- 1 Barnstars
- 2 Compliment
- 3 Supreme Court of the United States
- 4 Hugo Black
- 5 Associate Justice Article
- 6 Hello
- 7 Reply
- 8 Removing Picture from United States Supreme Court article
- 9 Re: My edit to James Clark McReynolds
- 10 Thanks!
- 11 In your opinion...
- 12 James C. McReynolds
- 13 Flipism
- 14 Cardozo
- 15 Cardozo to Stevens
- 16 Nina Totenberg
- 17 Supreme Court
- 18 Footnoting template?
- 19 Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages
- 20 Chronology of Harry Potter Series
- 21 WPHP Goals
- 22 Barnstar
- 23 Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
- 24 SCOTUS
- 25 Hi
- 26 Hi Magidin, would you like help with Sysco article?
- 27 DeMorgan
- 28 Good catch on judge
- 29 Please Contact Me
- 30 Guidance
- 31 A Dobos torte for you!
- 32 Catholicism
- 33 Proofs of Fermat's theorem on sums of two squares. - Euler's proof by infinite descent - Third Part
- 34 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 35 "The Honorable" Justices
- 36 Skilful
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|I, Weebiloobil, hereby grant you the Barnstar of Diligence for your work on the Severus Snape article. Well deserved! - Weebiloobil 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)|
|The Sharp Eye Barnstar|
|To Magidin, whose sharp eye caught the NY Times in an error! Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)|
|The Barnstar of Justice|
|For your diligent and judicious work on Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice of the United States, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, James Clark McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Nina Totenberg, and many others. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)|
|The Minor Barnstar|
|awarded for sharp-eyed diligence in a footnote format fix on the United States Supreme Court pageElijahBosley (talk ⇒) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thank you for noticing that, I might not have saw it! ^_^ Bulba2036 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)|
I think it's awesome that you're watching both the Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court and nerdy stuff like Harry Potter and such. I figured nobody would be watching the Horsemen, so I watched them myself.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Supreme Court of the United States
Hey - I just saw the improvements that you made to my edit of the Supreme Court wikipage. I like your wording of the Roe v. Wade bit, better than the way I tried to do it. Congrats and thanks. Raymondwinn (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Associate Justice Article
Magidin: Could you please amend your messages on the talk page to avoid interleavings? It makes it harder to read. I agree that the article is fine the way it is. I don't think I distorted your position, because what you wrote in correction was the same as what I understood when I read it, but, if you were concerned that what I said was not right, thank you for correcting it. In any case, I still agree with you. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying, Magidin. Under my previous and mistaken belief that I had done wrong by you, I was feeling bad. There certainly are certain editors whose tone is very questionable. In this case, the suspect editor's tone is already a subject of administrative discussion. See [] and []. I think he is skating on thin ice above the warm waters of hell. In any case, even though I can sit there and debunk his self-styled (and self-defeating) legal arguments on the "life tenure" issue, it's very costly to me in terms of productivity. I know how silly it is, and yet, if no one speaks up about it, wikipedia will bend to his will. I'm not sure what to do about it. I think I just have to hope that this guy grows up, or that he regresses so far he earns a perma block. (Note that in fact, he did get a perma block from a zealous admin, but Lar and I argued for his reprieve).
