User talk:A E Francis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I[edit]

A tag has been placed on Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. exolon 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Already covered in the main Thomas Aquinas article - completely redundant

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. exolon 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way - add the hangon tag to the article page, not your user talk page. exolon 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The information in Thomas Aquinas is going to be removed, post haste! A E Francis 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas[edit]

I'm not quite sure how you're going about this, but you need to leave summaries behind of the information you're moving out, and clear links to the expanded info. exolon 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Well, it isn't at all clear how to cut and paste these from the original section, so I am re-typing them here. They have been removed from the original sites. There is no redundancy. What are you, some kind of anti-Catholic bigot? A E Francis 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Er - no I'm not a bigot (Please see WP:NPA). The point I'm making is that you've cut a lot of info out of the article, which isn't visible anywhere on wikipedia at the moment. Also it's important to leave behind enough info for a basic overview of the info you're removing, and clear links to the info's new location.

I'll try and give an example - e.g. the section you've just removed on Forced Baptism. You should leave behind a summary paragraph with the basic info and a link to the new article where the more in depth info is now listed.

E.g. (rough draft)

==Aquinas and forced baptism of children of Jews and heretics==

Main article Thomas Aquinas on the issue of forced baptism

The question frequently arose whether the children of Jews and other heretics and non-believers should be baptized against the will of their parents. Two schools of thought were generally followed: The First School: That since all persons who were not baptized would be damned to hell, all children should be baptized. This was the position of John Duns Scotus. It could be argued that this approach reduced the sacrament of baptism to nothing but a "magical" right. The Second School: That it violated natural law to disrupt the order of the family by interferring. Therefore, even if children were being reared in error, the Church had no authority to intervene. This was the position taken by Aquinas.

This gives the reader of the main article some idea and context, and he can read the main article for a more in depth treatment.

Do you get what I'm trying to say? exolon 22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, I understand, but here is what happened: I started typing on the Thomas Aquinas site a few weeks ago.... the article was 95 KB which was way over the limit of 32 KB, so I have started new pages... there are links I have added at the bottom of the Thomas Aquinas page.... there was also some disagreement (mild) with Dave aukman whether these tihings belonged on the Thomas Aquinas page in the first place. This is a matter of opinion, and taste. So I am more than willing to move these. I am typing as fast as I can. I will also leave whatever "tags" behind you think are appropriate.A E Francis 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

February 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Aquinas and the Sacraments. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —BradV 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[edit]

That was your third revert to Thomas Aquinas today. Please do not violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule-- thanks. --Carlaude (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ownership??[edit]

You speak here [1] and [2] about "my articles". Wikipedia articles are not owned. Moreover, User:Carlaude's edits seem to be done in good faith, and certainly do not qualify as vandalism. They may be incorrect, but the solution is to discuss them in the talk page. Tb (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending or addressing what User:Carlaude may have done or not done. I have also found him to be difficult to work with at times. But regardless, adopting a position of ownership is not appropriate, nor is violating WP:3RR, no matter how sure you are the edits are wrong. Be very careful of that one: WP:3RR exceptions are extremely narrowly drawn. It is not right to insist that people must clear changes with you, and that seems to be what you are doing. Moreover, I checked out the talk pages, and I don't see a lot of working through of compromises there either. Please remember that this is a collaborative enterprise, and that the Wikipedia policies apply to all content. I have in mind there especially Aquinas and the Sacraments, where you seem to have essentially declared that no matter what the policies may be, you will do as you please on "your" article. Degrees--I have a fancy one too--are not relevant here, nor are questions of ownership. Tb (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought of Aquinas[edit]

I didn't say the article should be deleted; I said the opposite. But my concern is that it is currently POV. Why are these the right topics? The death penalty, for example, was not a major concern for Aquinas. He said nothing new, and was addressing nothing controversial for his time. But singling it out makes it seem like he is especially notable for it. Much more important to him was reconciling hylomorphism with Christianity, something which was shocking to his contemporaries, and which his attempt may well have been a (brilliant) failure, and which is provocative and fascinating (to professional philosophers, at least). Here we have one of his most singular contributions to philosophy, and it's not there at all. LIkewise, the question of forced baptism was nothing very important to him; nobody seriously suggested forced baptism, and his response to the question is a commonplace. But can we discuss this on the talk page? Others may be interested too. Tb (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpoena ad testificandum[edit]

