User:BD2412/Archive - Law (fifth 50)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):
Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th
Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 1st-2d-3d-4th-5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-11th-12th-13th


I have archived my law-related discussions here

Contents

RFC[edit]

As I understand it you (as creator) close the RFC by removing the RFC template from the page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01 6 February 2008 (GMT).

ON the "relief required"
  1. Any tax protester rhetoric added to these articles should be reverted on sight;
    Certainly any rhetoric should be reverted on sight.
  2. Addition of POV tags to any of these should be reverted on sight unless the editor provides on the talk page specific examples of article content which constitute a bias.
    I suggest you add an html comment to the effect that "POV tags will be removed unless they refer to a talk page section showing specific examples of bias"
Rich Farmbrough, 16:12 6 February 2008 (GMT).
I'd really rather someone else "close" the discussion though, just to avoid the appearance of me as an involved party proposing a policy and then declaring its passage. I will add the recommended message, however. Thanks. bd2412 T 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester constitutional arguments FAC[edit]

I have nominated Tax protester constitutional arguments as a feature article candidate. If you're interested in responding to comments and addressing any issues that arise, please add the above FAC page to your watchlist. Also consider voting on the article. Thanks Morphh (talk) 17:53, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice, I'll definitely participate. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy[edit]

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [1]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [2] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [3]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments[edit]

Dear BD2412: I have initiated a request for comment regarding edits by a user called Ram2006. The Ram2006 edits were made at Internal Revenue Code but my request for comment is found at Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments, because I believe user Ram2006’s edits really relate more properly to the article Tax protester statutory arguments. See also Talk:Internal Revenue Code.

Because my request for comments involves a request for an interpretation of the recent RfC, Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, which you initiated, your input would be considered valuable. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester history[edit]

On the "Gaylon Harrell" thing, you may already be aware of this, but Daniel B. Evans has a page on Gaylon Harrell at Dan's "Tax Protester Dossier" web site (which is separate from his Tax Protester FAQ). Here's the link, [4], just for your reference. If I recall correctly, despite Harrell's acquittal on the Illlinois charges, Harrell is currently on trial -- or is about to go on trial -- in an Illinois court for still more alleged state tax violations. Harrell is discussed from time to time at the Quatloos web site. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see, his latest Illinois criminal trial is set to begin in May 2008. Famspear (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, doesn't seem notable enough to merit a place in Tax protester history. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Granted, we have not developed a formal set of criteria for even determining Wikipedia notability that would apply specifically to tax protesters with respect to the U.S. federal income tax. I think just about every protester currently listed in the article on "tax protester history" has been convicted of some sort of federal tax crime -- with the exception of Tom Cryer -- and Cryer was at least tried on federal charges. Gaylon Harrell cannot claim that "honor". Famspear (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfC and Case Law[edit]

Hey BD, I've been seeing a few proposed articles on court cases at WP:AFC and thought you might help point me in the direction of a guideline regarding wiki articles about court cases so I can be better equipped to review those entries.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there's a WikiProject on U.S. Supreme Court cases, which would be a good place to start. I'll be glad to look at anything once it's written. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[edit]

Dear friend: The anon added some incorrect and confusing language to the article, which I have tried to correct. I assume that this was unintentional on the part of the anon. I know I need to get back to this article and do some more work. Thanks for your help. Famspear (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to get back to it sooner, but other obligations beckoned. Thanks for having at it. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ron and Fez Show characters[edit]

I have nominated List of Ron and Fez Show characters, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ron and Fez Show characters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rtphokie (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

I think your proposal to merge probate is great! --CyclePat (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question[edit]

Hi BD. Please cast your mind back to User:BD2412/Archive - Law#Work for hire question. Apparently this comes up pretty often at PUI. Could one possibly characterize these types of photos as gifts, thus transferring copyright to the camera owner? Or would a signed statement still be necessary? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The assignment of a copyright must be in writing to be effective, per 17 USC § 204 (a):
"A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent".
Cheers, though. bd2412 T 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"...other than by operation of law..." -- does that refer to rulings by judges then? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, for example, passage of property belonging to a deceased person who did not leave a will. The property must go to someone, so, by operation of law, it passes to their next of kin designated by statute. bd2412 T 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Courts of the United States[edit]

