User talk:Non Curat Lex

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


Following up on your entry here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Request_for_advice, I read your dialogue at User talk:Enigmaman. As to the main bone of contention, namely, whether the article properly starts straight in with a hypothetical (well, case summary), I agree with him. It may be kind of a nice literary device and a refreshing departure too, but finally I think when someone comes to the article Tort, they want to know first of all, "what's a tort?" Your lead paragraph forces them to take in an example of something - they don't know what - before they get to the answer. They aren't law students used to extracting principles from stories; they don't even understand that that's what law students *do*. So while that lead may make a better essay, it does not make a better Wikipedia article.

More generally I find that wholesale edits are better achieved by either raising them first on the page's discussion page, or by making them incrementally, maybe over a period of days, so that other editors can more easily see how each one in fact improves the article. It is quite an imposition to implicitly require other editors to make those comparisons all at once, and then edit afresh a substantially new page. (It's also good practice, I think, to explain one's reversions of good faith and competent edits that plainly reflect a lot of work, but that doesn't always happen either. ) The incremental approach is also a good way of figuring out where any true disagreements may lie. Baby and the bathwater and all that.

I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: John, thank you for the advice. I strictly abstain from "edit warring" and one facet of that is making moderate changes. However, I did not think that my changes were radical. My edits were limited to the introduction. And I kept the basic existing structure of the introduction. All I changed was some of the content, and the order of a few things. I did not bring it up on the talk page first. But, I did check the calk, as I always do, and there was nothing on the talk page to suggest that what I was doing was in any way controversial. Wikipedia clearly has no rule that requires any editor to get "approval" on the talk page before making an edit. f people wanted to talk about it, they could take a look at my suggestions, and then post. Now, to see my suggestions, they have to dig up the history page. This is why wikipedia policy suggests against using reversion for good faith edits. It's not a rule, but I would have preferred if Enigmaman had followed that suggestion, and I think my interest in his following that suggestion is much weightier than his interest in my following the "discuss first" suggestion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule. It just makes things go down more easily. I agree too that your other changes (judging by my quick look) were not controversial. I am sure there is middle ground between you and Enigmaman and perhaps it would be worth your time to try to re-engage on your changes that don't affect the introduction. I have seen a lot of initially contentious relationships become very productive once the hackles are down on both sides, and perhaps this would be one of them. I agree too that reverting good faith edits is not the best approach, but in the defense of editors who do that occasionally (myself included), it is sometimes exasperating to be confronted with big changes by an editor who is saying, in effect, "if you don't like what I did, then *you* can find and fix the errors and fill in whatever gaps I may have left". (Please forgive my hyperbolic characterization there - this is written slightly in haste.) Let's see if anyone else wades in. Meantime good luck with it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

John - thank you for the advice and the support. I am trying to follow WP:DR and negotiate to a compromise with Enigmaman, however, his latest post is that he is "done" talking about. Because I do not want to do anything unilateral and controversial, I am going to try taking it to the talk page and get the matter some attention from others at WP:LAW, if possible. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I said I'm "done" talking about it, because most of your comments involved attacks on my editing. I don't appreciate people coming to my page and doing what you did. If you can discuss it more civilly, I'll be happy to engage you. Enigma msg! 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't attack your editing. I disagree with your particular edit and defend my own particular edit. Our positions are in conflict. Consequently, no matter how I put it, ultimately, my position is going to opposed to yours, and things will be said that will constitute some kind of an "attack" in some way. It's inevitable. But were these attacks on your person? No. They were criticisms of your edit, and the interpretation of the rules that you follow in justifying your edit. Is
I came to your talk page to see why you took what I consider radical action and if it was an error or deliberate, and if it was deliberate, if we could come to our own compromise as a first step as per WP:DR. Your talk page, rather than the articles talk page, would be the appropriate first step if it was just a case of rushing to edit, as I initially assumed. Something about my assumption seems to bother you, and I am sorry for that, but I assure you, I had good cause. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Your very first comment was an insinuation/attack about my editing in general. If you believed I made a mistake, a polite message asking why would've been the recommended first step, in my opinion. Immediately impugning someone's style quickly escalates a dispute before it even began. Enigma msg! 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your user page makes "speed" an issue. It's only natural that people whose GFEs get caught up in the grinder are going to be more likely to think it is a mistake when that's the reputation you create for yourself. I still didn't impugn the style; I don't have a problem with speed; I have a problem with your edit, because it's an improper reversion. You are making the style the focus here, when it should be the substance. Reverting a GFE creates a dispute. Insisting on reverting again even after you realized it was a sincere edit was plenty of escalation for that dispute. It seems like you're trying to shift the issue and focus on how I presented my concerns to you. I think that's a red-herring. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Lex - if this has all been sorted out to your satisfaction (that's my sense judging from further entries on Tort and elsewhere) then how about dropping a followup here - Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Request_for_advice - so the thing can be archived on the next go-round? JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tort Law[edit]

