User talk:Coolcaesar

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Another welcome!

Keep up the great work on L.A. topics! jengod 17:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yet another hello

Wow! You're doing some very constructive work on Southland articles. Very nice, and welcome to the Wiki! --avnative 05:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I noticed that you recently made an edit summary: Affirmative action; 19:11:26 . . Coolcaesar (Talk) (Fixing the spelling, the idiot who wrote this doesn't know how to spell affirmative)

While I totally understand your frustration, it's generally better not to put it into edit summaries. See Wikipedia:Wikitiqute. ;-) Thanks for working on Wikipedia. The comment above reminded me that I should look at the entries on LA (I'm a LA native). JesseW 02:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, people like myself do make spelling mistakes all the time. I always check my work, but sometimes miss things. Please, though, as JesseW said, don't call me an idiot for spelling affirmative incorrectly. (Yes, I was the one who wrote the lines that containted misspelled affirmative [1]). Personal attacks aren't at all constructive, it's better just to make the correction and move on. —siroχo 23:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Cities vs. Towns in California

Just curious about the edit you made to city, where you said in California, a town is any incorporated settlement with less than 10,000 people, and a city is any incorporated settlement with more than 10,000 people. Do you have a source for this? I recall looking at the CA constitution and legal code and I don't recall seeing any such distinction between cities and towns. What I recall, all incorporated municipalities in CA are considered "cities" under the law, although they can call themselves either a city or town. older≠wiser 17:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

See also Danville, California, technically a city, with 40k residents, but always considered locally as a town - as in "the town of Danville". Also, in San Francisco, a true native will inquire of a telephoner with "Are you in town?", while an outsider will always "Go to the City". Leonard G. 06:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful

You pasted in the whole Los Angeles, California article in place of the section on education when you lasted edited it. I just fixed it; I had to merge in two sections that had been edited since. Please be carful about that in the future. It's a hassle to fix. The section on education is quite good, though. JesseW 08:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work on Avalon, California

Good additions you made to the article on Avalon. Good work. JesseW 06:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Gary Webb

Your contributions to the Gary Webb article seem to be in error. Please be careful to check your facts. --Viriditas | Talk 21:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Your facts were wrong, no matter where you got them. The obituary made errors that you didn't bother to check, including giving the wrong title of his book. I apologize for my tone, but I see this kind of thing so often it upsets me. Surely, you cannot be faulted for not bothering to check the facts from an obituary, after all, you probably expected them to be accurate. Check your facts. Newspapers should be the paragons of objectivity, but unfortunately, they are not. --Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you got the title of the book wrong, which makes me think you haven't read it, so your comments about Webb come off as uninformed. I don't think that you can guage the quality of Webb's work by his supporters, nor what the "majority" think of him, so I must discard your argument in that regard. I am not interested in conspiracy theories (nor does my edit history demonstrate any interest) nor political ideologies of any kind. I am, however, interested in facts -- facts which seem to be lacking on the current page. --Viriditas | Talk 23:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Miranda

Even if police can get knowing and voluntary waivers from most accused criminals-- which I would like to see empirical studies on before it is included in the article-- I fail to see how this would "hurt" a suspect. Anyway, whether Miranda was intended to decrease the number of confessions or inhibit interrogation is debatable in itself. I furthermore doubt that this was the main reason the Clinton administration refused to fight Miranda-- I'm guessing, probably correctly, that it had more to do with a reluctance to alienate liberals who would have been upset if Miranda was overturned.

If you want to put the info. back, I would insist you cite empirical studies or well-known legal authorities, because it all sounded fairly dubious to me when I read it and still seems dubious.

NP

Okay, I've read your note on my discussion page. I remain utterly unconvinced.

I still totally fail to see how Miranda "hurt" criminal suspects, and I would delete any reference to Miranda "hurting" criminal suspects from a subsequent article. I think it is a rather absurd conclusion, because you would have to "compare" criminal interrogations pre- and post- Miranda, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia anyway. The fact that many Miranda suspects do waive their rights is NOT an indication that Miranda is failing. Miranda only attempted to provide that suspects are aware that they do not have to talk to police. It in no way attempted convince suspects that they shouldn't talk to police, and it in no way attempted to silence suspects. Again, THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MIRANDA WAS TO ENSURE SUSPECTS ARE AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS, not to silence them.

Note that the question of whether Miranda "hurts" suspects is a different question than whether confessions "hurt" suspects. Both conclusions, of course, are debatable. I heavily doubt your conclusion that there can be no such thing as a confession borne of free will. Sometimes, guilty people actually do have consciences and wish, rationally, to confess their crimes to remove an emotional burden.

I would also note that your entire note represented your opinion and the opinion of law review writers. These opinions are highly, highly debatable and should not be included in the article.

In what sense Miranda represented a compromise is a matter of pure conjecture. Whether the justices ever seriously considered the ACLU's "jailhouse lawyer" proposal is questionable. Indeed, seeing as NO JUSTICE ENDORSED THIS POSITION, this opinion in Miranda does not appear to represent a "compromise." Furthermore, the ACLU's proposal was an absurd proposal as a matter of Constitutional law. If you are one of those people who believe that Supreme Court justices actually do attempt to produce the correct resolution of a case on the basis of the Constitution, and do not simply craft "compromises" that please them, then your "compromise" argument additionally fails.