Just to say thank you and well done on going out your way to make the page. All the best, Drum guy (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep working on it. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooh er - I think if it's alright I'd rather chicken out pathetically. Thanks for your work, Drum guy (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Courts of the United States[edit]

You mean adding things like Florida First District Court of Appeal, etc.? I can help with that a little, I think. Neutralitytalk 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking first and foremost of making sure each state has every level of court in that state represented (e.g. Y Supreme Court, Y Court of Appeals, Y County Courts, Y Probate Courts, etc). Many are still missing levels altogether. But you raise a good point, I don't want to pass on listing individual appellate courts which should have articles. bd2412 T 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights of machine-generated pictures[edit]

I'm wondering now about machine-generated images such as x-rays, MRI pictures, etc. Since those involve no human creative input, are they even eligible for copyright protection? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One could say the same thing about photographs taken with cameras - but I would highly doubt copyright would attach to a machine generated picture unless the person operating the machine made some wholly non-utilitarian effort to do something creative with the process. bd2412 T 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Hello I noticed that you have interest in legal articles and great knowledge. Can you plz. take a look at this article i just wrote Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York and tell me what you think?

Do you want to team up to work on legal articles together? JeanLatore (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to edit an article that I have started?[edit]

I picked you in a semi-random manner and am wondering if you would care to come and collaborate on Toibb v. Radloff with me? Didn't realize how badly it was written until I self-nominated for WP:GA and got a reality check from a more experienced editor.

I want to see what it takes to fix my work up into a good article; more interestingly, one of the comments left by the reviewer ("And how it's studied in law school etc.") is something about which I am absolutely clueless. Please edit it mercilessly.

By the way, I like the forum-selection clause at the top of your user talk page. Very clever.

Bwrs (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare or Gordian knot[edit]

Hardly urgent but...

  • Can you take a look at the terms residency, resident, legal resident, tax resident, permanent establishment, and so forth in what seems to be an endless loop of legalese wherein the colloquial or common use of such terms as 'permanent residence' (NOT involving either citizenship nor visa statuses! Like as in "College address" vs. home of record and such usages.) which have me going dizzy from cross dependent linking and aliases (via redirect pages). Strikes me at least one page is missing and needs created.
  • I'm hip deep in a couple of other edits, and also don't care to break any legal definitions, so figured to yell for help to someone who could address colloquialisms and the law. (No doubt in your copious 'spare' time! <g>)
  • Seems likely to me "permanent residence" could perhaps be better named "permanent residence (law)" or the like, so colloquial meanings have a home. I'll continue to mush back to missing real estate terms like two family residence and three family residence, which I found missing starting from "home" and house. (Seems a simple link check can cause a lot of trouble! Yikes!!!)
  • Let's say I'm really sidetracked trying to do the right thing, and 'that', whatever it is, is now fairly obscure to me! Worse, if I keep editing new pages, I'm gonna lose chains of edits that lead me innocently into this conundrum. IIRC, I began editing in valley and Hollow, so spate of cross edit'ns been a wild as checking chain of links goes.

Thanks! Nice to say hi again. My oldest boy is starting college this August down your neck of the woods--Florida Tech. Got nearly a full scholarship which is definitely a good thing! Cheers // FrankB 17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

Hi, BD. Just want to let you know that I will be out on vacation starting Monday and will be gone for a week. I won't be able to review the artcile then. However, there's no need to rush on finishing the GA nomination. We can keep the GA nomination open for a while longer if you need extra time. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me as well - I'll call upon some other editors with knowledge in the area for a review. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