Hi Non Curat Lex, I've followed your disagreement with User:Enigmaman vaguely. I've also taken a look at the edits to the said article in question. At Wikipedia we try and keep everything neutrally worded. Your additions simply jump straight into a, possibly, original researched hypothetical example.Although much appreciated, we have to keep to things that we can source and back up. We can quote examples of Tort Law (within reason) if they're supported by reliable sources. If you believe that an example of the said law would be appropriate in the article please feel free to propose it in the article's talk page. If you have any questions or queries on how to use Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask me. Take care! (P.S. I see no one has left you a welcome page, I'll leave one as soon as I post this.) ScarianCall me Pat 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir - You're a little off. Look more closely. I replaced an example that had no basis in citation with one that had some basis in authority. Further, as already remarked, the previous example was used in a misleading way that seemed to conflict with the rest of the article. I don't think it was meant to, but my use of the example avoided drawing any conclusions. It was self-explanatory in my version that the example was not a case where liability was or was not imposed, but rather, an example of a decision made pursuant to the subject - tort law. While I have no express authority for the psotion that this is a good exmaple, the article did not have one before either. So my position isn't the be-all end-all of encyclopedia quality, but it is an incremental improvement over what was there before.
Bottom line - I added three sources that weren't there before in my edits; you're justifying an edit that removed all three on the basis that I didn't cite sources. I apologize if this seems defensive, but your position strikes me as perverse. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I find no fault with those sources, friend. It's the rhetorical question that strikes me as being unencyclopaedic and too informal for an encyclopaedia. I am honestly glad that you're contributing in a positive way but we work as a community to discuss major changes like that.
1) The lead section needs to remain intact.
2) Any informal/conversational language needs to be checked and removed.
3) A more reliable, 3rd party published example needs to be developed and added.
Those are the things that need doing buddy :-) I hope this helps! If you have any comments or queries please don't hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat: the "informal rhetorical question," however, is according to many anglo-american authors, the only meaning of tort law. What is "a civil wrong not a crime and not arising out of contract?" It is what a governmental authority of suitable jurisdiction says it is. According to White, Tort law in England and America was nothing more than a collection of miscellaneous writs that could not properly be categorized as property, or contractual. Holmes, who himself quipped that tort law was not a proper subject for a legal test, was largely responsible for the defining notions - the first principles - of the field that persist to this day. Is that just my opinion? Well it could be, but it isn't. And no one has to take my word for it, either. Other people have a chance to edit anything said. Hopefully, those people will know what they're talking about. I am convinced however, that what I've written reflects the consensus. The decision, however, should be made by someone who is familiar with the content, not someone who is making a content-blind judgment about the form, rather than the substance. Plus, I can add plenty of 3rd party published citation - but not if I have to work with an introduction like that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-follow-up: Also, while sometimes the status quo should be maintained, by supporting it in this case, you're also supporting a "revert-first, ask questions later" approach to dealing with good faith edits. Is that really what you want? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a third party, completely neutral to the argument altogether, I just wanted to give my input on a couple things. First, regarding your specific edit to Tort Law, I'm glad to see that you have started a discussion on its talk page. I think that was absolutely the most appropriate course to take, and I encourage you to continue discussion of Tort Law edits there.
Regarding your question to Scarian, which read, ...while sometimes the status quo should be maintained, by supporting it in this case, you're also supporting a "revert-first, ask questions later" approach to dealing with good faith edits. Is that really what you want? I think the answer to that question is "yes". "Good faith" edits are not necessarily "good" edits by default. Whether or not I believe your edit should have been reverted is irrelevant; what matters is that an experienced editor felt that your edit could possibly have lowered the quality of an article. It's easy enough to revert a revert, so I believe Scarian Enigma took the correct course of action by preserving the integrity of the article while the two of you discussed your changes. For example, if a new user made a good faith edit to the article for Pineapple and wrote "Pineapples are delicious!!", it would not be appropriate to simply leave that text sitting in the article for days; instead, the correct course of action would be to revert the edit, and then allow the new user time to either understand why his edit was not helpful, or clean up his content a little more.
Finally, I just want to mention that it looks like all parties involved got a little heated during this discussion. I sincerely hope no one is walking away with a grudge, because it would be a pity for such talented editors to get distracted from helping to improve Wikipedia. Rather, I hope to run into excellent contributions from both of you again in the near future! --Ean5533 ( View! / Talk!) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear something up: Scarian wasn't involved. He was also a neutral third party who came along to offer his opinion on the matter. Enigma msg! 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I made that change at the exact moment that you wrote this. Incredible response time.  :) --Ean5533 ( View! / Talk!) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I would call Scarian "Pat," but I wouldn't call him involved. He gave disinterested advice, which I've basically followed - I wasn't planning to revert the revert, but I have made a few edits to give a better idea of what I really want to change in the article. If it's still too controversial, I wouldn't complain about it being reverted.

This topic has generated an impressive volume of discussion, perhaps for the wrong reasons, but I think everyone is committed to acting reasonably and getting things right. I hope hard feelings will not persist. However, I don't know if I've adequately explained myself to Enigma on the subject of personal attacks - I have no personal problem with him, but it's hard to state my objection without making it seem like I do. For that I really must apologize. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the big deal...[edit]

Missing barnstarPn.png The Hidden Barnstar
This user has found Basketball110's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it?