I am not convinced that Miranda's protections are so ephemeral that they can be "evaded" at will. The Supreme Court addressed a so-called "loophole" in Miranda in last terms Missouri v. Seibert, concluding that police may not interrogate a suspect without Miranda, and then Mirandize the suspect and then reinterrogate that suspect. The point is, THIS WAS THE MAJOR "LOOPHOLE" critics pointed to. Whether significant "loopholes" remain AFTER MISSOURI V. SEIBERT, furthermore, is a conclusion outside the scope of an encyclopedia article.

Whether that practice represented a "loophole" at all is debatable (Justice O'Connor, who dissented in Seibert, would object to the characterization of that practice as a "loophole"), and for you to argue that subsequent cases have "weakened" Miranda or "created loopholes" is based on speculation and opinion. I don't care if law review articles have come to this conclusion; their job is to express opinions on the law, but they do not represent absolute truth. The opinions of law review articles, especially contested ones, should not be cited in an encyclopedia articles as truth.

Whether the subsequent cases on waiver rules "weakened" Miranda is also debatable. Perhaps a law review writer believes they did "weaken" Miranda, but the Court has always applied Miranda in these cases; whether or not they have done so in a proper way is a matter of opinion. Miranda punted on the waiver issue, and thus subsequent cases had to flesh out what constituted a "waiver." But to imply Miranda is totally ineffectual is ludicrous.

It does not require argument, of course, to show that a study showing retarded people cannot understand Miranda does not suffice to prove in any way, shape, or form, that the warnings are "hypertechnical." This is total nonsense. The warning, which any Law and Order viewer can recite off the top of their head, is not "hypertechnical."

I once again must vigorously disagree with your arguments and conclusions.

NP

California#Transportation

That is not a "better picture" - come on now, plus the size is not good. Leonard G. 04:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice job on freeways!

I kinda let that little project of mine slide when school got heavy--thanks for helping out.

User of term "vandalism"

I am affronted by your use of the term "vandalism" regarding your removal of my transportation funding edit to the California article. While you may not like my arguably NNPOV language, and are welcome (as are all of us) to rewrite it as desired, or even eliminate my edit as being couched in provocative or biased language, an accusation of vandalism is totally inappropriate. As far as the facts of the matter discussed are concerned they are accurate as best as I can determine. Please feel free to write a paragraph regarding the underfunding of public transit and the relative overfunding of highways. I would be happy to see this matter presented in appropriate circumlocutionary style.

Sincerely, with best wishes, Leonard G. 18:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Response)

Well thought out and well written response — I am impressed and thank you. I agree that the subject is complex. Like the bumper sticker says: "'Where am I going? - and what am I doing in this handbasket?". I do think we need an article that shows how we got here (traffic jammed), what was expected (autotopia), why we are stuck here, and how we might get out, especially by looking at other cultures such as Europe and certain new concepts being demonstrated in Europe and South America -- Leonard G. 02:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bus article

I thought you did a pretty fine job of cleaning up the bus article. This one has been evolving in the 2 years I have been editing, and I don't think there are any major players who want it "their way" like so many other articles. On another note, if you think cities and towns are a bit complicated in California, you should take a look at Virginia, home of the independent city and municipal combat via annexation suits. What a mess, with a lot of hidden racial agendas not far below the surface. Vaoverland 18:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of gaps in Interstate Highways

Three-digit Interstates are allowed to connect to their parents via other three-digit Interstates, so I-280 (via I-680) and I-105 (via I-605) don't belong in the list. As for I-210, I guess that qualifies - I'll make a new subsection about ones like that, where they connect to other Interstates but not of the same parent. --SPUI (talk) 08:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UCLA Protection

For the reasons you have supplied, I disagree with the protection, as UCLA does have some kind of guest house which is considered as a hotel... and is owned by the UC Regents. See WP:RFPP for my further comments. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clear:right

"clear: right" does, in Internet Explorer as well as the browser I'm using (Firefox), make block elements "drop" down the page until there is no block element to the right of it. One of the Wikipedia skins (nostalgia or something) is broken and f***s up this behaviour, you'll see this if you stack two Image:blah.jpg|right boxes next to each other. I've just tested the pages in IE6, FF1.0, Op7 on Windows and FF1.0 on Linux using monobook.css and they look as they should. I'm guessing the skin is your problem. ed g2s • talk 02:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I run all my Windows Updates and have the exact same build number as you, but California renders fine for me. If this turns out to be a problem for a lot of users we can move the second table much further down the page, it doesn't have to hang off the end of the first infobox. ed g2s • talk 13:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Source: forms in early 19th century?

Hello Coolcaesar,

First, many thanks for your work. I have a question regarding the bottom of Form_(document), where you have added:

Quote: Historians of law have discovered preprinted legal forms from the early 19th century that greatly simplified the task of drafting complaints and various other legal pleadings.

I would like to use this information in an article. Do you have a quotable source/reference I could use?

Thanks. ---

Hello to whomever posted this on my page:

I am having difficulty remembering exactly where I saw an example of a 19th century fill-in-the-blanks preprinted legal form. I believe some examples were reproduced in A History of American Law, Revised Edition, by Lawrence M. Friedman, but I am not completely sure.