Hi, I've started a page on Dalet School - a private school - and was hoping you could help since you have a lot of experience in this area. I would greatly appreciate your advice. In Citer (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, ornery? Anyway, you yourself have stated that whether or not the paragraph in question was original research was disputable and that it is a basic summing up of the information in that now now horribly dull, citation ridden section. Don't let IllaZilla sway you, he's an cultural plebeian who cares more about policies than he does creativity. And don't call Verifiability Not Truth on me, that policy's a joke! See WP:IGNORE. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly Maggy, you've lost me completely and it looks like I've lost you completely. Kindly refrain from insulting my creativity and superior intellect, it's patently obvious who the plebeian is in this equation and it's not me. People are making it harder and harder for me to not be insulting. I'm not actually trying to be amusing though if you find me so then I'm flattered. "Idiot" and "cultural plebeian" were actually honest observations, not attempts at creativity. Furthermore if being forthright and refusing to be bullied constitutes "making an ass" of myself then hand me the punch and let's get this party started! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Maggy, the fact is that by insulting my intelligence, you insult your own and I feel I've rather overestimated your mental faculties already. The paragraph in question belongs in that article and I will be re-adding it. People can't erase every trace of me from every article simply because they feel like it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing Picture from United States Supreme Court article
I don't understand why would you remove a picture of a sitting President and Vice President pictured with SCOTUS members. It's pretty rare to see. While it's encouraged to remove or add content to the encyclopedia, please discuss drastic and "opinionated" changes like what you did on the talk page to gain consensus. Thank you. miranda 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second that point, requesting SCOTUS photo portraits. Shouldn't we have some illustrations when very appropriate? and they are such in this case. Dogru144 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: My edit to James Clark McReynolds
Thanks for your friendly assistance. If I understand you correctly, does that mean that the DEFAULTSORT tags for Robert McCallum, Jr. and Brien McMahon (incidentally, not names pulled out of thin air, but, like James Clark McReynolds, former Assistant Attorneys General) are incorrect? --avocat (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly appear to have stepped in it... I don't know whether there are conflicting standards, lack of consensus, or lack of awareness of the issue. From a glance at this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=MacAlmon%2C+Terry - it looks like the problem is pretty widespread!--avocat (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm really glad that you're also editing Fermat's Last Theorem. I'll do my best to hold up my end, but please remember that I'm not a mathematician — you'll have to expect a few amateurish errors! Proteins (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion...
Does this person strike you as incredibly similar to our old acquaintance Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord)? The contribution history seems very similar to me, with similar patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, concern over List of fictional narcissists, etc.). Also he identifies as being from Chester, England, and all of JOM's previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). There's enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a SPI, but I thought I'd ask for second opinions first. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I was so caught up in trying ot get the substantive info right I didn't see it. FWIW, I do know better, but it was an inadvertence. Kind of like trying to drive and talk on a cell phone at the same time -- different control centers which are mutually exclusive. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- Mainly what I wanted to accomplish was to get a line citation to the Michael Ariens article. You moved it and that's "well and fine". I think that paper and electronic citations can coexist, and will make the article better. It is, BTW, a very well done article. I have a few additions that might deal with some areas not in the article, but I've got to leave that for another day and get back to work. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- And actually, I was referring (at the time) to the bad grammar. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- Magidin, Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. But paraphrasing is required here. It really is multitasking, and limited processing power (selective focus) is an issue. That's part of why everything needs to be rewritten, edited, rewritten. Louis Brandeis said, "There is no such thing as good legal writing. There is only good legal rewriting." And that is true here, too, even on this low cal stuff. I use editing as a way to do something, while I am processing 'in background' the stuff that pays the bills. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- And actually, I was referring (at the time) to the bad grammar. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
Thank you for restoring all that info from the Benjamin Nathan Cardozo article! That knucklehead keeps deleting or changing the info to suit his/her own POV. I wasn't looking forward to restoring all that info as I have forgotten to copy it down elsewhere.The Original Historygeek (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the instructions. I had tried a couple of things and it didn't work.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Cardozo to Stevens
You said, "That bit of trivia shouldn't be in the lead paragraph" when deleting the bit about the oldest of the ninth longest serving .... Isn't that claim inconsistent with the other similar superlatives or near-superlatives in the same paragraph? Cordially, Dogru144 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As a neutral third party, I'm curious what you think about the disagreement over the Hunt article. I can provide the relevant articles via email if you like. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering why Magidin is attempting to remove legitimate OP-EDs about the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court page...seems like a version of censorship you are practicing--please explain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC).
Please explain the removal of a legitimate OP-ED by a legitimate author in a legitimate publication. Thank you very much. Tibet 111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibet111 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The insertion of a OP-ED from a major national publication and written by a respected author about a paticular case of the Supreme Court seems to me to be a legitimate addition to the Supreme Court page. Your deletion of such material detracts from the goals of Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Your comment that this article is spam is also not accurate.