Cheers, Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


If you check Enigmaman's user talk page I've had to block him. I don't think he'll make admin now. My apologies. ScarianCall me Pat 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's technically a disease to go against Wiki time... it's currently 1:01 am... if you think it's 6 pm there then you're nuts. Sorry to break that to you. :-( ScarianCall me Pat 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha. I'm back. Thanks for keeping an eye on my userpage, but that was actually me. I was editing from an IP address because I was taking an enforced Wikibreak. I hope I'm back to normal now. I love the "I don't think he'll make admin now." Ahahahahaha. Enigmaman (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't April Fools Day yet (for me) when I saw that, and I saw that there were multiple edits from the same IP - and I knew you had a problem with a persistent vandal - that's what I figgered it was -- after I saw that Scarian had blocked you, I figured it was all a joke. Nice LOLcat. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm three hours ahead of you, and it wasn't April Fools for me yet either. I was operating on UTC, for Scarian's sake. :) He wanted an early start, apparently. Some funny stuff happened, which led to a few big arguments and a proposed policy. Enigmaman (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about --notenglish--ing some folks' pages, including Pat's. Especially Pat's. I check with my insurance agent though, and he said it was covered. Maybe next year. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Wish I had thought of that one! Anyway, I sort of replied to your message. Essentially, "I will reply tonight." I have something to say, but I'm a little tied up right now. Enigma msg 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Come back and post when you're ready. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted earlier, on my talk page. I like how it's all under zx2. :) Enigma msg 08:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!![edit]

It's so nice to wake up to such a message! I just go about it all quite casually, and think that law is way to boring for anyone to really notice... until one day the law pages are so good that we make text books and Westlaw redundant! But I expect that will be a while yet. :) Thanks again. Wikidea 07:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Non Curat Lex for the recognition. I'm just making sure Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source --SMP0328. (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Due Process[edit]

Hi, I've responded to your comment at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This conversation continued @ (talk).

Tort reform[edit]

I think if you have another look at that article, it is per year, they say 'for each of the years 2000, 2001, 2002...' But I think that you're right in that this is a bit of an iffy statistic. Perhaps you could replace that citation with the CDC webpage you found? You're also right that it was probably unhelpful to editorialise. And the more I think about it, even if you go: 98,000 deaths in the States, 13,500 in the UK (which was a 1998 stat, before all the extra money we've had put into the NHS - I've also got one senior doctor in a newspaper called The Independent saying it "could be" 30,000 a year, in 2001) and then compare by dividing the numbers according to respective populations, it's still not necessarily right. Because if 40m odd Americans are without insurance, then you have to deduct that. And even then, the real comparison could only work if you knew the hospital operation numbers: so you'd have to have a statistic that was something like: 4 deaths from negligence per 100,000 operations, or something. And then, what do you count as 'negligence', etc, etc. I'm actually just pretty glad that people are reading this page at all! I banged it off one night, after thinking "cripes the US page was bad". The funny thing is, you say you're not a supporter of tort reform. But I am! Just a different kind of "tort reform", which is what I was trying to get the page to show: the word "reform" has taken on very different meanings between the Commonwealth and the States. Wikidea 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea: Absolutely. I will post the best available U.S. statistics in a noneditorialized way. Hope you didn't take personal offense to my "calling 'b.s.'" on 198,000. I know what you mean about "tort reform" - the tort reform I support is the kind William Wade Prosser and Roger B. Traynor believed in, not the kind George W. Bush hsa clamored for. I do understand the political impetus: without limits on tort liability, medical insurance becomes so pricey, doctors go out of business, and private medecine becomes too costly. That's not a problem you have in the U.K. to the same extent. However, I think that the American solution is backwards. They're basically saying that instead of doctors bearing the cost of other bad doctors and passing it on to consumers, people who are injured should have to bear their own costs of being injured. The point of tort law is to compensate victims and deterr unsafe conduct. The best tort reform would be doctor reform: doctors and patients wouldn't have to pay for bad doctors, if we'd just oust bad doctors and not let them practice medecine. This too would make medecine more costly (assuming it's not socialized), but at least it would bef or the right reasons. [And by the way, it's not a bad page - never was.] Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: one more thing to think about. Let's say the U.S. has 100,000 deaths from medical negligence each year, and the UK has 15,000. The US Population is 60 million; we have 300 million (and a higher poverty rate to contend with). That would mean that we have 5 times the population, and 6 times the deaths. That means that the number of deaths in the US is nearly propotional; the death rate for medical negligence is only slightly higher here. Moreover, if the UK death rate is really closer to 30,000, it means that the US actually has a lower death rate from medical negligence. I'm not saying things here are good, but I don't think comparison to the UK establishes the US as "the worst in the civilized world." Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:A E Francis 21 April '08[edit]

I read your note concerning the 4th Amendment - it seems that illegal search and seizures are very much in the scope of subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum. For that matter, so are Anti Trust actions. If the links somehow offend your sence of propriety, then take them down. But I don't agree with your logic. I see you say you are a 25 year old California lawyer. Nice to meet you. I have a JD and an LLD (which is a Phd in the law), so I am not just some hack out here writing about things I don't know about. In fact that is what I do for a living: write advisory reports for federal judges. Many are in your neck of the woods: The Ninth Circuit. Your concerns are ones reasonable minds can disagree about. I think the goal is to have as many links as possible. I just don't see the links concerning a subpoena and the 4th, 5th or 14th Amendments as all that tenuous. But that is just my opinion. To be honest, if you want to take them down, it won't ruin my day one bit. A E Francis (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article on subpoena duces tecum? It specifically mentions the Robinson-Patman Act and Clayton Act. I know. I wrote both "subpoena duces tecum" and "subpoena ad testificandum", in their entirety just last week. It seems the duces tecum link is warranted under the circumstances. A E Francis (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Replying to your talk page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're Welcome[edit]

You're welcome. If you want, I'll correct spelling errors on this page. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page? That's awfully nice - but I don't think it's necessary. You should preserve your resources for making the law articles look good! Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Carlin sock[edit]

Per WP:DR, don't respond to him. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad ... that was WP:DENY. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do my best to abide by this. Enigma message 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Take a look at wht i just wrote, could you plz. give me some advice? Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York. JeanLatore (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tort Law/Crimes[edit]

Hey Matt,

You asked me "By the way, what was the "misguided reference to "crimes" in tort? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)" when I edited the torts article.