Ahh, at first glance it appeared that there were only a list of references at the bottom. Now I see you're using the Harvard method of inlines, but that you're doing it manually (use Template:Harvard_citation for doing it more automatically). I get my information from WP:CITE, and I tend to use <ref> tags with various citation templates. This makes a little superscript number show up (I'm sure you've seen them before, like here:[1]). It's possible to use Harvard citation templates which also generate a reference list at the bottom of the page, but I haven't seen this used anywhere in practice. It's your decision what citation format to use (more or less) since you've been putting so much work into that article. I'm willing to help you convert the references to inline refs since all the information is there and it's just a formatting issue. Let me know. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank, thanks for the comment. Actually, I started putting this article only a few days ago, and am in the process of editing in the various references... and re-reading for the many typos... I used to edit a medical legal journal, and the usual method is to write the short version of the reference at the end of the thought, with the full citation at the bottom. As I have learned, this is called the Harvard method. I am used to it. Anyway, there are too many references in my original writing, so I am trying to get them down to a useful minimum. thanks again. (Those links of the supreme court cases looked dorky in blue... so I am glad you changed them!) A E Francis (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
First I hope you don't mind my reformatting your response. By using colons you can indent your response and it won't get mixed up with other text on the page.
I don't think you should pare down your references: more is better for the most part. If you use footnotes (<ref> tags), the reference shows up as that floating blue number and links to a corresponding reference at the bottom of the article. Check out WP:FOOT for more information. Have you decided to stick with Harvard referencing for the time being? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank -- yes, I am going to stick with the Harvard method for the time being. There are about 30 case sites that I have left out, because they are mainly old and have been superceded for the most part. They are contained in the ALR and Am Jur references. I am not locked into any particular system, but I am used to that harvard method. I don't mind using a number system, but it can be sort of distracting if there are a lot of numbers. Thanks for your inputA E Francis (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking?[edit]

AE Francis: I have noticed that recently, you have inserted links to the subpoena articles into the "see also" sections of several law-related article pages. These sections contain links to related articles. Except for the article on the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure, the articles to which you have added these links have very little connection to issues of trial process and procedure, to which subpoena procedure is relevant. Because the connection is too attenuated, these links are inappropriate in these articles. I intend to remove these links from the articles on antitrust law and the 4th amendment. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Mr. Francis, I did read the articles. They're very good; I know you're not a hack. I also appreciate your constructive approach to discussing our disagreement. I hope you will not take the speed with which I pursued my agenda as any kind of a rebuke of your edits. WP:AGF; WP:Bold.

The concern I have is about something of a grey area in the wiki policies. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be rich with internal links, however only those that are relevant to the subject of the articles. WP:MOSLINKS. As per MOS, articles should neither be overlinked, nor underlinked.

Here, we are looking of articles, all of which are about law. More specifically, one about Constitutional protection of the rights of accused and suspected criminals, and two about acts of Congress modifying the competition law regime. Are links to articles about the subpoena procedure relevant to these articles?

As you observe, the subpoena articles themselves mention the subjects of the articles to which you added the cross-refs. That strengthens the case that they are germane.

I would observe however, that if we look only to what is germane, we would run the risk of overlinking. Consider if you will, an analogy to the "generalized greivance" doctrine in Art. III "standing" cases, wit which I am sure you are familiar. That doctrine holds that if an injury is so general that you cannot sensibily discern those who have it, from those who do not, you have no personally-suffered injury, even if Congress wishes otherwise. Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)(Scalia, J., effectively equating an injury suffered by all to an injury suffered by none). I would apply similar reasoning here: if you can't say why two articles should cross-reference one another on a way that justifies why they should be, as opposed to another, they should not be cross-referenced.

Here, we are dealing with articles about subpoenas - a procedural tool, available to many agencies, in many cases. Almost every article about a law topic could have some connection to these articles. If all else fails, you could quip about what evidence it might be helpful to subpoena. As you are an attorney, I don't think I need to start rattling off half-baked examples for you to see where this is going.

