User talk:Eastlaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Welcome!

Hello, Eastlaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nivus|(talk)|(desk) 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings!

We can always use more lawyers, so please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, and adding yourself to Category:Law student Wikipedians. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll get the hang of it - it comes quickly, but if you have any questions, just ask! BD2412 T 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from User:zappa

Sorry man - didn't know you were editing it. In the future though, please do not leave sections blank without content. Please add the sections after you have completed some content to go in them. -zappa 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cort v. Ash

Have a look at the edits I just made to this one to see the ideal citation format to use in the intro paragraph. Every case article should start with an intro paragraph that works like this:

Party v. Party, XXX U.S. YYY (YEAR)^[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held X.

[edit] External link

↑ [Link to Findlaw.com article on the case]

Cheers! BD2412 T 10:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another tip for cases

When I make case articles for cases with compex names (like American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.), I like to make a bunch of redirects from alternate possible stylings of the name (e.g. American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler, American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co., American Well Works v. Layne and Bowler). Keeps people from mistakenly trying to create the articles under those names. I also like to make redirects to the cases from their citations (241 U.S. 257 or 241 US 257). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for - after all, we do this for free. Pace yourself - building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever known may take a little time. Also, remember that this is a collaborative effort (more so than any other writing project in human history), so if you don't get around to putting something up, eventually someone else will, and if you put up something that needs work, eventually someone will work on it. Best of luck with your internship! BD2412 T 02:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for easier ideal citation format

I've added the following template: Template:SCOTUS-case - to start a new U.S. Supreme Court case article, just type {{subst:SCOTUS-case|name of case|reporter volume|reporter page|year}} (example: {{subst:SCOTUS-case|Muskrat v. United States|219|346|1911}}). This will automatically create the external link to Findlaw, and year-in-law category. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law question and new userbox

Hi there, as I read you are interested in law and from the US, can you explain me why George W. Bush is not in jail although he broke the UN Charter? Furthermore, as you are concerned about the oil peak, maybe you like a userbox I created: user pro aviation fuel tax. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of movement

Greetings, Eastlaw. I'm aiming to get Freedom of movement (a fascinating and important topic) up to featured article status by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Received your message - probably would be helpful posted at Talk:Freedom of movement. Thanks - BD2412 T 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Poll

Hello there. I am an overseer of your brain. I have come to tell you that the Wikimetal Project is holding a poll on the inclusion of certain genres on the heavy metal template and footer that goes onto metal related articles. This poll has a closing date, however, and so here i am, reminding you to vote if you want to, by pumping strange chemicals through your veins. Its hard work being a brain you know!

If you would like to help in this crucial part of the project, the page is here. No, thats not it? Oh my! I posted those pictures of myself, what a devil i am. No the actuall link is here on this link.

I guess ill see you at breakfest when you finally recover from Wikipedia. Bye for now body, your Brain 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{EU-law-stub}}s

Hi Eastlaw,

I notice you've been adding European related law articles to {{EU-law-stub}}. Unfortunately none of the articles you've added really belong there. The stub is for EU related articles and not merely law articles on the domestic law of EU member states. You might want to consider creating a {{Europe-law-stub}}. (I admit the stub category name is somewhat ambiguous, but hey I didn’t write the thing).

Caveat lector 15:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Intoxicating Substances Act 1985

Why: it is a word-for-word copy of a copywrited page. Does the fact that the original page is short make it any less of a copyvio? Whitejay²⁵¹ 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So is that summary of the act from the law? Or is it someone else's summary of it. In the former case I would agree with you and would gladly withdraw the copyvio tag. In the latter case, I'm not so sure...Whitejay²⁵¹ 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nice work on Overkill

Hey thanks man - Overkill rules! Just wanna give the good ones from my era (late 80's/early 90's thrash) some props around here. I'm trying to get every band's page more like the Overkill one(with bio, discography, members, dates, facts, ect), and get every album a page with info and cover. \m/ SKELETOR666 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:206.176.100.20

He seems to have stopped hours ago - I'm off to sleep, so keep an eye on him and find an awake admin if he strikes again. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cat

on the Reading for Cohoes pipe case. John wesley 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! That's a better name for the category of canonical academic case law by Cardozo. John wesley 15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cases involving Justice Cardozo

The title is unfortunately flawed for two reasons. "Cases involving" would seem to imply any decision in which he participated, not simply any case in which he wrote an opinion, which would then include every decision handed down while he was on the court from which he did not recuse himself (not very helpful). "Justice" Cardozo also limits this category to his SCOTUS tenure, while his most valuable opinions were written when he was on the New York Court of Appeals.