By that I meant I deleted one of the sentence from the article ("Deliberate torts causing bodily harm, property harm, business, are ruled as crimes in the court system.") I deleted it because, to the extent it made sense despite the grammar, it is wrong. Intentional torts, even if committed deliberately, aren't necessarily crimes, and even where the alleged tort might also be criminal a decision in a civil case isn't a "ruling" that something was a crime.


Thank you...[edit]

...for your comments at my RfA. Enigma message 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Just dropping a note to let you know that we miss you. :) Enigma message 01:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Choice of Law[edit]

Thanks, that cleared things up some. --Random832 (contribs) 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

request for arbitration

Current requests

Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes[edit]

'Initiated by Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk)atSelf-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [edit]Involved parties Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Famspear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Non Curat Lex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Wikipedia spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Wikipedia formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Wikipedia users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented. There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Request for arbitration[edit]

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Please see this page and add any statements or comments that you consider necessary. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank yous[edit]

Hahah, it took me a while to figure out what exactly you were referring to [referencing the ABA discussion page]. I appreciate the compliment and I'd like to return it. I look forward to more in the future. LH (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Law Assessment[edit]

Hello Non Curat Lex. I've reopened the assessment department. Can you help by further providing your opinion on the assessment matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment. The editor who opposed is not a participant of WP Law but a while back this editor removed from WP Law the links to the assessment department and made a couple of changes, but refused to make enough changes to open the assessment department and refused anyone else from making changes. What we have is a non-WPLaw editor who removed the assessment department from the view of WP Law participants and who refused to make changes to bring it back to the view of WP Law participants. I returned the assessment department links to WP Law and cleaned up the dep't. Now, the editor who opposed the C class is reverting my edits on several articles based on the argument that the C class has not yet been adopted (but it has not yet been rejected which is an argument that continues in the talk page). Can you provide some input as a participant of WP Law? Thank. EECavazos (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is making these edits. The editor now is starting an edit war with me. Next time you have some time, please help out. Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Seek consensus to make significant (controversial) changes that others don't agree with you on. The version has existed for the past 3 months - what you're doing is being disruptive and need to stop. Wikilawyering and canvassing for support is not at all acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of wikilawyering or canvassing? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry if you felt it was directed at you. It was strictly directed at EECavazo. You do seem to have a cool head and I'm glad you've given some advice to your friend/colleague, but I do hope you're not suggesting that I am or seem to be polluting Wikipedia. We do have a bold revert discuss cycle, and his reasons for turning this cycle into an edit-war rather than following it properly are problematic, so I do hope you let him understand that problem. As for assessments, given I'd been assessing articles (on and off wiki) within a few weeks of my arrival at Wikipedia, it doesn't seem likely that I'm not going to know how things have been, and how they are at present. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist: I am not suggesting you are polluting wikipedia. That language refers to my general rule for editwarring that there is no extreme too far that justifies giving in. On the contrary, your dedication to assessing unassessed articles, and developing and maintaing standards for assessment is admirable, and I personally appreciate it. However, I also appreciate that EEcavazo has some interesting and new ideas which have merit, and I think that you two started a productive cycle of discussion, without finishing it. EEcavazo's enthusiasm for assessment should not be chilled and his ideas should not be written off.
Finally I would reject the idea that EEcavazo coming to my talk page is "canvassing." Altough I am not a highly active user I have been a WPLaw editor for a long time, and my userpage is quite clear about my stance on editwarring. Moreover, I am clearly an uninvolved user in this dispute. Wikipolicy suggests and encourages that editors in a content dispute contact other experienced and uninvolved users for advice. This is how issues get attention; there is a big difference between this and canvassing. I do not monitor his activities, but I noticed that he talked - openly and on the record - to a couple of other [even more] experienced editors aswell. This does not change my stance. Famspear and BD are among the first people I would go to for a content question as well.
Having seen the disputed page now, I have discovered some issues of my own, which I will try to see resolved, hopefully with your cooperation. I also suggest that in dealing with EEcavazo that you consider that some of his ideas have merits, and you need to strike a better balance. Also, remember to be civil. So far, you've twice written what looked like replies to me that were very abrasive. This can escalate rather than de-escalate a conflict. The message you just wrote was an improvement because it was more informative and less confrontational.
Are you interested in having someone attempt to mediate the content dispute?
Before you consider taking me up, I am going to tell you right up front that you will probably disagree with me on two things - although you may alreay be aware. First, I believe that this "team" creates the appearance of hierarchy and authority between coequal editors. I believe that is a bad idea, and a policy violation. Second, I believe that a C-class of articles could be a good idea (for reasons I would be happy to explain) - although I am not willing to change the current grading scale without a consensus. These positions notwithstanding, I will assess the content dispute objectively.
I will also tell you that even if you do not want to consent to me mediating the article, I am now aware of what's going on, and I will be actively involved in trying to bring about a resolution to this dispute. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do raise your concerns. If EE spent more time using your approach, there'd be a lot less tension, in my opinion. I don't think we're at the stage of requiring mediation yet - I'm assuming, of course, he's capable of engaging in the type of discussion you have been rather than edit-warring. I did find problems with those discussions and no, I don't consider them openly honest in content at times either. Despite all of the problems, I haven't written all his ideas off - just noted the few that I have problems with need to be resolved through discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As "mediate" implies formal dispute resolution on wikipedia, I should change my suggestion to "referee" or something less formal - I think things would just go more smoothly with a third voice as an intermediary on some of the things where the two of you are at loggerheads. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, mediation does have 2 separate dimensions on the dispute resolution process here - either formal or informal mediation, and yeah, I thought you meant the latter. But I agree with you that it could go more smoothly that way, so I certainly wouldn't object to another voice that tries to stay in between for those things. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, I think that's a good start. I am glad you are willing to work collaboratively. I hope EEC will also. I think this work. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your posting I'll relate to you what I think and just lay it out. There used to be an assessment deparmtent. Several months ago the editor with whom I am in this dispute removed WP Law participant's access to the assessment department by removing the link to the department on the WP Law project page. Then this editor made some unilateral changes which involved cutting and pasting content from WP India and which included links to the WP India assessment department. Again, this was done without WP Law participants having access to the assessment department. Also, this editor is not a WP Law participant. A while back I started assessing WP Law articles and noticed that there wasn't an assessment department but then I found it after I tried to create the page. The assessment department had a caption on the top saying that it was closed and that it would be reopened again. I offered suggestions to start reopening the department, but this editor said that "we" the department stay as it for a year or so. Fine. I start assessing articles and this same editor objects to the C classification. This editor keeps on using the royal "we" and I discover that the editor is the only editor who opposes the C class and is the only editor keeping an eye on the assessment department. This editor has not made any improvements to the assessment department nor returned WP Law participant's access to it on the WP Law project page. Then after on the talk page of the WP Law talk page when two editors (including myself and you) support the C classification this editor starts reassessing the C class assessements I've made, which apparently is the most this editor has done in the WP Law assessment department. Keep in mind that no WP Law participant opposed the C class and in fact supported it. Since this made a complicated situation which belonged on a discussion page of the assessment department I reopened the assessment department and returned it to a clean slate, which included removing the nonconsensus changes made when the department was hidden from the WP Law participants. This included returning the grading scheme to a general grading scheme and removing the team heirarchy. Then I reopened the assessment department and returned the link to it on the WP Law project page and in the to do list. My position is that the assessment department was defunct and the equivalent of being nonexistant because it was hidden from WP Law and it was closed for several months and it was not improved in several months. The changes that the other editor is making is to return it to its defunct state rather than improving it. This editor does not wish to discuss or implement change because the editor said in the beginning that no changes would be made for a year. Further the editor relies on some idea of consensus of one derived from making changes hidden by the WP Law project and ignoring the fact that two WP Law participants have agreed to make some changes while this editor is not a WP Law participant nor has made any changes. I stepped away and said that we should get other members within the wikiproject to take over and make a decision on our different proposals. My so-called canvassing included asking WP Law participants/admins to provide insight and mediate. I contacted the four WP Law participants who were admins, you (because you participated in this issue and so should be heard), and another WP Law participant who is pretty experienced (Eastlaw). This is not a bad thing, this is getting WP Law participants involved. Hiding the assessment department from WP Law participants is a bad thing. It should be the consensus of WP Law participants to make changes. Until some WP Law admins get involved to mediate, no changes to assessed articles or further changes to the now opened assessment department should be made. EECavazos (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
EE: Thank you for laying it out. I will respond on your talk page.
I responded and left a suggestion. Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this isn't something I would agree with.
  1. The sole reason I stopped myself from using formal channels to resolve this was because I thought he was capable of better - I no longer can be sure.
  2. In order to not be considered canvassing, it needs to be a neutrally written notice - misrepresenting parts that are relevant to that notice, or making clearly biassed statements which can influence the outcome, is canvassing. That said, I am trying to AGF in that maybe he intended it as a friendly notice, but the problem is, the intent and what was said to not match, certainly from where I'm standing.
  3. The conduct is particularly disgraceful in his claim that I've removed access to the dept. from the main page, which is bollocks - I was the one who put it on the page in the first place [1]. It was removed by another user [2]. I not only consider this disruptive behavior, but extremely uncivil in obviously suggesting I'm a sockpuppet of that other user. This sort of misrepresentation is unacceptable.
  4. Despite the fact another user had "hid" the assessment dept, no user is denied from accessing the page - all editors are able to see any changes made to any page.
  5. Whether it's the disruptive editing, the chronic assumptions of bad faith, the canvassing, or the unfortunate application and/or poor understanding of Wikipedia norms and policies, it's adverse effect on the atmosphere of editing and the project has compelled me to reconsider using the formal channels. I see no need to, or any benefit in departing from normal practice (of discussing on the talk page, in the moderated environment on-wiki) when I see his appalling conduct as being the cause of the dispute here (which can be resolved with a sanction). Strangely, I've never had such major problems on assessment pages until I encountered this user. But I still haven't lost complete faith in his abilities so maybe my suggestion will remove the need to go through this. Rather than going through at mass of changes at once, perhaps you might like to go through 1 concern/item/idea/suggestion at a time, even if it's on his behalf? I'll certainly respond on-wiki as I have willingly so far, but you might need to explain it in a way he understands in order for this method to have a proper resolution too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
NMC, taking issue with how EE wrote what he wrote on my talk pages or others is a very trivial objection. You knowm behind the user names are thinking, intelligent people, who exercise judgment of their own. Frankly, in dealing with EE, I am not sure how diligently you have followed AGF. Your suspicions may or may not be legitimate, but you're letting them get in front of solutions. I don't understand your unwillingness to participate in my experiment. While I'm personally dissappointed, I am not going to lose any leep over it. I'm busy enough that I don't need to see out extra work pro bono publico. I think I'm going to take the same position as the others: you two should get someone else to do this. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree and will follow your path unless an admin or more WP law participants get involved otherwise this would be just too aggravating and uncivil of a process. After all, when a situation recalls the "mark the eight" scene in The Big Lebowski you gotta step back and realize that this is just Wikipedia. EECavazos (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for understanding, and for taking a mature approach. Wikipedia can always use a little more maturity. I still have faith that this will work itself out, and I'll try to help where I can. I definitely don't think you've done anything wrong. I'll try to find another test case for my new conflict resolution approach. Keep playing it safe -- both of you, please. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Associate Justice Talk page[edit]