I see a stronger case for inclusion of the cross-references in the articles on the 4th Amendment, and a slightly stronger case for the FTC and Robinson-Patman act articles, in that, at least the subjects of those articles are mentioned in the subpoena duces tecum article. By the time we get to the Clayton act article, we are so attenuated in our justification that we blur into "generalized linking."

Still, even the Robinson-Patman Act and FTC articles bother me. Yes, the FTC has subpoena power over records to investigate anti-competitive practices --- but what federal agency doesn't have extra-judicial subpoena power over something? What, so to speak, is "special" about the FTC? Like Scalia, I'm looking for their plane ticket, and I can't find it.

The other thing is that, unless I'm mistaken, not all cross-references need to be reciprocal. The subpoena article which mentions the antitrust acts and the FTC rightly links to their main articles. Do those articles need to link back? If someone is reading the subpoena articles and is curious about those laws/institutions, they can click to learn more. Does someone reading about the FTC or the Robinson-Patman or Clayton antitrust acts need to know about subpoenas to get a sufficient and encyclopediac understanding of those subjects? I am not sure. If they are, perhaps it should be explained in the body article instead of "see also" where it's value is apparent only to people like you and I, who already know it already.

I hope I've explained my reasoning adequately. I would be more than happy to hear from you more on the subject and I will always entertain reconsideration for any good reason. For the sake of convenience, why don't we stick to using just one user page (yours?) for the remainder of the discussion? Also, FYI, if we have any intractable disagreement, I'd also be happy to get a neutral editor's comment via (WP:RFC). At this point, it does not seem necessary - I have confidence in our ability to privately-order the resolution.

Thanks again for replying and I hope to hear from you again soon. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Did you study anything in particular for your LLD? Did you do a dissertation, and if so, on what (and whom to?). The LLD/JSD are quite rarely-seen; I have only ever met one man who has one.

Hi Matt... yes I did it in Legal Medicine. I was a spinal surgeon for a while, and went to law school on the side. I got the LLD in 1987, but it doesn't seem that long ago. I am 54 years old this summer. I have a company called "Legal Medicine Research"... I used to write quite a few tort cases. Now that I have this job with the federal courts, I don't have the need, nor the time to mess around with trial lawyers so much, although I don't mind them. A E Francis (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up Hi again, A E Francis. I see you are continuing to proliferate the mainspace with see-also cross-references to the pages on subpoenas. Thank you for paying attention to wikipedia, and I'm glad I have not in any way discouraged you. I've noticed though, that while some of your additions are understandable, I am scratching my head to understand others. I think you've run the risk of overdoing it. May I suggest you post at the WP:LAW talk page and see how your fellow editors feel about this endeavor? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt: Just where have I proliferated? And why is this a big deal? A E Francis (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Francis: The proliferation is as follows: 12:58, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Court of Chancery‎ (→See also) (top) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Summons‎ (→See also) (top) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Danelaw‎ (→See also) (top) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Magna Carta‎ (→See also) (top) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by combat‎ (→See also) (top) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Fourth Council of the Lateran‎ (→External links) (top) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by ordeal‎ (→See also) (top) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by ordeal‎ (→See also) 03:34, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Due process‎ (→See also) (top) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Certiorari‎ (→Administrative law) (top) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Deposition (law)‎ (→Related Linkds) (top) 03:48, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Habeas corpus‎ (→See also) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Reporters' Privilege‎ (→See also) (top) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Social Security (United States)‎ (→See also) 03:33, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure‎ (→External links) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Interrogatories‎ (→United States)

Including The 4th amendment article, which I did not molest, you have now added "see also" or "related links" to 16 pages. I do not conclude whether there is any "big deal" or not, however, if you haven't yet noticed it, this proliferation is unusual, and unorthodox.

