User talk:Rich Farmbrough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Helpful Pixie Bot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Note
Email may very occasionally be delayed due to spam filtering.




Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index
follow my blog
This page-

Drama free days
418
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Gertz v. Robert Welch[edit]

Not surprising, as you put it. Back when I wrote it (a long time ago, but in this galaxy Face-smile.svg) I was depending entirely on the SCOTUS opinion as a source; it was things like this that taught me that you're better off reading the whole published case history where and when you can.

I'll be interested to see how you improve it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS opinions (and indeed UK Supreme Court opinions) make good and informative reading. But I'm sure you are right that they are often insufficient for full coverage. Notably the rulings sometimes have unintended consequences, in which case the weight given in the ruling is distorted for the purposes of the article.
I won't do a lot more, since I only have the Googlebooks view of Gertz's book, but I have yet to read the entire judgement. I will bring out the change in emphasis on the crime and communism libels, which is an interesting sidelight - Gertz avoided the implied "obstruction of justice" libel in his first case, as it Nuccio was appealing the murder charge, and the three civil cases were pending. However the SCOTUS justices drew Wayne (Geertz's representative) on the point in the SC verbal arguments. In this it seems they erred - Gertz says "One assumes that each justice has read all of the briefs. One hopes that he .. has gone through the whole record." The hope, at least, seems to have been a little optimistic.
I will also have to put something about the Seventh Circuit case when I get a better idea of what happened.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
Powell was sort of infamous for only reading the briefs before oral argument (But at least he read them all the way through). Brennan used to read the trial record and all the evidence as well (See his dissent from the per curiam opinion (believed to have been written by Powell) in Snepp v. United States for an excellent demonstration of the benefits of being that thorough). Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

Contested PROD and AfD[edit]

Hello, Rich. Your PROD of the article 2147483659 (number) has been removed, without explanation, so I have taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2147483659 (number). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't PROD it, that was the redoubtable User:David Eppstein. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I see you are right. Silly me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

19th Battalion (United States Marine Corps)[edit]

As mentioned in my last edit, the article the way it is formatted with {{commons category}}, is part of an on-going so please do not revert the edit that changes the {{commons category}} until the discussion is finished. Thank you. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Redirects[edit]

I just wanted to let you know I redirected a number of redirects you created from Great Britain and Ireland to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#"Ireland and the United Kingdom". I'm going to assume you disagree that Ireland–United Kingdom relations is the primary topic of those phrases, however that is the consensus. Having different versions of very similar phrases redirecting to different pages should be avoided. I recommend you open a discussion to redirect all of the phrases if you wish. I've already explained my reasoning for redirecting to that article.
Regards,
Rob984 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

They are redirects, a long as they go somewhere reasonable, that's fine by me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #173[edit]