This is probably pure speculation, but...I know that there were rumors that Frank Murphy was allegedly the first gay SCOTUS justice. I doubt you could find any mention of this in reference sources, so I doubt that it warrants any inclusion in the article (i.e. it wasn't like the situation with J. Edgar Hoover, where persistent rumors surrounded him his whole career). --Eastlaw (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: There's this article, linked to Murphy's talk page, but it's pretty scant. I don't want to turn Wikipedia into the "Are they gay or not" website; I personally don't really care about these things as much as many others here do. How seriously you wish to take this reference is your decision. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It was in a book in print, I think it's worth a scant mention. bd2412 T 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to List of United States Supreme Court cases[edit]

Hi. I just noticed that User:MZMcBride has been removing links to this list from case articles. He's done it to like a hundred articles. Did I miss something? I left a message on his talk page but haven't heard from him. In any case, I could use a third opinion. It's been my impression that the links were ok because they were thought to be useful but before I revert his edits maybe we should talk about it and get a general consensus.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I think we're on top of it. Although we may be discussing whether to move the links to the infobox.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Law Review" vs. "Law Journal" Title[edit]

Hi, I appreciate you getting me on the right track as a new editor! I have posted a detailed rationale for why I wanted to move the Law Review page to Law Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_review Thanks, Brewsky83 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The NLJ 250[edit]

Hello again, BD2412. I have created this table based on the National Law Journal's rankings of the 250 largest law firms in the USA by headcount. I was wondering if you think such a thing would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia (we already have a listing of the largest UK and EU firms, by revenue). Also, if you do want me to make this an article, let me know if I should delete the salary information, as I am unsure if such data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Eastlaw (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with salary info - just another statistic to keep updated. Also, do we need all 250? bd2412 T 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that all 250 firms are necessarily notable, but I think it's useful enough to have on Wikipedia. Eastlaw (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it's a factual list, there should be no copyright concerns, I'm just wanting to avoid duplicating any of the source's editorial judgments (like having 250 as the cutoff). I'm also concerned about the possibility of the numbers becoming outdated quickly. But, I think the chances of any problem arising are quite remote. bd2412 T 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I already made the page: List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers. I didn't think that listing the same number that NLJ did would be a copyright problem. As far as the numbers becoming outdated, I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. I know the other lists of law firms are already outdated, since they use revenue figures from 2006 and 2007. Several of the firms on my list have already merged (which I've noted at the bottom).

By the way, if you feel more comfortable responding on your own talk page, that's fine with me. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks very good. I've made it sortable in case anyone has a hankering to look up the firms alphabetically or (more likely) by city. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities[edit]

Thanks for your expression of interest in Wikipedia Prisons, otherwise known as Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities. Seven people have now indicated here that they would like to help out so I am now assuming that this project will actually happen. I suppose we need to take care of a few preliminaries: getting through the proposal stage, and creating a wikiproject page, page tag, and maybe an infobox. Thanks again for your interest. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities Update[edit]

As you can see, this project has now taken off. Thanks for your support!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question[edit]

Hi, me again with another IP law question for you. I have a bad feeling that a lot of what we claim as fair use here on WP is actually not. After reading [5] I'm concerned that our overuse of non-free photos of deceased individuals doesn't come close to being fair use: Edward Boyd (one article that I worked on a bit), for example. Although WP may be non-profit, I think we might fail the first factor in that the use is not transformative, and being in the top 10 sites on the Internet means a small copyright infringement is visible by a large number of people kind of makes the non-profit aspect moot. Anyway, I'd like to get your thoughts on it when you have time. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The fair use factors are non-exclusive and are weighed collectively. Hence, it is possible for one or two of the factors to go against a fair use claimant while the remaining factors weigh more heavily in favor of the claimant. I'll have to think on it more. bd2412 T 22:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I get what you're saying; it's my poor wording that makes it seem like I have a poorer grasp of it than I actually do. So here's my analysis and I'm curious to see how much you agree/disagree:
  1. Purpose and character - not transformative (original intent of the creator is to portray the person depicted in the photo, which is what we are doing), non-profit educational use.
  2. Nature of the copied work - All non-free content here are required to have been previously published, but we have to consider the public interest in seeing what these people look like -- but I'm not sure how important it is to actually have a visual aid in many cases where the individual's appearance is not significant.
  3. Amount and substantiality - Generally speaking, we use 100% of the copyrighted photo, although there are cases where the photo is cropped to focus on the individual depicted.
  4. Effect upon work's value - I argue that our status as a top 10 web site increases the competition to sites that have to pay for the content, thus giving our visitors less incentive to go to other sites and thereby decreasing their traffic. Additionally, it's my understanding that copyright holders such as press agencies tend to charge based on expected distribution of the copyrighted work, so WP's nonpayment means a lost market opportunity for them.
So I have it that we fail the last two factors for sure, and likely the second factor as well, leaving the first factor up for grabs. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here. Do you mean the Pepsi Boyd? And a clear explanation of "transformative use" would help a lot, I think. I certainly don't fully understand that, let alone "original market role"... Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, not the Pepsi ad itself; I'm fairly certain we get fair use there. I'm talking about the photo of Edward Boyd himself. The ad is a decent example of transformative use; our use is different than the original intent (as an advertisement), whereas we are showing it in context to show how Pepsi eschewed racial stereotypes in their advertising. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use comment and request for advice[edit]