I've moved my comments to the end of the section, as you requested. Let me note that it was not you who misrepresented what I wrote; it was Evenin' Scrot/Supervox2113. He's the one who claimed I had expressed a belief that "good behavior should be in the article" when I said nothing of the sort, and the one who erected the strawman of me claiming recess appointments were not subject to the good behavior clause (so he could then proceed to savage that strawman). To be honest, I find his entire tone more than mildly distasteful, and have for a while (I've crossed paths with him before). He seems to think he is in a talk.* group in Usenet, not Wikipedia. I have absolutely no problem with either your tone or the content or substance of your comments, to me or to others. Cheers. Magidin (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Ta! It does mean something to me, when someone says thank you that way :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

pro se article[edit]

Dear Lar & Non Curat Lex

Self-Represented Litigation is a subject that I have collected references on and am familiar with. When I started contributing to this article it said 8/26/08 "there is no fundamental right to self-representation." No citation was given for that at all. I posted various quotations of the U.S. Supreme Court, which were deleted on the grounds that you can't quote the Supreme Court. However, another user has more recently quoted the Supreme Court in a different case and there has been no objection to that. I went to the U.W. law library, a 5 floor library, and used their computerized search on both "pro se" and "self-represented". There were only two books and I checked out both of them. One was on reserve. After posting my intention on the comments page, I spent all day Monday typing in the table quoting the various state constitutions, which Non Curat Lex "disagrees" with. That was from the AJS book that I checked out from the library reserve for 24 hours. I posted the American Jurisprudence Society quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, which was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I posted an ABA article I found on the Internet and that was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I am having problems finding the exact wording but on Wed night it was changed to something to the effect that there is a constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal proceeding but not in a civil matter. A 1964 S.C. case concerning the right to a government paid defense lawyer in a criminal prosecution was cited as a reference. I changed that to say that there is a constitutional right in both civl and criminal matters. I emailed to the ABA and asked them for their input and they emailed to me a location on their web site. I quoted that and it was deleted. Here is another ABA publication, which says that there is a "constitutional right".

"Constitution v Ethics There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate." Source: Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

My quotations of the New York Times were also removed.

It seems to me that "Non Curat Lex" has a POV that the article should say that there is no right to represent oneself even though the ABA, the American Judicature Society, and other "legal authorities" disagree. I have absolutely no problem with anyone adding any references to the article but I am bothered by the idea that the article will again be incorrect and convey that there is no right to self-representation. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay: not all rights are fundamental rights. This is a NPOV, verifiale assertion. Your assertion that self-representation is a fundamental right is not. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk:Pro se page just now, I've responded to your question there with a proposal... for the record I'm not sure that making your points a and b are the best way to address this issue at this time... we need to move forward without casting aspersions, but then, you said them a few days ago. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think your proposal is entirely appropriate. I expect the other "concerned but uninvolved editors" will weigh in soon.
As for your suggestion here, I am not certain that I fully understand you. If you asked me to do, or not do, something, I almost certainly would, but I am not sure what you are asking me to do differently. Should I refrain from point-by-point refutation, or from making my points summarily as I did above? Or have I missed the point completely? Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It has to do with characterising Kay as a "disruptive user"... I think we should at least for now assume good faith and go with "she does things that are disruptive.... but she doesn't realise it or hasn't yet understood why". It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. Further "insists on inflicting her ignorance" may not be the most neutral way of stating the fundamental issue here, which is that she is exhibiting a fixation on this one topic and is not responding well to advice, guidance, feedback, nor participating fully in our consensus driven editing model yet, choosing instead to add wholesale text that isn't making the article better for the interested but as yet uninformed reader that is our target audience. (At some point if things don't improve, we will have to call a spade a spade but even then... with respect. I realise you're very frustrated, and I don't blame you one bit. I hope this helps. As to the proposal, it seems to have been lost in the noise, no one else commented yet. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get you now. On further review, I agree. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question[edit]

