because in the past I've seen the name run the gamut of colours (even pinkacre!). I suspect that it's just the result of a handful of law professors taking a bit of liberty with the names, so of course it should be taken with a grain of salt. I was not aware of any "official" or traditional set of designated colours, so if you believe that I may have generalized the title it too much, by all means change it back. I don't feel too strongly one way or another so I'll leave it to your discretion. -- PullUpYourSocks 01:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Eggshell skull doctrine[edit]Thank you for the notice, it's no problem at all. Though it isn't a major sticking point for me, I would just comment that I'm not entirely convinced that "eggshell skull" is more frequently used than "thin skull". In English and Canadian case law I have found the "thin skull" term is far more dominant. But in the end, I can't really speak for its use in the world as a whole so I'm not about to make a issue out of it. I appreciate the good work you're doing. Cheers! - PullUpYourSocks 21:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Andrew McClurg[edit]Sorry, after an hour of
type articles, you get numb. Now that I see someone trustworthy is on the article, I'll leave it alone. Sorry again. Antares33712 15:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Current tag[edit]The current tag tends to get added to all articles which are in the news at the moment, even those which might not get updatedly rapdidly. I added it in that spirit. In reality that article is fairly complete and probably won't see major revisions. I wouldn't object to the tag's removal. This link is Broken 22:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We're on the Main Page![edit]
Per your suggestion[edit]Hello: I have considered studying for the bar exam in the way that you suggested, but decided against it. Writing in encyclopedia style is quite different from the way that one is expected to write on the bar exam, and I do not want to get myself mixed-up on the eve of such an important exam. However, I am thinking about doing a little research in August after the bar exam so that I can go clean up at least part of the mess in Contract, Tort, and Divorce. --Coolcaesar 1 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Project Law[edit]Hi BD, thanks for inviting me to Project Law. I'm just at the begining of my degree - so I'll see how helpful I can be. 220.245.178.132 3 July 2005 23:59 (UTC) It was me - Wikipedia keeps logging me out. (Anna Aniston) An An 4 July 2005 03:49 (UTC) List of OT 2004 Supreme Court decisions[edit]See User:Saucy_Intruder/sandbox. The list of decisions would be organized by broad subject matter and contain vital statistics and outside links. Any suggestions for improving the look and feel of this template? Would you be willing to help out with a portion? (good luck on the bar, BTW) --Saucy Intruder 5 July 2005 00:36 (UTC) US/UK Consideration[edit]I concur that they could be merged. I was just clarifying that the Consideration article has a US focus (the disambig doesn't really make sense othewise). This is going to be a recurrent problem and we might want to look at it in the policy stages to make a clear statement that can be emulated. An An 7 July 2005 00:21 (UTC) Less than 3 weeks now[edit]...and you're still spending this much time on Wikipedia? At least you are working on legal topics (and they certainly need work - many are pretty bad). DS1953 7 July 2005 02:08 (UTC) Consideration[edit]Hey thanks for contacting me on my user page. I think it's a great idea, and I've been meaning to merge the two consideration articles for a while. The problem was that I don't know US law at all (I'm in Australia) and I was worried about introducing errors into the article if I attempted the merge myself. But sure, let me know if you would like any help in going over any English/Australian nuances. Thanks. (p.s. check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law as well for other members that might be able to help). Enochlau 7 July 2005 05:16 (UTC) Invitation to treat[edit]It would appear that it's a cultural distinction for I've never heard of invitation to bargain. In Australian texts and cases (and from what I've seen, UK as well?), the term used is invitation to treat, but if the two concepts are the same, perhaps a redirect from one to the other is in order. And good luck for your bar exam. Enochlau 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) By operation of law[edit]This page currently redirects to itself. Curious as to why. Smerdis of Tlön 21:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Ed Prado[edit]Yes, please move it, I just used the red link in the article to create it. I just make sure all listed potential nominees have articles. NoSeptember- 00:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Circuit court biographies project[edit]I am ready to start creating biographies for all of the current circuit court judges (and many of the former ones). Should we first create a preferred standard format for the these biographies? (preferred source, amount of detail, etc.) I have also contacted User:DLJessup and User:Saucy Intruder about this, please involve anyone else who you think may be interested. NoSeptember- 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Categories: Courts, Court systems[edit]Would you be able to elaborate on how Category:Courts should be used vs. Category:Court systems? It seems they are being used for similar purposes, so perhaps a word of explanation on the category pages might help. --Tabor 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Re:Law reviews[edit]C'mon dude - be impartial. Think of the multiple hordes of amateur groups at every one of the 180 accredited law schools publishing whatever notes they get their hands on! Resembles Wikipedia and academia. lots of issues | leave me a message 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Self-defense and defense of others[edit]Hi, I don't know if it's such a great idea to move self-defense to this new page - it's kind of unwieldy and there are too many links already to just self defense - besides, defense of others is generally encompassed within self-defense. I recommend changing it back to self-defense, merging in defense of others, and redirect from defense of others to self-defense. Your thoughts? Tufflaw 04:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
liability offences[edit]How about I merge the "Strict" and "Absolute" articles under the title of regulatory offences. --PullUpYourSocks 14:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Insane delusion[edit]Is there anybody who doesn't have one? AAR, I removed "insane delusion" from the wills and trusts template, because I had already started an article on testamentary capacity which discussed insane delusions as a species of testamentary incapacity. I have created a redirect. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Incontrovertible evidence[edit]Hi there. You're a busy lawyer right now, but if you get a minute at some point, could you help out over at the VfD for the above article? We're wondering whether it's a proper legal terminology or not. It's in an online legal dictionary but, like online encyclopedias, they're difficult to rely upon. Thanks and good luck with The Real World. -Splash 02:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Uniform Acts[edit]Yeah I just noticed that too. Sorry about that. If you haven't changed it already I'll change it. --PullUpYourSocks 14:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Shirley Abrahamson[edit]I noticed on the page you created for Shirley Abrahamson, that you stated she is the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. she is in fact the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. --TommyBoy 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Manslaughter[edit]I just wanted to compliment you on the job you did writing the manslaughter article. That it was for years a redirect to murder (where it received the briefest mention) is almost an embarassment. Well done indeed. -R. fiend 05:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Euro Committees[edit]Many thanks for your assistance on the Euro Committee pages - it is much appreciated Ian Cairns 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Court citation & redirects[edit]I noticed that you redirected Supreme Court cases per the citations. Is there a policy of doing this? Just wondering. Mmmbeer 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC) List of court decisions[edit]I like the new list of Federal Circuit Court decisions. Is the next step a list of state supreme court decisions? I can think of quite a few, many of which have been appealed to the SCOTUS. NoSeptember 16:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
BR article name fix ups[edit]Thank you for taking the time to clean up the Chapter XX article names . As for the yellow box at the top of this page, indeed what could not use just a little more cowbell? :-) Flawiki 17:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC) Bankruptcy Bill[edit]You're absolutely right about Clinton and the bill, something NPOV should be in that article. I've been meaning to significantly expand it for weeks now, anyway, considering the law's import, but bankruptcy law is just so boring to me and the research I started put me to sleep . . . Congratulations on your recent attainment of a JD. Incidentally, I'll be joining you next year. Have you received your bar results yet? - Jersyko talk 20:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Bayes in law[edit]Er, I'm not sure I understand how to use this way of communicating. Anyway I wanted to respond re: your suggestion about my paragraphs on Bayes in Evidence law. I wouldn't mind having them have a separate heading within the evidence law topic, but I'd like them to stay in that topic. One reason is that I have invited friends to revise my paragraphs, giving them the reference to the topic. Roger Park Thanks[edit]Thanks for the heads up. I have been slowly working my way through PIL, characterisation, renvoi, the incidental question, and public policy to set the tone for choice of law. The work on forum shopping is a great start. I have expanded the introduction and will try to add the international element over the weekend. Thereafter, you will be on your own as I go for death or glory on the operating table next week. -David91 18:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I have produced a draft for the conceptual material on forum shopping. It is a bit inelegant but I have run out of time so must leave it all in your capable hands. All the best. David91 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Miller test[edit]Hi. Would you be interested in commenting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency#Factual accuracy disputed? ‣ᓛᖁ Posting my Case Briefs[edit]Hi. Thanks for the message. I am heading into my second year of law school at BU, and I was thinking about posting all my case briefs on wikipedia law. I am also going to try to talk some other individuals into doing the same. Unfortunately, I am new to creating wikis. I do have a solid background with computers and engineering, though. Do you think you could give me a hand with getting established? I am fine at editting individual pages, but I confused on how to establish projects and effectively interconnect the pages. Thanks. Re: Sonia Sotomayor[edit]I'm not sure how much you know about politics, but as far as I can tell Sotomayor's name has only been a "wish list" candidate by Senate Democrats. Every objective piece of evidence suggests that Bush would never consider her, especially given the controversy surrounding her 1998 confirmation. If Kerry had been elected President, she'd be a leading candidate, but there is no way she can be considered a candidate for nomination by Bush, as the title of the article suggests. Ryanpickett2005 Federalist Papers[edit]Thanks for the tip. I've added this information to the existing Federalist No. 78. I myself am looking forward myself to getting back to college and having access to some more scholarly research in this area that will possibly let me get Federalist No. 10 up to featured status. Also, thanks for creating Federalist No. 42, it looks great! Christopher Parham (talk) 04:15, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
9th Circuit etc. Seal.JPG[edit]Hi, I kinda assumed as its a seal it should be in that template, but I'm willing to be proven wrong as I know precious little about American government. Could you say the same about seals of cities, states (come to that the great seal of the US!)? Any idea where to put them if not in Seal:template? Cheers! 80.177.152.156 Rightyho....well, apologies if I make too many mistakes! :-) It was just bugging me that they were all lumped in with coat of arms images (which whatever else they are, they're not Coats of Arms) Cheers 80.177.152.156 USSC Court Citation Links[edit]Thanks for your comment. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and all four (yes, I know it's low) of their project accomplishments use the ussc template. Neither is used in their guidelines, however. All in all, I think the reference to the actual case is more important to show at the top than the link to the Wikipedia article on court citations, as most people probably can understand what those numbers are. Then again, I don't feel my position is entirely logical, so I think a compromise is better, like linking both (like R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.), footnoting the findlaw opinion while wikifying the court citation article, or putting the findlaw opinion in the SCOTUS box (for which I've put up another poll). However, linking every court citation reference to the court citation article seems excessive (i.e. other court citations in a certain article could just be the findlaw ones, to avoid a lot of wikilinks to the same court citation article (and the same article, as the title will be linked to the article) and a lot of footnotes. Regardless, I'm sure a combined template can be made for the solution. I won't make any more of these changes until this is settled so I'll ask the village pump what they think. Telso 21:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Supreme Court case infobox[edit]You seem to be using an infobox on articles about Supreme Court cases that contains the spelling concurrance. I don't know if it was a typo or if the word might actually be spelled (spelt) this way in British English, but certainly it's nonstandard when we're dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court. I noticed it in Champion v. Ames and found it also in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley. Since the infobox is not a template, a blanket fix isn't possible, so I haven't corrected the problem. How far it extends I don't know, but if you wouldn't mind going through your contributions to correct it, that would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Legal Question[edit]Lol ok I was just wondering cause 11 is quite young. Jobe6 |
.gif){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}