I do not want to stifle your contributions to wikipedia in any way. However, I am concerned that is excessively technical. Wikipedia is not a practice guide nor a historical treatise on the law. It is an encyclopedia. Personally, I think this is inconsistent with that aesthetic. I am not the authority on the aesthetic of wikipedia, but "the community" is. I would like the community to weigh in on it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Those links are justified because each of those topics is discussed, or mentioned, in a meaningful way, in my articles. Who put you in charge of editing my links? Clearly, related links are a matter of judgment. To me, it is no big deal. If someone doesn't think a link is appropriate, the answer is simple: take it down. I have only replaced one that was taken down, and that was on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Someone had removed my links to subpoena, and I put them back up, thinking I hadn't done it in the first place. But I am not interested in getting into a war over any of this. The Magna Carta is significant since that document is involved in due process, of which subpoena is a vital part. But, as I have written, that is a matter of judgment. I have a suggestion for you and the rest of the Wiki community: why don't you work on repairing the many articles that are clearly sub par? For instance, the individual who removed my subpoena links from the Administrative Proecdure Act article wrote that the APA article needed work. It sure does. Why don't you add to it by telling about Goldburg v. Kelly, and Perales v. Richardson? To be honest, there are a lot of really poor articles in Wiki. I quit writing on Wiki once because of the excessive and coflicting demands of the editors. I changed my mind, and have been trying to repair some articles I could legitimately write about. As I said, I am not interested in fighting anyone. I have run into readers and commentors who like lots of links. But links aren't essential. Many articles don't have any links. It is a matter of judgment, and how one perceives Wiki should be. I have run into editors who don't think Wiki should be written above a junior high school level. If that is the standard, I won't be writing anymore. There are also editors who don't want any mention of religion, etc, etc. Let's have some peace on this. If you don't like the links, then take them down. I'm not going to fight you. But why don't you, and the others who are obsessing over my links put that energy into repairing some articles? Your energy would be better spent. A E Francis (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A E Francis, I don't want you to look at this as "you against me" and I'm not taking charge of any aspect of wikipedia. There are no "my" articles and no "your" articles on Wikipedia. See [WP:OWN]. It's a community project. Under that community project, there's a certain aesthetic. Your edits change the status quo. I don't know if it's for the better or the worse, but I have some concerns. I'm speaking up for the status quo, not because I don't like your edits, but because that's part of our jobs as editors wanting to make wikipedia a better place. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt: I think you are making a big deal out of not very much. If you don't like the links to the subpoena articles, take them down. The "subpoena" articles were a sentence or two before I wrote them. If that is the "status quo" you are worried about preserving, then reconsider your position. If you don't think these articles should be linked to other articles, then take them down. What's so difficult about that? I still think your efforts would be better directed at improving some of the poor articles on wiki, instead of fretting about the propriety of what article should link to what. A E Francis (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