In any case, you did give a thoughtful explanation about your reasons for your removal of the article about the case. I appreciate that you seem to be a reasonable person. Tibet111 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted on the Supreme Court page you very quickly and efficiently converted the footnote moved to the end of the sentence into a standard format. Do you have software that gives you a template for that? I've been typing footnotes by hand, which is tedious. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages
Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Chronology of Harry Potter Series
I noticed your comment on a recent edit you made on the Severus Snape page. Apparently, there was someone who got his panties in a wad about the non-encyclopaedic nature of the page and asked for it to be deleted. Which, of course, screws up a lot of other HP articles. Ccrashh (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
I noticed your comments on my UserTalk page regarding my recent edit to the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the interest of avoiding a potentially-contentious debate on the article Talk page, I have self-reverted the edit in question. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a total amateur like me seriously over at Monomorphism. I'm trying to teach myself some advanced math and physics as a hobby, and Wikipedia is an excellent starting point.
I am writing on User:YohanN7/Group Structure and the Axiom of Choice for the fun of it. I hope it will some day be good enough to become an article. Perhapce you could have a look at it if you get the time? I'm also (more seriously) working on improvements for Representation theory of the Lorentz group. I have a draft in User:YohanN7/Representation theory of the Lorentz group to replace the current section Representation theory of the Lorentz group#Properties of the (m,n) irrep.
Hi Magidin, would you like help with Sysco article?
Hi Magidin, we worked briefly together on the John Paul Stevens article, and I like to think by working together we came up with a better result than we would have individually.
Okay, about the Sysco article:
1) There's been a scandal primarily reported by NBC Bay Area in which Sysco was caught using unrefrigerated drop sites. So, I think it's an important subject in its own right. For example, how can such a major corporation make such a clumsy mistake?
2) And a Sysco employee has briefly participated here at wikipedia by making edits. And so far, just fine. I thanked this new wiki member for jumping in and helping out. The person said they wanted to be transparent and share that they are a Sysco employee. I told them the Conflict Of Interest policy in which a paid advocate is asked to suggest changes on the Talk page. So far, no issue. Their their edits did in fact help out. But potentially for the future, I think the best solution is to invite more people into the tent.
Hi Magidin, thanks for the comment. Perhaps "debunking" was a little stronger than what I meant to say, would you find "ridiculing" an acceptable replacement? Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I made this change moments before I saw your reply. I'd rather not weaken the statement further ... I believe that DeMorgan's intent is quite clear. I will support the current statement with an Underwood Dudley citation when I get back to my library and can look up the exact wording. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I did think "debunking" gave the wrong impression, but I'm willing to go along with your current wording. Magidin (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Good catch on judge
Hi Magidin, Appreciation for you good catch on the Sotomayor typo. During the last week, I have been adding the material from 3 new books on the Roberts court there and am almost done. The Sonia Sotomayor article could probably use a good top-to-bottom read through after the two or three dozen edits which I have made there during this past week. Possibly you could give it a once over when/if time allows, and only if this field is of interest to you. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Magidin, My appreciation for your note from the other day. It would be a good target if you might be able to look at some of the citations on Sonia Sotomayor as you mention these, when and if time allows. This link checklinks report might also have some ideas for first order targets, etc. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Magidin, Thanks for your comment and clarification on Talk at Sotomayor. I really thought your comment was on target; "I've been keeping half an eye on the changes; to be honest, I was planning to wait until they subsided before trying to wade in and do clean-up (from my lay-person point of view, at any rate)". My very brief update (now that things have returned back to a relative state of normalcy on that page), is that I am deeply immersed in the updates to the deadlinks in the footnotes, while all the items in the list of User:WastedTime on the Talk page of Sonia Sotomayor still need to be addressed (and many more that accumulated before I first looked at the page 3-4 weeks ago). It occurred to me that since I'm in the footnotes alone and not the text, that there is a chance for you to start in on the "clean-up" you referred to whenever time allows for you; it looked like all the Talk page participants there would like to see this. Many of the deadlinks there, I am finding, have not been updated since 2009! Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please Contact Me
Hello! I am working on a news feature story about the use of "comprised of" in articles. I notice that you took issue with the change early in this campaign. Are you by chance in the Bay Area? Could you please reach out to me at your earliest convenience at Keltym@CBSNews.com Thank you! NOLANY (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I noted your comment on my contribution to "Talk:Limit of a function".