Hello Non Curat Lex. I can't answer your question on my talk page about this play without breaking WP:NPOV. Which, of course, I am happy to do and say YES I DID. Sorry for the shouting. I do want to add one thing that you may or may not agree with. Being almost twice your age I am lucky enough to be able to say that I have grown up with Jim Henson (I go all the way back to seeing Rowlf on the Jimmy Dean Show) as an entertainer/guru. I told my date, and everybody that I talked to for the last day and a half, that I thought that Jim would have been proud of this show. The songs were both instructive about the diffs of us as humans and were fun. That was why I felt that he was always trying to give to me no matter what venue, (film or TV) something fun and something that I could learn from. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was typing this late last night and I think that I may have fallen asleep in the middle of my typing. Thanks for both of your notes and cheers and happy editing here at WikiP :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Law page[edit]

Hello Matt, I was just wondering if you'd like to comment on the Law page's featured article review? Wikidea 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear about that. Actually being involved with the legal system is never fun. I hope it all goes okay. Wikidea 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal note on article discussion[edit]

Thank you for alerting me to my error. Sorry, I did edit the bracket right before that and I think it someone got stuck on. There were some problems loading content and I might have had more than one page open. I would really appreciate it if you would stick to using the article commentary page solely for a discussion of source verification per the guidelines. We should have a communal page. I think if we just follow the Wiki policies we will get a better article.kay sieverding (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia is a community-based project. You don't go to jail for breaking a rule here or there. I will do everything I can to help you have a better editing experience here with wikipedia. Normally, personal messages will be left on userpages not article pages -- the excpetion is if they pertain to the article's content. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I don't understand your comment, though, about leaving messages on the article discussion though since the guidelines to the talk pages say they are not supposed to be used to discuss the subject only to discuss sources. I think the idea is that as a group we aren't supposed to pre agree on how we want to present the subject because that will result in a biased article. kay sieverding (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean Kay, that it was not sufficient to respond to the mis-labeled edit on your userpage; I wanted to leave the message on the article talk page, because it addressed an edit to the article about a disputed subject. It was not a matter of general discussion pertaining to the subject of the article, but a message about how the article was being edited. Is this a satisfactory explanation? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

References for position?[edit]

I understand your position is that this is a fringe theory: "self-representation in a civil matter is a fundamental right". Do you have any references to support the position that this is a "fringe theory"? Thank you. kay sieverding (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have given them. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Working relationship[edit]

You wrote above

"Wikipedia clearly has no rule that requires any editor to get "approval" on the talk page before making an edit… wikipedia policy suggests against using reversion for good faith edits…I don't have a problem with speed; I have a problem with your edit, because it's an improper reversion. You are making the style the focus here, when it should be the substance. Reverting a GFE creates a dispute. Insisting on reverting again even after you realized it was a sincere edit was plenty of escalation for that dispute."

It is difficult for me to respond to your extensive deletions--because of my time limits, my newness to using the Wikipedia advanced features, and because I don't want a controversy. I believe I am 100% totally sincere in my contributions and that they are all valid even if it sometimes takes more than one attempt to write succinctly. I think you are wrong to delete them. For instance, in discussion of the history of the right of self-representation, I think the Bible is a valid source both because it is a historical document and because it is a document of great influence. I think the "blogs" are evidence of informal publishing and many of what are called blogs--which you have been deleting--are in fact articles inviting comment. Examples of those are the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the ABA Journal, and the American Constitutional Society blog. Since self-representation is a rapidly changing field, these publications are more up to date and the actual blog postings show experiences that are not filtered thru organizations with a POV (that litigation procedures should be structured so that lawyers can make money). kay sieverding (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay: You are partially correct; wikipedia does not GENERALLY require prior authorization to edit any article. It is an open community. However, another general rule is that Wikipedia does not EVER allow disruptive editing. Therefore, when an editor is making edits in a way that could be disruptive, the rules DO allow the community to put reasonable restrictions on the editor, such as requiring that the editor discuss on a talk page, or do his or her editing in his or her userspace, before edits are applied to the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States[edit]