Hi there. I was reading an old discussion and noticed this comment. Would you be able to advise here. In particular, there was an old discussion for best practice for NFC images. See here. Would you have opinions on those images and their uses? Also, I wrote part of the comment at point 6 here: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." - does that sound OK? Sorry to pile all those questions on, but getting some knowledgeable opinion really helps in such discussions! Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro se[edit]

BD - I see you were over at the Pro Se article doing a little cleanup. Have you taken in what's going on over there? Any opinion?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation has caught my attention. I'm actually about to sign off, but tomorrow evening it will have my full attention. bd2412 T 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, how's LLM school treating you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
So far, so good! bd2412 T 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the secondary cites to confirm the plain language of primary source quotes (like you just removed) are "MLA cites" - KS was citing them because that's where she discovered it, and MLA would say that may require a citation. Moreover, these secondary cites still add nothing to confirm the relevance or interpretation of those sources, which is his or her biggest problem. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Law assessment[edit]

Hello BD2412, since you are a participant in WP Law can you help in a WP Law dispute? Several months ago a non-participant in WP Law removed the links to WP Law's assessment department and essentially squatted it: the editor did not make enough changes to return the link to the assessment department on WP Law's project page, refused to let others make necessary changes (and said the status quo would last a year longer), and adding content from WP India that specificially linked to WP India assessment department links (rather than WP Law). In the past week or so I have reopened the Assessment department after cleaning it up and reduced the number of unassessed articles by about a third (+3000 unassessed articles to about 2300 unassessed articles). Now the editor who squatted the assessment department is lashing out in two ways: (1) reverting the article assessment's I've made that assessed articles as a C class. The editor's argument is that WP Law has not adopted the C class. However, the assessment bigwigs of Wikipedia stated that the C class is a default opt-in and a consensus opt-out. Two WP Law participants (including myself) support the C class and the editor with whom I am in this disupte is the only editor against it, and so there is no consensus to opt-out. (2) the editor in disupte is reverting the changes I've made to the assessment department to return it to the defunct state. Could you please just state some of the rules, reiterate that the C class is an automatic opt-in, and suggest a possible mediation? Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is misrepresenting what's really happening here. His assessment was overriden for two reasons - (a) it was quite often poor in terms of following the quality scale that's been used (and sometimes incorrect usage of the importance scale), and (b) we have not adopted C-class, and the editorial team does not have the authority to impose their changes on the WikiProject. Seeing he wanted to use C-class, I opened the discussion on adopting it at the WikiProject talk page and informed him, while moving back those poorly assessed articles to more suitable grades. Since then, he's been revert-warring and being a complete nuisance, making only a handful of productive contributions in terms of trying to reactivate the assessment dept. But he's been making significant and clearly controversial changes, and continues to do so as if he has the authority. If he has no interest in making any productive contributions outside of assessment area, and keeps edit-warring over it, then that speaks for itself. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - he was reverted but does not seek consensus or discuss so please show him to that page so he does not continue in this fashion. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Either way, I'm headed out of town for a wedding, and will be offline until Monday night. Possibly Tuesday. If this issue is not otherwise resolved by then, I will resolve it. bd2412 T 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't Ted White?[edit]