I'm new to using the talk pages and obviously got it wrong. Part of the problem may have been that I failed to indent (I thought this would be automatic - I have corrected it), so it may not have been obvious that I was trying to comment on the previous (unsigned) suggestion to (in effect) change "Let p be a limit point ..." to "Let p be an adherent point ..." in the section "Functions on topological spaces".
The point I was trying to make was that this change would be nonstandard and unworkable (hence a bad idea).
I'm not sure how I would make the point that it is unworkable without discussing the subject. I've removed the examples and the extraneous point at the end. Is this more in line with what you'ld expect and is it still clear (or as clear, at any rate)?
A Dobos torte for you!
|7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
Proofs of Fermat's theorem on sums of two squares. - Euler's proof by infinite descent - Third Part
Hi just checking if you were aware I had at the time of the edit added an additional comment to account for 9 = 3^2 + 0 in my own Talk page since there doesn't appear to be a Talk page for that topic. I feel accounting for zero squares should require more care because if we allow for zero then we could as well say that 9 is a sum of N squares as 9 = 3^2 + (0 + 0 ... + 0)(N-1 times). It also causes confusion in other area's of the proof. As for the idea that this is a quote it is a very loose one certainly not a direct translation of Euler's letter or papers. Although Integers are mentioned in the title section it is not clear whether the domain in Euler section is Integer or Natural Numbers due to the ambiguous use of the word number. Specifying that the numbers are Integers would also resolve the issue instead of my inital suggestion of changing the word from number to prime, change all instances of the ambiguous word "number" to "Integer". Personally I still think using the Domain of Natural Numbers and word prime would be a better way to go. Rhuaidhri (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In response to your post on my talk page I hope this clears up the issue. My objection is the to the use of the ambiguous word "number". I feel a more specific term should be used either "Integer" or "prime" as would be usual in proofs of this type (both work). Instead of changing the quoted parts you could add a qualifying statement at the top of the Euler section stating the context of the quote and that the author is refering to Integers. As to the talk page link it doesn't show as a link however having checked other pages I don't see it there for them either so it must be a problem with my browser. I see from the talk link you provided (Thanks) that I'm not the first to point out the ambiguous nature of the phrasing. Rhuaidhri (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In response to your second and third posts to my talk page. The use of the word "number" in any mathematical proof is ambiguous as there are many different types of numbers, that is not a subjective judgement on my part. The use of ambiguous words should be avoided if possible. Perhaps you didn't understand my last post fully so let me rephrase the last part of the suggestion. Since the word number is part of a quote I suggest that before the quote you state that number in the following section means Integer or any words to that effect of your own choosing. Again let me repeat I am not saying the passage is incorrect just ambiguous. Having said that in plain use the word "number" is usually taken to mean the Natural Numbers in which case the statement would be incorrect hence the reason I feel strongly that as the ambiguity can be easily avoided it should be. Rhuaidhri (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"The Honorable" Justices
Just by way of explanation, I added the honorific "The Honorable" to all living current and former SCOTUS justices after a series of edits to SCOTUS Justice articles by Therequiembellishere, in which they removed the honorific title (see, e.g. this edit to Chief Justice John Roberts, this edit to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and this edit to Justice Anthony Kennedy). I thought it would be a good idea to add the title back to the articles for living Justices because, prior to the edits, the title existed in the infoboxes for most living Justices. However, subsequent research has revealed that sitting SCOTUS Justices do not use the title "the Honorable," while retired Justices do use the title "the Honorable" (see this guide to etiquette and this guide to United States protocol). I had been calling sitting SCOTUS Justices "the Honorable" for years! Some law schools even advise their students to address sitting SCOTUS justices as "the Honorable." I guess this just goes to show how important it is to do your research. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)