Coolcaesar

Cupertino, California

I was wondering where you got the info about the two school districts; comparing the district boundary maps ([2] and [3]--they're both PDFs--if you don't want to download Adobe Reader I can post screenshots of them) with my Thomas Bay Area Metro maps, I don't see any part of Cupertino served by the Los Altos district, and actually the southeast corner of Los Altos (south of Fremont and east of Permanente Creek) appears to be served by the Cupertino district. Maybe it used to be the other way around or something? Niteowlneils 06:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've updated the article. Niteowlneils 23:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary of public defender

This is in reference to your edit on the public defender article. As I'm sure you are aware, Wikipedia is a collaborative project where everybody works together to improve articles. Your summary "wikifying this mess" is inappropriate. If you have something to add, then add it without the attitude. I find it especially annoying since most of your changes were unnecessary word substitutions that add nothing to the clarity or content of the article (for example, changing "contract" to "have contracts with"). --Holdek 07:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Banning

If I get banned, it will simply prove once and for all what is plain for all to see: that Wikipedia is a refuge for people who need groupthink--people who believe that the categories in their heads correspond to categories in reality. They don't. I will not be banned because what you call "messing around" I call "writing." I assume that, since you are a law student, you wouldn't know good writing if it were sitting on your face. That's not really your fault, but you shouldn't criticize other people because what they do/say disturbs you or disrupts your sense of what is right and wrong. If Wikipedia can't tolerate having its boundaries tested, then it isn't worth anyone's time. As regards my contribution about Pomona College, you may or may not have noticed that I was repeating the information I found in the top part of the article, and that I was attempting to clarify the fact that Pomona is not in Los Angeles, which as far as I know is not just speculation. If you vote against me, you will voting to silence someone--and if Wikipedia silences everyone who challenges the status quo, then it will become what it is already becoming: a bastion of censorship. You don't support censorship, do you? 69.227.168.132 08:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And in case you hadn't noticed, every time I do something that someone doesn't like, they call me a vandal. If you want to resurrect the Salem Witch Trials, go ahead, my friend. I honestly don't care. If the Wikipedia community doesn't value my contributions, then I won't bother. Buckshot 08:36, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

California

The claim made was not based on extant references that are searchable on google. Google only reflects what its authors have decided to put on it.

The claim was based on the meaning of the word California in midieval Spain. The novel was written in the 16th century, wasnt it? Barely over a hundred years after the fall of Islamic Spain.

If you feel you dont like the statement, I cant stop you from deleting that addition. I have no reference in English to back this up with, for now. But sooner or later, references will start emerging from Moorish sources. Then we wont be able to ignore this fact any loneger.--Zereshk 02:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richard Atkinson

Great job. That page is a fine example of how well wikipedia can work.

Day 1: Someone who desires to illustrate Atkinson in a negative light (me) posts an borderline biased addition to the entry. Day 2: Caught, removed. Day 3: A law student locates the case and clarifies everything wonderfully.

BTW, where do you attend law school (if you don't mind revealing)?

Lotsofissues 22:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd rather not reveal which school I attend — it's a long story. Trust me, you have heard of it. --Coolcaesar 03:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfunded mandates

Good job on the unfunded mandatess.. I didn't know about that emergency room one. Rad Racer | Talk 14:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a problem

A person who was blocked by an Admin suddenly resurfaced as Annononymous on the same blocked account - blocked for not following Wikipedia policy. Now this same person has decided to get a new account (sockpuppet) and has begun attacking both your contributions and mine. His trick is to accuse everyone of POV - which is what he is doing. He is destroying articles which on his new User page he sort of personally claims ownership of. He made nasty noises about Wikipedia while still without a new identity. Now he is going ahead full speed ahead like a train wreck. His interests are justices likes Douglas and Hugo Black and cases like Miranda. He has now reverted by cutting and pasting so that it does not appear to be reverting while accusing others of what he is doing. We need to get an Admin to deal with this or just walk away and let him claim "ownership" of articles which are supposed to be public domain. You will see what I mean when you look at the history of Miranda. Give me your feedback. MPLX/MH 04:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re your changes to the L.A. page

--You're right, I haven't spent too much time in LA, and news of the random violence you mentioned never really makes it into the national media. My only real objection to the sentence, however, was the wording "Los Angeles residents frequently engage in..." It seems to blur the distinction between the average LA resident and gang members. --Jleon 16:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sim/Sin City

I removed your disambig link from the top of Sin City because the discussion you had on the SimCity page did not notify anyone involved in the Sin City page and therefore did not allow them to have a say. See Talk:Sin City. --TheGrza 20:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Travel agency

Aloha. I noticed your revert of anon 69.53.79.18. I don't know the history of the page, or whether you folks are suffering from vandals, but the anon's edits appear to be supported, however, they should have cited sources. Here's a few, if you are interested: Another worry was over the fact that airlines have been cutting back (most are now to 0 commissions)[4] [5] [6]...The reality is that the airlines cannot handle their own passengers in an acceptable way [7] [8]...and travel agencies are starting to flourish again by adding additional service to individual travelers. [9][10][11] [12] --Viriditas | Talk 09:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Web application

I noticed you just made major changes to the article. That's great. However, you tagged the edit as "minor". This checkbox is normally used for spelling correction or very, very small edits. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 11:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You also tagged your most recent edit on Ski resort as minor. Since this changes the content of the article, it is not minor. Minor edits should be used for repairing bad links, fixing spelling, etc. --Max E|C 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style on punctuation

Umm. The MoS standard of using "modern" punctuation has been established for over 3 years - longer than I've been here, certainly.

James F. (talk) 00:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

The merger for Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is done, more or less. Feel free to edit my decisions - I preserved a link to your work history on the discussion page. -- 8^D BDAbramson^gab 02:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Eh, crap!