Hey BD. I have come to chide you about an amusing edit you made to Seminole Tribe v. Florida. Ed White (11/3/1845-5/19/1921) took no part in the consideration of Union Gas Company. I have fixed it - but not before having a good laugh. It was brought to my attention by User:Mind the gap. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing subject slightly, thanks for the fixeroo on my additions to Pro Se, and your help with the Kay Sieverding situation, generally. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro se[edit]

BD: I put this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A little help when you come back?[edit]

United State congressional apportionment. An editor ran his own numbers and for some reason thinks his numbers are not original research and that the link cited for the article is. World's gone topsy turvy... Foofighter20x (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll look into it, but I really need more time to finish up my school and work projects. bd2412 T 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Violin Diary[edit]

Thanks for flagging my article on The Violin Diary, although it may be published through a vanity-press, doesn't mean it's not notable. It's perfectly notable. So BRING IT ON. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • There's nothing to bring. You're welcome to provide evidence that this book, unlike the vast majority of books in print, is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. bd2412 T 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you've decided to go and flag the TVD articles I started here and in WikiQuotes, but your vendetta against the subject matter will NOT be tolerated. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I assure you, my only vendetta is against Wikipedia (and Wikiquote) being used as advertising space for subjects which do not merit an encyclopedia article. If I am in error, please provide evidence of the encyclopedic notability of the subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy thar, pardner[edit]

Hey, pardner, just thought I'd say howdy. I still watch the tax articles (and in particular the tax protester-related articles) like a hawk; things have been fairly quiet for many months -- but you know how that goes, things can change at a moment's notice.

For about a year and a half, I have also been posting at the tax protester forum at www.quatloos.com. Very interesting forum.

I hope the LL.M. program is suitin' you fine. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, nice of you to stop by! The program is indeed keeping me busy (expect to see a lot of updating of various articles on Patent, Trademark, and Copyright once I get through with it). I hope all is equally well with you, my friend. bd2412 T 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Patience. You'll see where this is going in a moment. bd2412 T 06:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

I just altered the brackets around one of John Roberts' clerks on the transcluded list, but the edit did not show up in the main article. Is there a delay between the two lists or another way of editing the two lists I don't know about? Thanks, BoBo (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a delay. This can be dealt with by making a null edit (i.e. opening and saving the page without making any changes), but if you do nothing it should take care of itself in a few minutes. bd2412 T 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of movement[edit]

I noticed that you were the main contributor to the article and I wanted to thank you. I used it for a paper I wrote. Great job! --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Gerald Ford Supreme Court candidates[edit]

Updated DYK query On 12 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerald Ford Supreme Court candidates, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
BorgQueen (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 :-D bd2412 T 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh Kumar Mishra[edit]

You have recently deleted an article - Dinesh Kumar Mishra. I believe you are not aware of him. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mishra is a famous personality. He has been working at grass root level for more then 20 to 30 years in flood prone northern Bihar in India and is considered to be an expert on floods in the region. He has also written a few books related to the topic.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20080914/1056/tnl-the-man-who-told-the-kosi-sutra_1.html

http://www.ashoka.org/node/3565

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081231&filename=news&sec_id=15&sid=29

Google search

http://www.google.co.in/search?sa=N&tab=nw&q=Dinesh%20Kumar%20Mishra

I believe based on wikipedia policy - WP:NOTE, the article has a place here.