But I'd also like to urge you to create an annotated list article instead of a category. Simply grouping together every case in which he wrote an opinion is not sufficiently useful, and just results in extra clutter on the article (a proper category title would have to be lengthy, like Category:Cases in which Benjamin Cardozo submitted an opinion; imagine the effect on cases in which there were several concurrences, dissents, etc.). An annotated list could organize these opinions chronologically or by subject matter, and essentially become a detailed description of his jurisprudence once summaries of his opinions are added. I'd love to see such a list article for every justice. A similar category was created for Scalia some time ago; I'll see if I can dig up the discussion that led to its deletion. Postdlf 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution - it could be linked at the bottom of every Cardozo case in a "See also" section. BD2412 T 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe from a footnote added to the infobox? Postdlf 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of including important cases whether they produce a memberable quote of formula like in Meinhard v. Salmon on fiduciary duty owed to partners the "punctillio" or Learned Hand's rule for Judge Hand. I would like to do Hand's tax avoidance after Marvin Chirelstein. John wesley 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, could someone with free Westlaw or Lexis access pull up Meinhard v. Salmon and: a) fill in the missing info in the infobox on that page, and b) copy the whole text of the case over to Wikisource. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Postdlf 00:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done - I've divided the case on Wikisource between the majority and dissent for space. BD2412 T 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia that was created and deleted last year. I don't think a list was ever created to replace the category. Should a list/category be created for all the major judges/justices past and present? NoSeptember ^talk 06:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A list, absolutely. Category, absolutely not. The problem with generating the list is of course the sheer volume of cases one would have to document; Scalia, for example, has been on the Court for 20 years now, Stevens 30 years, and they're probably the most prolific Court writers as well. I promise I'll start one for Scalia after the end of this SCOTUS term in June, however (and I actually started taking notes for this a few months ago); remind me if I lapse on this task. Postdlf 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know I developed a list format for opinions by justice; see 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito for an example. Postdlf 10:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HALP?

Can you review International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for me please? good sir, kind sir... ;) --Andy123(talk) 08:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuse template

Please don't use {{inuse}} for week long periods as in Cooper v. Aaron. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I notcied that you've left messages for Zappa.jake on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages. I have asked him to stop here. Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here. Sorry, zappa.jak e (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

I have recently begun reviving the Supreme Court case project since the founder is inactive. You're welcome to drop on by and help us out if you are still interested. There's also a discussion going at the project's talk page. Enjoy your Memorial Day! --Kchase02 (T) 06:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed your wikibreak notice. Sorry to see you go. Feel free to add things to the projects to-do list if you've left anything incomplete or see things that need to be done. I'll get to them personally as I'm able, but hopefully we'll have plenty of people working on them. Many hands make light work. Cheers! --Kchase02 (T) 07:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi KChase,

Just so you know, I am not so much on "WikiBreak" as I am in a state of temporary semi-dormancy--I am taking summer classes at my law school, so I will probably have less time to edit stuff here on Wikipedia. I will occasionally add an article when possible, or make a few edits here and there, but I will be a lot less active than i have been over the past few months.

Anyway, I read some of what you wrote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, but I have a few questions about article format. I liked the sample outline you created, but have you come to a decision about in-article case citations? Personally, I only cite to the case and page number when 1) directly quoting the opinion or 2) citing to a different case. I do this because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, rather than a law review, so citing every single proposition is probably (in my opinion, anyway) unnecessary and inappropriate (it might be confucsing to the casual reader). Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the implicit agreement Postdlf and I came to was for a suggestion about how to cite, instead of a hard-and-fast rule. It's listed in the phases section We didn't really discuss when/whether to cite, but I like your standard. BTW, it was Postdlf's sample outline, not mine.

Do you have more free time during regular semesters? If so, then law school is not how I've heard it described! Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 04:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I got your message about the citation issue. By the way, I go to Northeastern University School of Law, which has a cooperative education program--in your second and third years of law school, you take one quarter of classes and one quarter of internship (alternating, i.e. you can have class in the fall and spring quarters and interships in the summer and winter, or vice-versa). We are the only law school in the USA to do this. I was on internship at the Massachusetts Land Court during the Spring Quarter, so now I am back in class.