happened to drop by, and thought another opinion might help here, since it sounds like an impasse, and the rule is a little subjective. Per the Manual of Style, we try to use only essential see alsos--everything in the world is linked to everything else, and if we make every possibly help cross reference, it can be distracting. this is after all a general encyclopedia. Now I know that the manner of cross referencing in legal treatises is very dense, for the very good purpose of making sure that nothing is overlooked that might affect a case. But that doesn't really apply here. Despite the excellent work of yourselves and a few other editors, there are so many topics still missing or inadequate, that anyone doing serious legal research would be much better off elsewhere.
Let's look at some of the examples. The article on Fourth Council of the Lateran as currently written, does not appear to deal with subpoenas. The article discusses only some of the canons adopted there, but reading them all, though some refer to procedure in canon law, they do not appear to deal directly with the equivalent of this subject either. I am not sure just what the relevance is of the links. Trial by combat also does not mention this. Obviously the general topic of procedure is relevant , but I do not see how this specifically is. Perhaps there is something more specific, but in that case the article should make it evident. On the other hand, Summons is obviously a very closely related concept. But the article should discuss the relationship, not just have a see also which will not be very clear to the beginner. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is somewhat different. "Subpoena" is, as one would expect, mentioned three times in section 1.6. The first of these is, correctly, linked to the general article on Subpoena. The two specific forms are not specifically mentioned. If they are considered sufficiently important to include in this general article, then they should be included that way, rather than as an external link. How to do it best I of course leave to the experts. And so on. Hope this helps. When experts write articles, they should write them so they can be used as models. DGG (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG and Matt: Thanks for your comments. I am not "set in concrete" about any of this. I can live with whatever the community wants to do. If the links seem inapropriate, then they should come down. The Fourth Lateran Council ended trial by ordeal in England, which led to the use of the "writ subpoena", which seemed a good link to me. But, as I have written, this is largely a matter of judgment. I'm not really wanting to get into a battle with anyone over this. I can live with whatever the community wants to do. As I have written, it seems a small matter to take the links down. The reference on linking mentions that a rule of thumb for hyperlinking is having more than 10% of the words in an article "linked", which isn't the case with the articles I have written. Relevance is another matter, and is a judgment call. A E Francis (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DDG's concerns are similar in essence to my mind. As for whether too much is made of this, well, that is the nature of a community project like wikipedia - anything can be discussed, and sometimes, you don't realize how much discussion something gets. I appreciate your historical elaboration (it's similar to what I read in my civil procedure casebook), but I still don't think the see-alsos are necessary. DDG articulated the "necessity" aspect of this far better than I did. In any case, I am sorry that you feel excessive discussion of this has detained you, but I think that comity between editors requires discussion before editors take action that undoes the bona fide work of another. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt: I don't mind discussing any topic. The issue of linking is is a worthy topic. But here's the rub: If DGG does not know that subpoenas were proximately caused by the actions of the Fourth Lateran Council, and the article on the Fourth Lateran Council doesn't mention it, then is it legitimate to link the Fourth Lateran Council to articles on subpoena which do mention it? (Assuming that the this is factually correct, which it is.) The same can be said of trial by ordeal, Magna Carta, etc. I have run into this quite a bit on Wiki: If the editor doesn't know it, then it doesn't exist. This, in my opinion, is why so many articles on Wiki are lacking. And the attitude of some of the editors (not you nor DGG) is so overbearing, that people who know things are highly reluctant to correct or add to articles. For instance, the article on Administrative Law and the Administrative Procedure Act should discuss Morgan v. US, Goldberg v. Kelly and Perales v. Richardson. But after this, there is no way I am going to go on those articles and try to write about these cases. Is Wiki made better by that? You answer the question. As for linking: that is simply a judgment call. Are we writing Wiki for a junior high level? Or something more informative? Writing with an element of informative detail is not like writing a comprehensive text, or an authoritative learned treatise. A E Francis (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A.E.: I think you're misstating the issue slightly. Removing a cross-reference hardly testifies to the non-existence of the subject, or the connection. But as DGG pointed out more succinctly than I, "see also" cross-references are disfavored. If something is important enough tot he subject to have a link, it is better that it be mentioned in the text itself. If that cannot be done, or no one cares to do it, the "see also" section is a poor substitute. That's just a general principle. More specifically, I am of the impression that the articles on subpoenas are high-quality, *but* they articles about technical terms, too technical for what the average reader looking to find information about trial by combat would need to know. I'm not opposed to them being here, or beinga available, but to include links to them everywhere, especially without contemporaneous explanation, changes the look of wikipedia for the worse. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt: I can live with your judgment and assessment of this situation. Whatever you decide, I will live with. A E Francis (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AE, the thing to do is to use your knowledge to expand the relevant articles so they do mention what is important. Now that you remind me, i do recall the significance for English law, but its not obvious enough for a bare sa. It would not be appropriate to list as a see also everything the 4LC affected indirectly. As a general encyclopedia, what we need are more articles. For example, you mention Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 -- it is in fact rather astounding we don;'t have an article on it, but I suggest that writing such an article is much more important than trying to describe it in related articles. DGG (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave: I will take your suggestions seriously. I have noticed there are a lot of stub articles in the legal, or legal history sections, and I have intended to expand some of these. Concerning Morgan v. US: this is one of three cases which have defined modern due process (the others are Goldberg v. Kelly and Perales v. Richardson). Morgan v. US led directly to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. If Morgan v US deserves an article, I can write it. APA was modelled directly on Social Security Law and procedures. There was a host of cases which tested the constitutionality of social security, namely: Steward Machine Co v. Davis 1937; Helvering v. Davis; Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke; Fleming v. Nestor; Social Security Board v. Nierotko, are the prominent ones. My personal feeling is that while these may interesting to constitutional scholars, they probably don't belong in Wiki. But Morgan, Goldberg and Perales probably do. It is a matter of judgment. (Tony Francis) A E Francis (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jencks v. United States[edit]

Updated DYK query On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jencks v. United States, 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) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Trover etc[edit]