Manoj nav (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article for the time being - please expand it and provide evidence of the notability of the subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the sorely-needed article United States magistrate judge article. I was wondering when someone would write it. Well done! Neutralitytalk 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pshaw. I only broke out the section from Magistrate and added a few lines here and there. ;-) bd2412 T 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Lincoln[edit]

It is in fact acceptable practice to begin a sentence with 'so,' in the sense that the word is used as a synonym for 'consequently,' or 'hence,' or 'thus.' It is less formal usage than those words, but is, nevertheless, acceptable. [6] Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable, perhaps, but this is formal writing we are engaged in. And, in any event (as my edit demonstrates) unnecessary in that sentence. bd2412 T 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with formal writing, but there is nothing that says that 'formal' writing must be stilted writing. Sorry, but I don't see that your edit improves the sentence. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Greek[edit]

Excuse me, but why did you restore the deleted history of Medieval Greek? I deleted it quite deliberately, because the substance of the article, from its very first edits to the last, was a copyvio. The fresh stub I wrote in October was truly new, no need to have it linked to the earlier copyvio history. Fut.Perf. 10:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it, but are you sure about it being a copyvio? I could not find the copyrighted text from which it was alleged to have been copied. bd2412 T 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind - dealt with. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

JRB37[edit]

So far there's only two hold outs for this to a featured article, and with Feb 5 fast approaching, I'm hoping you might be able to help put to an end the few minor points these guys are making; especially about what one calls "peacock words" which make the article "unencyclopedic." Discussion is here. I can't think of how to tackle the "peacock word" problem as the four books I read on the topic right before writing the article all called it those things. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges[edit]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I am currently trying to get some outside help for this project; specifically, I have asked the Quadell to come out of retirement and use his mighty Polbot to help us out with this. I cannot promise you anything, but hopefully we can make this happen. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 11:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I am. Eastlaw contacted me, and I agree that the biographical information at FJC would best be imported into Wikipedia by a bot, and I am willing to head up this project. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here before I dig in. Polbot previously imported data like this into a new article like this, and the script would be changed to pull in similar information from the FJC. Does this sound good to you? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes - that's pretty much perfect, but there are a few hitches to be aware of (some of them I'm sure you already are):
  • We already have articles on about a third of the judges, but some of those have no FJC information, as the judge in question was also at some point a congressman or a governor or the like, and the article was made based on information about this other career.
  • Many of the names are also for unrelated existing articles that need to be disambiguated.
    • Based on the above, I'd say if no entry exists, import to the judge's name, and if one does exist, import to a subpage of the project so human eyes can be set on it to determine if it needs merging into the existing entry or a new entry.
  • Each article should have an {{FJC Bio| }} template with the bio number.
  • Each article should have a succession box indicating the dates of active service, and the judge before and after in that seat, if any. The subtle distinction is between most judges, whose service starts when they receive their commission, and recess appointments, whose service starts on the date of the appointment itself.
Cheers! bd2412 T 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for all this info. Yes, all this sounds good. The only really difficult part would be the succession boxes -- I'm not sure if I'll be able to get those to work or not. All the other stuff should be fine though. I guess I should leave a {{WPBiography}} tag on the talk page, too, if I'm creating the article. I'll work on this script in the next several days or weeks. Also, I guess I'll need to get it approved by the BAG as well. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
...and I put in a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 10. I guess further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

political candidate speech in public domain[edit]

Hi I notice that you said "speeches of political candidates for federal office made in their official capacity are government works in the public domain" in this article http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Remarks_of_Senator_Barack_Obama_on_New_Hampshire_Primary_Night I adapted a Barack Obama speech into a song. Could you tell me how I can prove to naysayers that the speech is Public Domain.

Daviddii (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Answered on my Wikisource talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Federal judge articles[edit]