) Sorry, I realized my mistake after the fact. I meant to go back and re-add MdR & T but I forgot. I do think I might add a section to the MdR article pointing out that while MdR proper is unincorported L.A. county, there is a section of Los Angeles the city which associates itself with the name MdR. Thanks for catching my mistake. Best, ~j jengod 09:41, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cal State Northridge

How does it look now? Several other people have added to it. --fpo 15:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles, California

re: your edit summary: yes, it's probably true. And some of them are also prejudiced, and some are just clueless, but please don't bite the nOObs, even in your edit summaries. You're not living up to your User name. ;-) BlankVerse ∅ 12:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Why that photo should not have been put back on the main L.A. page

But then who is the photographer? --User:Hottentot

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 19:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

L.A. no more?

I saw in passing that you've left the city. You've been a great contributor to articles about local people, places, and events. Thanks for all you've done - though I hope you're not finished. Are congratulations in order for graduating from a certain well-known law school? Cheers, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law

Hi Coolceaser. I've recently been prepping for the Bar exam by posting lots and lots of articles on common law topics (e.g. Leasehold estate, Third party beneficiary, Lesser included offense). I have found an unfortunate lack of consistency and connectivity in Wikipedia articles on the common law. I've therefore proposed at the largely defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that we make a major project of overhauling the whole thing, one key area at a time. Would you be interested? -- BDAbramson ^talk July 1, 2005 03:14 (UTC)

• Actually, I wasn't suggesting this as a way to study for the exam (I think it works okay for me, but my brain is wired weirdly) but as a post-Bar project. Contracts and Torts are at the top of my list, tho, so be prepared to hit those as of July 29! ;-) Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk July 1, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

NAICS codes

Hi:

Thank you for your correction of the Costco page in regards to the usage of NAICS codes. The Wal-Mart page has this information as well, so I am removing it and referring users to Template talk:Infobox Company/Archive001.

Bigcheesebebbs 5 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Court cases

Thanks for your reply at WP:RD. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles Photo

I do think image:DowntownLosAngeles.jpg is too humble to represent Los Angeles as a whole. LA is significant different from other world cities that the essence of the city is represented by the sprawling urbanized area rather than just a handful of skyscrapers in Bunker Hill. I don't strongly oppose to place image:DowntownLosAngeles.jpg in Los Angeles page, while I do believe image:LosAngeles05.jpg should be put on the Global Cities page to show LA in its fullest characteristics to include a sprawling cityscape. I really hope you can agree to put image:LosAngeles05.jpg in the Global Cities page. LA's endless sprawling landscape and freeways are far more impressive than the buildings in downtown. Therefore, image:LosAngeles05.jpg is a better picture to symbolize the city in a broader prospective. Geographer 06:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pardon the interjection. This page was automatically added to my watchlist and the topic caught my eye. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll butt in as well. The picture that I think is the best idealization of Los Angeles is Image:Nasa PIA03348 los angeles basin.jpg, although unfortunately it won't look much in the thumbnail sizes used in the Global cities article. BlankVerse ∅ 08:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I noticed this edit summary from you. I don't think it's necessary to make comments like that. That's all. —Cantus…☎ 05:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

BIB photo

You're quite welcome. I saw one the other day and thought "hey, the wikipedia article on those could use an image" -- now it does. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Warnings and liability

Coolcaesar, this is in response to your comments on Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. You said, "The point of warnings is to make an otherwise dangerous product safe." And I reply, "Yes and no." That's the point in an ideal world, and it's the ostensible point in the real world. However (in the U.S. at least) these things have gotten distorted by the overriding concern of reducing liability. Sadly, this can actually be at the expense of safety.

Here is an example. When I was a wee little tot, I got a chemistry set. It came with lots of little jars full of exotic chemicals. Many of these were quite dangerous, and had warnings on the back of the jar. Some of the jars carried blood-curdling warnings about the hideous things that would happen to you if you did anything remotely irresponsible with the contents. Others carried more mild warnings. And one, citric acid (the stuff that makes lemon juice sour), had no warning at all.

Years later, I visited a hobby shop. I happened upon the chemistry-set supplies, and a wave of nostalgia came over me. I looked at the warnings, and I was surprised to find that every jar now had a warning. Furthermore, the warnings were all the same.

I know why this happened. Some corporate lawyer had a bad dream about some kid choking on a bottle of citric acid, so they figured they had better put warnings on everything, just in case someone wanted to sue. But consider the result. Now, there is no information about relative safety being conveyed. Citric acid really is much safer to deal with than sodium ferrocyanide, but you can no longer tell this by looking at the labels.

So the company is better protected against lawsuits, but the customer gets less information. The company's safety has increased, while the customer's has decreased.

This kind of thing is part of a broader trend of warnings and disclaimers that are not worth paying attention to. As I said, my new soldering torch came with pages and pages of warnings. Who reads all that stuff? Radio commercials for mutual funds now have so many disclaimers that they run them at high speed, so that no one could possibly understand them. But the disclaimers are there, and so the company is protected. I don't think the interests of consumers are benefited by such heavy warning requirements that everyone ignores the warnings.

And the problem has gotten so bad that people are turning to bizarre solutions. Drug commercials have become so weighed down with legal requirements that drug companies have now almost universally adopted the weird strategy of running drug commercials in which they tell you nothing about the drug.

I agree that there are benefits to all the regulation and whatnot. Your point about infant formula safety is a good one. Still, the disadvantages are getting out of hand.

— Nowhither 11:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the use of the words "fair comment" in a court decision

Hi! I am just a beginner in the english section of wikipedia. And already i seem to be in need of a 3rd opinion.

Do you think that the ruling of the court in this sentence was refering to the laymans understanding of fair comment or to the legal definition?

...and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

Because slimvirgin belives the following:

"I'd say fair comment means a matter of opinion, both in law and in layman's terms. The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."