Hello A E Francis, I just wanted to say, it happened that I came across two articles you've written today: Trover and Henry de Bracton: both of which are superb (you might even like to have a go at the mess in conversion (law)!). Keep up the good work on these law articles! We need more lawyers like you on Wikipedia! And if you feel like attacking the occasional high-school-esque student, don't worry, I know how you feel. Wikidea 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why not give yourself a userpage? Wikidea 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If I could just add another comment: I just read some of the above on the page. It's obvious that you've got a vast amount to contribute (I expect you can do much of it off the top of your head too), and what can be really frustrating is when editors just want to block it because they don't like changing stuff (I encountered this in a few places when I started, and it drove me bananas). What I realise more and more is that you can go into endless detail on any given subject, and Wikipedia allows you to do that, with sub pages, sub sub pages, subsubsub, etc. Can I suggest this tactic if you're in a subpoena type situation? I only say this, because it might save getting angry. One thing that we can never have too many of is simply cases: lots of cases; or statutes. Also, good referencing is really important for lawyers (I try to make what I write just look like a textbook, or practitioner book might) and I definitely structure (more in WP:STYLE). Oh, and one more, peevishly British thing, there's nothing wrong with writing new pages entitled, e.g. "Subpoenas in the United States" rather than putting country-specific material on the general, cross jurisdictional page. This is something I've been doing more lately. You've probably worked all this out anyway. :) Wikidea 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikidea: Thanks so much for your kind words. I have found that concentrating on little known topics which most are not interested is a good tactic when writing on Wiki. Adding a lot of references is useful. I think there are some topics like controversial ones, or ones concerning religious figures which are better avoided. They just draw too much attention from nuts who have an agenda, or want to pick a fight. To be honest, not many really care about Bracton. This spring, besides Bracton and Trover, I have written Quia Emptores, Subpoena ad testificandum, Subpoena duces tecum, Continuance, United States v. Reynolds, Jencks v. United States, Jencks Act,and Cestui Que. I have been writing Federal Tort Claims Act. This has proven to be problematic in many ways, but I think I will get it done soon. I am also working on Brown-Sequard Syndrome. There are several US cases I have on my list. I wouldn't mind cleaning up Conversion, which as you mention, is a bit of a mess. I am always leery of getting into an article which is under the watch of some nasty troll. Apparently, Conversion is not one of these. Others I have thought about are Frankalmoign, Detinue, Assumpsit, among others. Many of the medieval statute articles could be re-done. I am interested in English Common Law from the Normans on. There is a real vacuum in US education in these areas. Anyway, thanks for your kind message, and keep in touch. A E Francis (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Tort is one area I'm particularly interested in, so I'll look forward to seeing what you do. Btw, User:Yannismarou - a good guy - has a nice sort of guide for writing featured articles (he's done and been involved with quite a few) which you could find interesting. Also, User:Non Curat Lex is, I've always found, a good contributor, as is User:Cutler. Copying how other people edit can be useful. Wikidea 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry de Bracton[edit]

Just saw this article; I've seen some of your other work and keep meaning to drop by but never do. Anyway: fantastic article! Could I perhaps ask a favour? You obviously know a lot about law-related topics; I've significantly (read:fivefold) expanded the article on the Court of Common Pleas; not sure if you know much about it, but if you do would you mind helping out? I'm thinking with some good hard work we could get it to GA or even FA. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have copies of Plucknett and Pollock? Maitland I've encountered; Holdsworth's 16-volume text (particularly the first volume) was invaluable for writing the article; I love his style of writing, for some reason. Basically anything you have from Pollock and Plucknett that isn't in the article already would be incredibly helpful :). Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know that last bit, but then it wasn't my area of focus. The most interesting thing I found out was that due to the constitutional rule that senior english justices are impossible to remove, when it came to merging the three highest english common law courts in 1273 they had to wait seven years until two of the Chief Justices died. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! My uni law library tends to focus more on current than historical law, so I'm loosing out somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your expansions: Wow. I've corrected a couple of links and clarified what Glanvill's treaties actually is for readers, and the Common Pleas was disestablished as a court in 1873, not 1875. Be careful, by the way, to put things in chronological order; Some of the stuff you put in repeated content already there at a later date; reasons for the creation of the common court, followed by location, followed by reasons. Thanks for your help so far :D. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The common form of referencing on WP, by the way; taking Plucknett as an example, you'd have the full book title and citation in a "bibliography" below the "references". When you put an inline citation in just put (for example) "Plucknett p.52" instead of the full citation and page number. Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The initial judicature act was '73, and the full merger was '80. I've added the bibliography citation for Plucknett, so just go through and replace them with Plucknett, p.52 or whatever it is. Thanks for all your help. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected some grammar and styling, particularly; references should immediately follow the full stop without a space, so it would be.[1] rather than . [1]. Secondly, you seem to use double spacing, which I'm afraid the Manual of Style isn't a big fan of. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do need to emphasise again; please read the article through before inserting new bits. I'm grateful for your additional information, but you just added a section on plea rolls repeated half a paragraph down. Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New section so this doesn't get too long to read[edit]