Hi. I haven't forgotten about this issue, but I'm also having some trouble. What I've got so far is at User:R'n'B/Federal judge project‎‎. It includes a list of all the federal judges who have ever served with a link to their FJC biography. The next column is an attempt to guess the title of the Wikipedia article about that person; as you can see, this is very hit-or-miss. I think the next step will have to be a manual review to confirm the valid pages and try to replace the invalid ones or create stub articles. Then we can determine which articles need succession boxes. Any suggestions? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look up my page a bit, Quadell has offered to import this information by bot, so you should check with him to avoid potential duplication of efforts. I've been working up a list myself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges. I have culled out of that list the pages that I have done to my satisfaction. Many of the remaining links are to disambiguation pages, or otherwise false positives. I used the AWB list-comparer to generate a list of articles under the various categories for federal judges, which has led me to solve a number of those issues with redirects, but that list is a bit hit-or-miss because it includes magistrate judges and other non-Article III federal judges. Also, there is a Judgepedia which has entries on most of them which are at least more wikified than what the FJC has. Those should both be useful resources for getting this off the ground. Thanks again! bd2412 T 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I'll just wait until Quadell is done, then see what can be done about succession boxes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have noted a few thoughts on the best direction of the Federal Judges project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Judge Kent[edit]

Regarding your edits in the Judge Kent article, re: Article III, my understanding is that, although he's retired from the bench, he is still entitled to federal payroll as well as retirement/pension package unless he is impeached by congress. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Resigned and retired are two different things. But he would get his pension even if he were impeached, absent special legislation to strip him of it, which has nothing to do with his Article III status, and everything to do with him being a federal employee. bd2412 T 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • After re-reading the the Houston Chronicle source article, two things stand out: a) the source specifically states that the "retired from the bench", but does not use the terminology "resigned". b) source states "...possible, if not likely, that the Congress will now look at impeaching Kent to take him off the federal payroll and retirement package he gets as a federal judge..."
    • The article used the term "resigned" (which I have since changed). Since retire and resign are two different things, the article needs to reflect the terminology of the source; if he did indeed resign and not "retire", then a source needs to be found that states that. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmmm - if he indeed "retired" rather than resigned, then Congressional action will be necessary to keep him from taking senior status pay. bd2412 T 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Does he meet the age and time-of-service qualifications for senior status? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Doubtful - born in 1949 would make him 60-ish, so five years short of the minimum age for senior status - and his nineteen years on the bench would also put him at a total of 79, one short of the combined 80 needed for senior status as well. But he could, like Walter Nixon before him, claim that his is ready, willing, and able to serve, but for his being in jail, and that his salary can not be reduced unless he agrees to it (but it would be an odd plea if he had not agreed to that). bd2412 T 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he did agree to that. Best thing here might be to table this for a day or two and see what the papers say, and what comes up on the FJC database. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with tabling it for a few days. If you're familiar with the case, and Judge Kent's history on the bench (meaning his opinions etc), it has been anything but ordinary. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I have you guys here, I'm planning to propose splitting off a Wikiproject for U.S. courts and judges (separate from U.S. law, which has plenty to cover with just statutes and doctrinal stuff). Would you be interested in participating? bd2412 T 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be an interesting and worthy project, IMHO. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The project is now formally proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested too, although as a matter of practice given my RL occupation, I generally from editing about judges who are currently active in my part of the country, except possible for ministerial matters such as dates of appointment etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question[edit]

ShakespeareFan00 has tagged some images with a new copyright tag he has created, {{Non-free data overlay}}. It is to be used when a PD image has a copyrighted image, he says. Now, my understanding is that the images he tagged File:Highhalden-jul45.jpg, File:Staplehurst-21may1944.jpg, and File:Ashford-11may44.jpg (which are all PD), have overlays that can not possibly meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright, as the overlays are simply black boxes with simple typefaces. He claims that under UK law these are copyrighted. In your professional opinion (both legally, and in terms of the policy): 1) does UK copyright law apply? 2) Can those overlays be copyrighted in the US? in the UK? Is there any situation where that template could be used? Thanks for your help, Prodego talk 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with UK copyright law, but so far as I know, no copyright regime protects such simple elements. However, all question can be resolved by copying the images into a graphics program (MS Paint will do, even) and overwriting the contested bits in a slightly different font. bd2412 T 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Would UK law apply? Is that a valid template? Your opinion is that the overlay would not be copyrightable? Should the tags be removed? The template deleted? Prodego talk 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
UK law would not apply in the United States, but people in the UK can access Wikipedia, and therefore the uploader could be sued in the UK, if the purported copyright owner is also in the UK (that is a question of personal jurisdiction, not copyright). If the uploader is not in the UK, and has no assets in the UK, a lawsuit will probably yield no benefit to the person who filed it. I can not see a UK judge blocking the country's access to Wikipedia on the basis of a few questionable copyright assertions. In the United States, the overlay would definitely NOT be copyrightable, and I the tag would be useless. If the overlay were more substantial - a grid of ten identified cities chosen at the fancy of the author, for example, or a clearly unique custom font - then the template could validly be used. As long as there is a theoretical valid use, I would leave the template to be, but I would remove it from these images. bd2412 T 18:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Howell Cobb[edit]