Now who is right? Would the N.Y. Supreme Court really use these words in the way slimvirgin understands them or would they mean the legal term "fair comment"?

What is your opinion?

Thank you for your help in this matter and if you can not help me can you suggest somebody who can help me?

--Zirkon 11:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the Talk page I am refering to.

Thank you Coolceasar for your help in clearing up this common misconception. I think i will now ask willmcw since he edited the article "fair comment" Or do you have any other suggestions?

--Zirkon 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Caltrainterminal.jpg

Hey, Image:Caltrainterminal.jpg is great; I'd never have thought of taking a picture from up there. Did you deliberately set out to get stuck in traffic there, or have you been carrying a camera around on the off chance? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Roger J. Traynor

I removed the NPOV tag from this article. Thanks for the edits! The article is looking a lot better now. Colin M. 23:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed your post at Peer Review, and got interested. I made some Bold changes, but IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so you may need to correct some of my legal inferences about the significance of his work. What I put in there was mostly adapted from the essays I just read about him after googling his name. Also, the article's viewpoint prior to my edits was unreservedly pro-Traynor, as if there is nothing bad at all that could be said about the (major, unprecedented) changes he effected in product liability and torts. Even if it is objectively possible to say "things are better because of Traynor's work," which not everyone would stipulate, IMO the article should at least note that not everyone is super-thrilled with the broadening of liability he effected, and that doesn't make them inherently evil. So instead of saying social conservatives were "ferociously" "attacking" his work, which carries some unsubtle implications, maybe better just to document the objective fact that there were those who disagree(d) with his views, and let the reader decide if those people are Neanderthals or if they have it right. Best, 146.203.71.124 21:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User:Kaisershatner - no idea why it keeps logging me out.) :(

Image:Newotanihotel.jpg

Your photo, Image:Newotanihotel.jpg, that is used in the Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, California article is just slightly off kilter. Would you mind if I replaced it with a slightly rotated version? (a 7° rotation in Irfanview fixes the tilt.) BlankVerse ∅ 12:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of trying to decide which digital camera to purchase. I had looked several months ago, but then found that the only camera that I could find that had all the features that I wanted also had several so-so reviews. Several months later, there are now several cameras available that have the features that I want. Now I just need to start checking reviews again. BlankVerse ∅ 18:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem editor on Internet topics

Hi, I need a hand here at History of the Internet. We have a problem user, User:Barberio, who a) knows next to nothing (and keeps making all sorts of elementary errors, most of which he refuses to admit), and b) has a strong anti-US streak, and he keeps try to distort this article to fit his POV. I can see an edit war is coming, and I may need a hand reverting this guy. So far, I've been trying to rescue what few bits and pieces of his stuff are worth saving, but I'm afraid my patience with him is about to run out, and which point I'll simply start reverting him; hopefully he will give up in frustration, but somehow I doubt it. Noel (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the oar. BTW, my name is Noel (which is how I sign posts), and my user-id is JNC (my initials - following the long hacker tradition from ITS). Sorry if that makes things confusing! Noel (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

RE:Hollywood sign..

I'm from L.A,by the way, and the reson I added that picture was because most people know the city because of the hollywood sign, and it shouldn't matter what city it's located as long as you can see it from Hollywood (the city), it shouln't be removed. And the people that built it, chose that area ,that was out of main city limits, because it gave it the best view, just because it's based outside of the city doesnt mean you couldn't have it. The area is off-limits anyway... So I think it shouln't be removed. Imdaking 00:44:12, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Class D licenses

I did some checking, you are correct. Class "D" licenses are abolished in the State of Florida (I know, cause I just tried to get one last week!) as of June. This does not extended to other states, however. Thanks for the correction. Zerbey 19:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Light Bulb Jokes

I just posted some commenst on the UCLA page. evrik

Personal attacks

Hi Coolcaesar —

These kinds of personal attacks do not contribute anything of value to Wikipedia, can cause ongoing mediations to stall, and are not tolerated on this site. Calling good-faith editors "crazy", and saying they edit "with zero understanding" and without understanding "what it means to edit in good faith" is pointless and unbecoming of any editor. Telling another editor that he's "lazy", a "fool", and to "shut the hell up and stop screwing up Wikipedia" is against our policies.

If you're such a major player at an important law firm to "get involved in this catfight," then may I recommend not getting involved in the catfight?

Thank you, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 04:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Judgement proof

Cool - Thanks a lot for that explanation, it makes sense! Would you mind if I used it to seed an article on the topic? I wikified it in the CDA article since I thought others might not know it either. Your explanation was very clear and would be a great stub. If its okay with you, I'll seed the article with it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I understand your reluctance. Funny about the spelling since I'm a U.S. citizen. I think its just a lucky coincidence that my misspelling happened to be correct somewhere on the planet. Should I always be so lucky.  :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Malls question (Pittsburgh)

Coolcaesar wrote: Yo dude: I don't know if you noticed the "notable" limitation on this article, but it's really important or else this list is going to get way too long (please review the article's history to see what I mean). I hope you come up with some justifications for why those malls are notable in the next month or so, or I might have to chop a few. Please take a look at the California malls for examples of what is notable. Pittsburgh is a seriously depressed metro area and it is highly unlikely that it could support such a large number of notable malls (implying that some of the ones you posted are non-notable).