What's the "H. E. L., I" you referenced? Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-policy is to make it as clear to users as possible by putting the full book in the bibliography and just a standard Harvard-system inline in the text. Also, it's generally a bad idea to have a reference of a reference; instead of the maitland/pollock, put a reference with the page of the Kiralfy book that the maitland/pollock bit appears on. Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed one section; I was just about to message you with the reasoning. Little mini-headers like that tend to clutter the page a bit. If the sections were long enough I'd put standard equal-sign headers in, but there isn't the material to justify that; this is the best that can be done for now. Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:C6 FRACTURE.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:C6 FRACTURE.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Society barnstar 2.png The Society Barnstar
For A E Francis, for superb work on a growing number of excellent socio-historical and purely legal articles, but in particular for completing conversion. Wikipedia is lucky to have experts like you that display such a high quality of knowledge and professionalism in writing. Well done! Wikidea 00:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spinal Stenosis[edit]

It was probably one of the clicks I tried to click when my browser froze. Sorry for the incovenience. Happy New Year! JoshuaKuo (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I told you, it was not done on purpose, I just happened to click on the revert button when my browser froze and I tried to click everywhere to get it unfrozen. Please do not spaz out on other people's talk pages. A nice note would do. Thanks.JoshuaKuo (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Statutes of Mortmain[edit]

Good work on the Statutes of Mortmain article, have you considered putting it up for a Good Article nomination? Lampman (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Case studies[edit]

I feel that these case studies definitely have a place on Wikipedia and see that you have put a lot of work into them. We have other pages that are collections of studies done on a specific medicine related topic. When it comes to pages about specific disease this page is a great resource. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) If you have any questions let me know. If you want to ask questions of the larger medicine editor community here is the page. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Keep up the good work --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing the case study page needs is proper formatting of references. Here is a tool were are you need is the PMID and it does the rest of the formatting for you. http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia has a whole bunch of open source pages. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia part. Case studies are a little bit beyond the scope of Wikipedia however and would be a good addition to either wikibooks or wikiversity, which we can than link to from the Brown-Sequard syndrome page. Some of what was seperated out into the sub article still belongs on the main page though. Some of what we try to acheive is a consistant formating between pages. This is so that no matter what page you look at descriging a specific disease you know were to find what you are looking for. Hope this helps. And do not worry what you have written will not be discarded or deleted. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it depends on the type of writing you want to do. If you want to write encyclopedia stuff this is the place. If you want to write books or write course material than the other places are good. Obesity is the article I have spend most of my time on. Hope you continue editing here. Wikipedia is a good source but needs a lot more people who are medically oriented. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way the editing community is slit between moving these case studies to wikibooks and keeping them here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown Sequard[edit]

The bored admin was wrt the formatting of the title. It was Brown-Sequard Syndrome with a redirect from Brown-Séquard syndrome. The correct formatting is lower case S after the proper name. You need to have admin privaleges to make this move as the move was to a page that was already there. Therfore the editor who wrote that comment was looking for an editor with admin privaleges to make the correction.

I know that the quality of medical info here will never reach that provided by Uptodate. I know that there is lots of vandalism which makes it a pain to edit sometimes. But wikipedia is the 7th most accessed site on the net. The page I have contributed to on Obesity gets 5000 hits a day. You can easily move from one topic to another. And really Wikipedia is a good place to start researching nearly anything.