It does seem likely that the late Judge Cobb was related to the Cobb family, judging by the name, the fact that they both were in high-profile political positions, and that they both had origins in the state of Georgia, however I haven't found anything to confirm this. If you want to look this up further and find anything that confirms our suspicions, feel free to make the proper additions to the Cobb family section. Packerfansam 25 February 2009

Thanks for responding, I'll keep looking. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay of execution[edit]

There's no reason you should remember me, but you were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia nearly three years ago. I know you do a lot of work on legal articles, and I wanted to call your attention to the article Stay of execution. It seems like a very scanty and somewhat misleading article. The phrase is, of course, known commonly, almost exclusively, in the context of capital cases, so it has come to be synonymous with "a halt to the carrying out of a death sentence". But I know that "execution" in this phrase means, in its most general sense, "the carrying out of", and it can apply not just to the death penalty but to any court judgment, law, regulation, or other government-issued edict. I really don't know the law very well, and I don't have the resources to consult. If you could find the time to clarify Stay of execution just a little, that would be great. Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested review[edit]

bd2412, would you consider looking over my contributions (usually Sup Ct case reports) and making specific suggestions as to how to improve the article? If so thanks. Start, perhaps, with Quanta v. LGE, where I am having a vandal problem. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to - I'll start tomorrow afternoon (I'm finishing something else up right now). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
BD, pl. send me your current eml address. You know mine--still the same as before. I have some questions best addressed in eml. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty careful about segregating my Wikipedia life from my "real" life - you can email me at BD2412(at)hotmail.com. If you'd prefer, you can use my student email, which has not changed as I'm still enrolled (and I think perhaps I get to keep it even after I graduate). bd2412 T 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Income Tax facts which you are deleting[edit]

User BD2412,

Before you just start deleting items from Wiki entries you should consider doing some fact checking.

You may find this very interesting, here are the results of computer data mining federal tax code: http://whatistaxed.com

Evidently, tax professionals (and Wiki editors) have chosen to remain ignorant of the legal definition written for "Exempt income".

Here is the actual page from Income tax law: http://whatistaxed.com/26cfr1.861-8T.pdf

Be sure to verify facts & accuracy of this using the following examples: (and notice section 861, the so-called Frivolous 861 Argument) - excluded income - eliminated income - eliminated items - specific sources - specific guidance - deductions to gross income - deductions to excluded income - income that is exempt or excluded - how to determine taxable income - the sources of income for purposes of the income tax - etc, there's more

Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

See more examples at: http://whatistaxed.com

You can see section 861 is not frivolous at all, but this Color of Law tax scam needs to stop. Making great-grandchildren pay unlawful tax bills because of our ignorance (or greed) is disgusting, pathetic, & weak.

So, BD2412, Be sure to tell your cohorts that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." 75.161.89.118 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that whoever told you that is either a moron with no understanding of how a statute works, or worse a scam artist trying to sell something by preying on people's desire to avoid the costs that go with supporting the existence of Western civilization. The 861 argument is equivalent to saying that if someone notes that a Cadillac is a kind of car, that means that nothing else is a car. It has been found to be an idiotic reading by the courts, and Congress (which wrote the statute in the first place) has never suggested that the courts were mistaken. Indeed, a number of people have already gone to jail for failing to pay income tax on the basis of that argument. bd2412 T 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)