---

Cool, I did read the notable comment, I may have included one too many, I will be more cautious about the ones I include from now on. I did have to ask you two questions though, it has yet to be a month and they are gone (I believe by another member). Two, please use the resources on here to educate yourself about the region of Pittsburgh, we are not "seriously depressed". Although the city is facing many of the challenges of northeastern metros, Pittsburgh is being used as a model for many other metros including Los Angeles and San Francisco. As I have time in the future I will update the info on our area malls and repost them to the list . . . with facts to back them up. Thanks for the time, and feel free to ask this Eastcoaster any thing you need. I can tell you have lots of pathos for your region, but I would encourage you to realize that some of the misrepresented "rust belt" cities are just as viable if not more so.  :) Hholt01 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

Manual of Style

Hail Cool! Since you have previously expressed an opinion about the issue of what the Manual of Style has to say about links in the title, I'd like to invite you to talk a look at the further discussion that I have had with User:E Pluribus Anthony at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Links_in_the_title.

I disagree with the "compromise position", which I think reflects only his desire to water down this rule. I would like to hear your view. If you and others are happy with the compromise, then so be it, I will leave it alone. If not, then let's change it back. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Crazy edit"

Greetings. Thank you for maintaining a watchful eye over this important article! The edit regarding spiritual dispute resolution was not in any way crazy, however. Mahatma Gandhi was a lawyer and used spiritual dispute resolution techniques. I myself am a competent U.S. attorney and use it daily in my practice. I received my J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990 and clerked for a federal district court judge. I am licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. I also wrote the book on on spiritual dispute resolution cited in the edit (Suing for Peace: A Guide for Resolving Life's Conflicts (Hampton Roads, 2005)--you can find my book on www.Amazon.com, etc.). This book is becoming increasingly popular among lawyers and clients looking to avoid the raveges of the traditional justice system. My book is the first of many verifable sources for my edit. Here are several others:

See the Wikipedia entry for holistic law. This article contains verifable cites to another book by another author about these techniques, and two lawyer's organizations with lawyers who use these techniques daily.

Read the following article in the Christian Science Monitor about holistic lawyers: [13].

Type "holistic law" into Google. You will find hundreds of verifable source entries.

Visit Harvard Law School's Negotiation Insight Initative, which, according to their website: "is dedicated to the integration of negotiation and conflict resolution with the perennial wisdom traditions." [14]

See Wikipedia entries for peacemaking and transformative justice.

See also the Wikipedia entry for Alternative dispute resolution, which mentions that Vodun priests in Hati and Catholic priests have been long involved in dispute resolution.

Finally, consider that since nearly the beginning of civilized human life, spirituality has been the primary way of dispute resolution among people. Exodus 18:13 in the Bible talks about Moses resolving disputes this way. Jesus talked about it. If you read my book, you will find that I cite to the dispute resolution teachings of the world's seven great religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Confucius). The citations to the various texts (Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Gita, Tao, etc.) appear in the book. Each religion has much to teach about resolving disputes, justice, and revenge.

This is an article about "Dispute Resolution" generally, not only about the traditional legal system, and therefore it must include all forms dispute resolution. You are correct that judges in the traditional justice system do not generally use this techique, but that is exactly the point--this is an "Extrajudicial dispute resolution" technique. By definition, you would not expect to find judges using an extrajudicial technique.

I certainly do not wish a conflict with you any way. If this article is your work, I commend you for it! Great work! I simply ask that you consult the multiple independent verifable sources above supporting my edit. By deleting spirituality, the article is incomplete, misinforming and misleading.

Thank you!

James P. Kimmel, Jr., J.D., Esq.

Nonjustice

Hey, saw your note on the pump. I tagged Kimmel's bio for speedy, which it was. I just tagged nonjustice as well. If you want to tag any of the others, just slap a {{subst:afd}} at the top of the page and follow the instructions in the box. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Holistic Law, Nonjustice, and Wikipedia

Dear Mr. or Ms. Coolcaesar:

Rather than following Wikipedia policy and evaluating and challenging the veracity of the many independent verifiable sources supporting my edit, you are simply making a personal judgment on the merits of a spiritual philosophy and way of practicing law that you happen not to agree with.

You did not and cannot deny that there are an overwhelming number of verifiable sources for the existence of spiritual dispute resolutiion, holistic law, and nonjustice. These concepts may somehow threaten, frighten, or repel you personally, but their existence is recognized by the major mainstream media and the Harvard Law School, among others. There are billions of people using spiritual dispute resolution every day (every major religion in the world has taught them from ancient times), as well as many thousands of lawyers and spiritual leaders and practitioners who use them to help their clients and their congregations. There are recent and ancient published books on it. Spiritual dispute resolution predates this nation and will long outlive both it, you and me--and Wikipedia.

Your personal views (and mine) on the merits or demerits of holistic law and spiritual dispute resolution are not relevant to an encyclopedia and have no place in it. The undisputable fact is that holistic law, nonjustice and spiritual dispute resolution exist. That is what must appear in Wikipedia, along with the relevant references and explaination of what it is. An encyclopedia defines and tells people about things, ideas, and people that exist--it does not judge those things in any way or pretend things don't exist that do. Surely you disagree with Nazi philosophy as well--and many other philosophies and things. But that does not mean that they do not exist, or that an encyclopedia should not explain them and inform its readers about them to make their own personal judgments. You, on the other hand, are making a personal value judgment for these readers by withholding the facts from them. You have no right to do so. Readers do not care whether you personally agree with holistic law or spiritual dispute resolution. They care only about seeing all the facts. They make their minds up for themselves.

If you can improve the way my edits are worded, that is of course fine and your comments are welcome, but if you simply wish to deny people information about independently verifable facts because you happen not to personally like those facts, that is what we call censorship. It is not in keeping with free speech and it is not in keeping with an online encyclopedia that is attempting to be inclusive, not exclusive.