Oh and about the "Memorial Day" thing--I can't understand why that would offend anyone, even if they were non-U.S. residents. Anyone who gets upset about something like that needs to get a life. --Eastlaw 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative education in law school is an interesting idea. I've heard of some (a very few) attorneys who skip law school and still take the bar after three years of apprenticeship, but this sounds less radical. Thanks for the reassurance about the Memorial Day msg. I'll take down the blurb on my talk page. --Kchase02 (T) 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Law selections

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shreveport rate case

Hi. Good work improving the article. I wrote it in class while we were discussing the case.

Classes here are amazing. I am still a lowly 1L and don't have much experience here yet. UTexas's highest ranking is in the category of quality of faculty, and I can say that all my profs are super-competent and engaging in their own ways. Classes here are small. I have three classes with about 100 students, and one class with about 25. The entering class size is 430, but we're divided into four sections and 16 societies. I have 3 classes with my section and one small class with just my society. There's plenty of opportunity to get involved in organizations and events. I just joined the American Constitution Society.

Good luck in law school. Thanks for working to bring articles on these cases to Wikipedia. Argyrios 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. Thanks for the invite! I will mostly just be checking the wikipedia article for whatever case we happen to be on, writing it if it does not exist (like this one), maybe copyediting where it does.

Argyrios 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am a Con Law and Tax law guy

Not interested in all of SCOTUS. I like tax. Chivista 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of misery

I saw that.[2]. It did not meet criteria for speedy. User also Proded my song stub which I removed.--Dakota 07:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you need the link, why not bookmark it? The article is dwarfed by the external links, you could write more about the band if you're a big fan. Deizio talk 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that BNR is a well-known site in the metal community, although it's a bit of a one man show and I'm not sure it meets the WP:RS bar. I don't understand how your "A" reason for reinstating the link, "I was editing from work while on my break", relates to my concern. Pages should be linked to if they provide substantial information on a topic above and beyond what the Wikipedia article would contain if it were to reach its ideal length, as opposed to what is contained in the article "as is" at a particular point. A general exception to this is the official site of the article subject, or sites considered "encyclopedic" in their own right, such as IMDb for movies, actors etc. or allmusic.com for music and bands. As BNR is just a site with reviews and general information it need not be linked. That it contains some information about the subject at hand is not enough to meet this requirement. This can be a bit of a grey area at times, but when a short article contains several external links as a) a shortcut to actually fleshing out the WP article and b) to the point where the links section is comparable in size to the main section of the article, it's not really appropriate. All of this can be found at Wikipedia:External links. Hope you understand, nice one. Deizio talk 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the WP:HMM talkpage, if you can highlight the compliance of BNR with WP:WEB in your AfD comment it will be given more weight by the closing admin. Deizio talk 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, we're not voting to remove BNR from the internet. In these cases you have to differentiate between what you find useful and what fits the WP guidelines. Speaking as an admin, there would be an absolute downpour of bullshit to stay on top of if the guidelines were relaxed to a point where BNR qualified. Deizio talk 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I invite you to join the Pornography in the United States GA for some copyedit (mainly proper articles and punctuation marks as I'm not certain on this), but feel free to edit it anyway. Thanks, --Brand спойт 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barking drunk

Heya. I saw you placed a {{db-reason}} tag on the above article, which I just now replaced with a {{prod}} tag instead. The reason for this is simply that neologisms aren't a target for speedy deletion, since they aren't an example of pure vandalism or patent nonsense. Please take this kind of article to proposed deletion instead, and remember to always warn the creator using {{PRODWarning}}. Thanks! :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem. There are a lot of things people never tell you about newpage patrol, so I just thought I should mention it. It was a pretty minor thing anyway. :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eagle01.*

Hey there. I was looking at eagle01.ref wondering what the heck it was when I noticed that the creator had written Stitch Pipeline which links to all those code pages (like the one you were looking at, eagle01.look). I proposed a merge, but on second thought, I'm thinking about nominating this for AfD since it doesn't appear notable to me (and I think the user may be writing a how-to using WP instead of an encyclopedia article, which violates WP:NOT). What do you think? Gzkn 05:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/s/User_talk%7EEastlaw_5709.html"