We all agree that what you have written is well presented and well referenced. A number of people chimed in with nonse aguements such as calling it original research. But they are obviously wrong. The only concern is the case studies are not really in the proper format for an encyclopedia. However the other parts of Wikimedia have very similar formatting to Wikipedia and if this is move it should be easy to link to from wikipedia.

We see these problems with any large group of people. I for example have had pages I have created posted for deletion. Have reversed the decisions in all cases but took some effort. I have been brought to a RFC committe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/jmh649 after having mutiple edit wars with an editor Scuro. Scuro thankfully has stoped editting and pushing his POV. Wikipedia does have politics and part of the skill is bringing in people to support you point of view and back you up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Séquard syndrome[edit]

I have responded to your message on my talkpage. In general, I would suggest withdrawing the threat of taking this into the blogosphere. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, responded to your message. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi A.E. Francis,
I understand that psychiatrists with little experience might be confused by an article history. Even for regular users, page history merges can be confusing. I assure you that no admininstrator power trips have taken place; in fact, the move was requested by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) who asked if I could do it for her. The information itself has changed little and on Wikipedia, nothing is ever lost. The case material has not been deleted; it has been moved to a separate page, and whether or not it should be deleted will depend on the deletion discussion.
If you have any other questions or concerns about the recent edits to the Brown-Séquard syndrome article, please don't hesitate to contact me.
cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not deleted[edit]

The article content you wrote has been voted to not be deleted. Congratulations. There are a number of things that need to be fixed up though. Will work on a few if I have time. One of course is formatting so that one can easily link to the original research. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Will work to change the references to make them more friendly. Thanks for all your help and support. A E Francis (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown Squard syndrome[edit]

Hey Francis I will look into what happened to the text you edited. I presume that it has been transwikied. Give me a few days to sort things out.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis currently what you wrote is at my sandbox User:Jmh649/Sandbox. I will work on moving it to wikibooks and than see about linking this to the main wiki page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Good glad you found it. Will try to make the link better.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Salt_of_the_earth_00000120.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Salt_of_the_earth_00000120.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 05:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The image in question is in the public domain and has been since 1982. A E Francis (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Case histories[edit]

Whilst, as a doctor, I found your case histories interesting and nicely presented in their succinct style. WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK applies and Wikipedia is the wrong location for this vs. educational WikiUniversity. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Again? - I would suggest moving the case histories as being suggested before the relevant sections of Wikipedia's articles get trimmed down (i.e. cut entirely). David Ruben Talk 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Case reports from Spinal stenosis[edit]

I've moved the beautifully written, but clearly non-encyclopedic, case studies from Spinal stenosis to User:A E Francis/Cases. Please do not add such case studies to any more Wikipedia articles.

I sincerely hope that you will look into Wikibooks or a similar Wikimedia Foundation project, which would doubtless appreciate this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts of Aquinas[edit]

I'm actually substantially editing the article on Thomism as you sent me that message. Please tell me what you think of my additions, though I'm not completely finished yet. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have more to write about the social justice and existentialism, though the part about the usury and forced baptism doesn't strike me as imperative for the article on Thomism, however. (Thomism refers moreso to the school of philosophy rather than very particular beliefs of Aquinas in general.) If I'm wrong, though, go ahead and add to it. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for your work. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on writing more about existentialism and the views of Thomism by other philosophers; I'm currently working through my notes on that, as I said. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thought of Thomas Aquinas[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Thought of Thomas Aquinas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#A-class legal articles[edit]

Hello, you may be interested in this discussion, as from what I can tell from edit histories of talk pages, you've assessed a fair number of the articles in this category. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I would be interested in the general area of legal articles - thanks for asking. 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Spinal stenosis[edit]

I see you largely wrote this article, which is in fine shape except that the ciations are missing a lot of info (journal title, PMIDs, and DOIs). I've begun filling in the missing info, but the easiest way to do that is to use the Diberri PMID citation template filler, which means I'm also converting your manual citations to cite journal templates-- please let me know if that is OK with you, and I will continue the work. [3] I also left some comments on the article talk page. Happy Holidays! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - that is fine. Thanks A E Francis (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment[edit]

Please post here [4] for reassessments of articles you have contributed extensively too rather than changing your self. [5]. Also refs need to be properly formated. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).