You must be a very powerful person at Wikipedia, for you seem able to impose your personal likes and dislikes upon its pages without regard to verifable sources, accuracy, or facts. I have read the many comments on your page from the long trail of people who have complained about your heavy-handed tactics. Of course, it is easy to do all this when acting anonymously and not having to demonstrate that you have the education, training, background, judgment, and sensitivity to edit other people's work. The international media recently reported on how newsman John Seigenthaler was victimized on Wikipedia by another anonymous editor like you (we now know he was Brian Chase). People like you and Mr. Chase are quickly rendering Wikipedia irrelevant, because its readers are now discovering two things: 1) People like Mr. Chase write things in Wikipedia that are blatant lies; and 2) people like you, "Coolcaesar", delete from its pages things that are true. Both of these are equally evil. Both of these destroy the value of an encyclopedia.

This was my first attempt to edit a page in Wikipedia. It will also be my last, at least for the forseeable future. Wikipedia seemed like a good and useful idea when I read about it recently. I thought that with an Ivy League legal education, experience as a scholar and published author on the topic of spiritual dispute resolution, a professional background in the federal courts, and having practiced law with two of the most respected law firms in the nation, I might be able to help make the Wikipedia dispute resolution and legal pages even better. (NB: That I would logically include my own writings and work in a page is not "vanity"-any more than if Gandhi or Freud were alive today and edited a page to add their own works-who better to edit a page than a leading expert on the subject...? Oh, that's right, you, Coolcaesar, would be much better.)

I now understand that real qualifications and knowledge for editing a topic are meaningless in Wiki world and that Wikipedia has very little real value. Why? Because it turns out that "truth" in Wikipedia is simply a war of attrition, where the person with the least knowledge of the subject matter can act anonymously to hide, smear, and debase the truth simply by being willing to return to the page day after tiresome day and hit the edit button. It turns out that Wikipedia can be edited and controlled by biased, unqualified, and unknowledgable people who have little else to do with their time--exactly the type of people we as a society have never wanted writing our encyclopedias (or anything else) because their work cannot be trusted. You have proven to us all, Coolcaesar, that in Wikipedia verifable facts are simply not relevant--only the ego and the personal likes and dislikes of the person hitting the edit button are relevant. Wikipedia is their personal mirror, their personal canvas. They are king for the day of a particular page--the tyrant who, like all tyrants, limits speech and perverts the truth to fit his or her own narrow perception of reality. And so now we all know that the current dispute resolution page in Wikipedia is not really a page in Wikipedia at all. It is actually a page from your own personal "Coolcasearpedia," because you happen to be the current tyrant of the page. Revealing, is it not, that you have chosen to call yourself Cool "Caesar"? Fortunately, history teaches us that tyrants never last. They end up destroying themselves. Equally fortunate, they never actually succeed in silencing the truth.

James P. Kimmel, Jr., J.D., Esq.

Please review the GH avisualagency article once more

Major modifications have been made to the GH avisualagency article in hopes of conforming further to the wikipedia standards for inclusion. If after reviewing the new information please reflect your thoughts in your vote on the AFD page. Thanks for taking the time.Lerner 17:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Hi, I'd like to ask you a quick question: does this book's library count as first-rate or not? Oregon State University seems pretty reputable to me, and I'd like to understand your assertion that all the libraries were third-rate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all, but your statement, if true, would be a death blow to the article, and thus I'm taking it with a grain of salt. I may very likely be missing something (for instance, this is the only library I checked). Thanks. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Snow Crash

You have twice removed a valid section from the Snow Crash article and used a rude approach to the situation. I would like to ask for you to please not remove it again and, if you feel the section is not proper, please either start a relevant discussion at the Talk page or clean it up yourself, thus contributing a lot to the article. Please do not insist on this behavior. Thank you for your attention, --Sn0wflake 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi fellow idiot

I got your message on the "bar exam." Judging from the other messages sent to you, you have the manners of queen elizabeth.

At any rate, in response to your criticism of my "bar exam" change, surely you remember everything written from Professor Rhode's ethics class. You are proud to have a JD from a well-known law school on the west coast, and surely you must mean Stanford. As everyone at Stanford has to take ethics, and Rhode has been teaching since the dawn of time, you must have taken Rhode's class.

Hope to see you at the next big game. Or not. Jackass.

First, the immature nature of your comments and your edits strongly supports the inference that you are among the small minority of Stanford students not smart enough to pass the bar examination on the first try (and most neutral third parties would agree that makes you the jackass). And to quote BarBri's performance exam lecturer, "it's not that hard!"

Second, any person with enough intelligence to pass the bar examination would have deduced immediately from a close analysis of my user page which law school I attended. And, no, it is not Stanford.

Third, my Professional Responsibility course was taught by a well-known clinical training expert. Because my law school, unlike Stanford, prefers to train practicing litigators instead of future judges or law professors, our Professional Responsibility course was directed towards the MPRE and developing the instincts necessary to deal with real-life ethics situations. We did not waste time on pointless libertarian discussions about whether the bar examination is really necessary (it is), since that topic is not covered on the MBE, the MPRE, the MPT, or any state's essay exam. --Coolcaesar 02:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagging pages proposal

Hi there, I'm writing because at some point you showed interest in a proposal to solve the problems related to national varieties of English. There is a discussion and a vote ongoing here. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 14:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bumper Sticker

You make a good point. It's up to you (this is wiki), I have no objections to your reverting to the article and keeping it as a selection only in the article. I felt the style of the article to be somewhat pedantic limited and us centric, which I was slowly trying add in other aspects to it countries.cultures/jurisdictions, but have spread myself too thin to put the work into it. Best Wishes SatuSuro 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Bar examination

Hey Coolcaesar! Whats up? I gave the anon a 24 hour block, so that the revert war could stop. Now hes threatening to take action against me. I'm not scared, I did not abuse my powers like he says I do and his argument doesn't hold water.

Do you think we should protect that page for future people who do not know how things work here not to "play around" with it?

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Coke and Daiquiri Martin

Wow, abusing the privileges based on biased friendship with someone directly involved in a dispute. That's classic.

That's not abuse of priviledge. Obviously the person who wrote that message is not fit for wikipedia. If he doesn't like what he reads, he can't go around trying to write things his way. Did you hear me, anonymous poster? Antonio Loco-Man Martin

(Matter resolved.)

COTW Project

You voted for Male and Female, this week's Collaborations of the week. Please come and help them become featured-standard articles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute at Bill Gates

If I were in King County, WA (which I am), how might I go about finding out whether a public record exists of Gates's supposed trust fund? Is it something a layperson can do? If not, perhaps I should just try to find out from someone at the newspapers. Gazpacho 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

UC Merced

Hey Coolcaesar, thanks for backing my opinion about the "locking out" phrase, but Jasper refuses to budge on the issue. Is there anything I can so because this argument has been going on for about 2 or 3 weeks now? I have tried my hardest to get him to delete or change that sentence and it seems that I can not persuade him. Rayana fazli 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Slogan on infobox company

Just wondered if you had some examples of company slogans being described in the article text - I havent seen it done, but it does sound like an interesting idea. Ian3055 15:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NeXT cube?

You wouldn't happen to be this guy would you: http://84.173.207.210/ That IP address started hitting my RSS feeds recently and I don't know who it is. (Not that many people read my blog! hah.) — Nicholas (reply) @ 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Juris doctor

Dear Coolcaesar: I have put a tag requesting a citation in the Juris Doctor article at the passage regarding the legal profession changing after the time of Andrew Jackson. I think you may have contributed that language back in November. I don't have a personal position regarding the validity or merit of the statement (pro or con); I just argue that it appears to be POV and could be reworded a little, or perhaps sourced. Your comments would be appreciated. Yours, Famspear 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Coolcaesar: Hmmmm. After further reflection, I've removed the tag. Based on further reading, I'm just not sure the tag was appropriate in the article. Sorry about that. I do argue that the language appears a bit "POV-ish". I don't want to edit it, as I suspect you have better knowledge of the topic than I do, and the language has been in the article for quite a while without raising objections. In law school I took a course on American legal history but we did not cover much of anything about the history of the profession itself. Yours, Famspear 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro Bono

I saw that you did good work on the Legal Aid page. I firmly believe that no good deed should go unpunished, so I thought I would ask if you would try some pro bono legal-wiki-work at FEMAanswers.org? I am a legal services back-up center attorney who set up the site, and am part of the team on McWaters v. FEMA. We have had great contributions, but until recently no wiki editors. The site (and Katrina survivors) could really use the help. Thanks! Castellanet 01:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

lawyering

Yes, I know- you may notice that I didn't alter the second use of the word in a succeeding sentence. The reason for the change was stylistic (to avoid the same term being used twice in a paragraph; I usually feel repetition is a bit jarring, although I realise it's just a matter of taste). Revert away however if you wish, this is a wiki! All the best, Badgerpatrol 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimeet

Hi Coolcaesar! I noticed your additions to the Santa Barbara article, and your photo; since you clearly are/were here, I just wanted to let you know we have scheduled an impromptu Wikipedia:Meetup/Santa_Barbara since User:Angela is going to be in town next weekend. (I realize you might just have been traveling through, but thought I would invite you anyway.) Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Emeagwali page...

I dunno about you, but I'm not sure there is any point in further responding to the anonymous individual on Talk:Philip Emeagwali, unless he actually raises a substantive point instead of merely indulging in personal abuse. --Robert Merkel 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Massachusets: Suggestion: Try to focus on facts in the very begiing of the article: Why not instead name our states flower "Mayflower" Its Motto: "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty" Its state bird "The Chickadee." Its Highest Point: Mt. Greylock; 3491 feet... Its loose and ungainly and one would have to push a dozen links and read a lot of garbage to learn the most minor facts about Massachusetts. --merlinus 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Google Navbox

Hi, Coolcaesar - I'm Kungming2, the one who put forth the motion on Talk:Google to do away with the Google Template box Template:Google Inc.. I've made a redesigned and much more streamlined version for only Google services and applications at my own personal sandbox here - can you give me some suggestions on how to improve it?

Personally, I suggest leaving the Template:Google Inc. on the main Google article, and putting the new version on everything else.

Thanks!

Kungming2 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting World Wide Web

I just created a major rewrite proposal for the World Wide Web article which is currently a shameful mess. As you recently contributed to the debate, I'd like to invite you to join our efforts. This article needs some love: come and submit your ideas! -- JFG 05:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to At-will employment was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a violation of wikipedia policy

Coolcaesar, you do not know me and I do not appreciate your personal attacks at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#My_view_of_this_debate. In fact, I have done much library research both in school and in college. I have an extensive personal library at home. I encourage you to constructively participate in our discussion. If you cannot do that, perhaps you should take your own hostile advice and limit your "participation in Wikipedia to activities that do not require research, like editing or uploading self-taken photographs". --Fahrenheit451 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)