The information below appears to be a message directed at you personally and does not appear to relate to discussion of the article, so I am moving it to your talk page. I will reinforce appropriate talk page editing with Kay. Risker (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that Non Curat Lex has stated his interest in the subject of prisoner litigation and his intention to contribute on that section next month. According to his bio, he is a 26 year old lawyer in Southern California. I would like to make him aware that there was an article on the ABA web site about the U.S. Attorney in Southern California. I will try to find the link later. The article said that they used their computers to match all the DNA in their files against each other and found 125 pairs of people for whom they had matching DNA on file. This included unrelated people of different races. Apparently, their previous procedure had involved preselecting characteristics such as race before running the DNA match tests. Since this is right in his geographic area, he might see other articles on this. Since he is a lawyer and interested in the subject of prisoner litigation, maybe he could offer some pro bono assistance to prisoners convicted on the basis of DNA evidence that is now in dispute. kay sieverding (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It does however have relevance to pro se litigation since 92% of all prisoner appeals are pro se and the fact that such a scientific challenge has emerged to DNA evidence will give basis to many prisoner appeals, if they are aware of the evidence. It really is pretty shocking. To me it is just horrifying that innocent people are in jail. I was completely unsympathetic to prisoners until I was jailed for engaging in pro se litigation. There I was curious about other prisoners. I had very little contact with male prisoners but I felt terrible for the women I met. I probably heard the stories of at least 75 prisoners. Of those, only four involved violence. One was a woman who seemed to be retarded who watched while one of her boyfriends beat up and robbed another. A second was a woman who told me that when she was a young teen her parents friend had sex with her in their home while her parents were upstairs. She got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption. The third was a woman who walked in on another woman giving her husband a BJ. She weighed about 100 lbs. but she said she put the other woman in the hospital. However, wouldn't most men get off in such a situation? The 4th was a 100 lb. woman who slapped her 250 lb boyfriend's face. The neighbors called the cops because they heard shouting and asked why his face was red. She was a graduate from a college where admission requires straight A's. She went to jail because she missed a couple of parole meetings. She was afraid to miss work to go to the meetings which were only available M-F 9 - 5. I met a woman who was jailed because she was late paying her car registration because her daughter had cancer. I met a woman who was jailed for living with her husband and their new baby because he had 5 years earlier got a restraining order against her and never canceled it. I met a woman who did almost 6 months without trial because she was accused of not turning in her son for dealing drugs. I met a woman who pled guilty to a theft she didn't do that they had no evidence that she did or that even happened because they offered to let her out on time served. She served 5 months because she couldn't raise bail. kay sieverding (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also met a graduate of law school who said she wasn't admitted to the bar because she defended a man while she was still in law school and she was black. She had no criminal record. She was jailed because her mother had owned an unregistered gun. It was in a locked safe. Her mother died and two months later all her mother's stuff was in her garage including the safe. Her daughter's boyfriend used pot and a search warrant was issued against her residence because of the daughter's boyfriend. But she had no criminal intent.

I met a woman who had been employed and was a college grad. She never got a DUI except once, on New Year's Eve, when she killed someone. She got 30 years for vehicular homicide. Her sentence could have been shortened if she got alcoholism treatment but that was only available at Max. She was in a minimum security facility and she said she couldn't cope with Max even to get out a few years earlier. She would have agreed to never drive again, to give speeches about drinking and driving, and to pay restitution. I didn't see how putting her away for 30 years benefited anyone. kay sieverding (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC) kay sieverding (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll try to stay within the guidelines as well. Thanks Risker. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
For the reasons given by risker, overwritten by you, the information you have posted about DNA evidence on the article talk page and on my talk page is not sufficiently relevant to the aritcle. There's a connection, but it'snot an appropriate connection to be discussing on the article page, and goes more your problems with justice in America. For this discussion, wikipedia articles are not an apprpriate forum.
As for the suggestion with what I do with my free time/pro bono services: I already provide unpaid legal services for the community in manners which are appropriate to my abilities and interests. I don't know if you indend it to be, but your suggestion, as phrased, is presumptuous, and rude. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I merely suggested that because you said you planned to write an article about prisoner litigation.

What does this mean "rv gf/u edit [user ordered to stop experimenting on m.a.]) ? kay sieverding (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan to write an article about prisoner litigation. I plan to include discussion of prisoner litigation in the articl formerly known as pro se, to the extent that it is relevant.
Lexicon of edit summary abbreviations:
"rv" means revert.
"gf" means "good faith"
"u" means "unconstructive"
"m.a." means "mainspace article"
Please stop making controversial edits to the article. I will take appropriate action if you do not. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Non Curat Lex

According to Wikipedia " The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it bears the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents."

You are using the term "legal rule" to describe "Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also impact pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Counsel has, through published materials addressed the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants. [5] The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if it requires excusing inadvertance by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. (While this creates double standard--your unsupported unflagged statement), The Judicial Counsel justifies it based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referree... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."[6] It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far".

Do you mean that "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" "will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents."?

Why are you describing my insertion of the following 13 citations as "controversial edits" and what difference does it make that it is controversial? Wikipedia is supposed to be able to deal with controversial subjects such as presidential elections. Did you find the references to be inaccurate? Why exactly did you delete the following?

"The wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama, [1] Idaho,[2] Indiana,[3] Kentucky, [4] New Jersey,[5], Nevada[6] Wisconsin [7]Pennyslvania, [8] Virgina, [9] Rhode Island, [10] Washington State,[11] West Virginia[12]Utah, [13]

Why did you insert the qualifier "while this creates a double standard" and not flag it? My understanding is that all a court will do is make sure the rules are understood. As clear in the reference, if a complaint should be dismissed because of statute of limitations, for instance, there is no difference between the results based on whether it is filed by a lawyer or not.

I see no Wikipedia justification for your choice to delete the state judicial canons, even if Risker and Arthur Ruben also want them deleted.

By saying that the state judicial canons are "controversial edits" you are admitting that they are "relevant".

Just what are you threatening to do "as appropriate action" because I flagged your unsupported statements and reinserted the 13 references to the state judicial codes? kay sieverding (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, what do the state judicial cannons have to do with self-representation?
Appropriate administrative actions for disruptive editing can include, without limitation, further blocks, and editing restrictions. You've had fair warning of this. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

State judicial canons saying “A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law”. supplement state laws. I haven't done anything against Wiki policy. kay sieverding (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your attempted edit-warring on pro se is wrong. Further, you haven't explained the relevance of the quote, you've just repeated it. How does it connect to the topic at hand? Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


All editors to this section, with the exception of me, and Non Curat Lex were found to be Sock Puppet Vandals CTJF83Talk 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowser. That would explain that guy's bad attitude.

Thank you for your assistance in taking care of the uncivil and PA on my talk page! It is appreciated!! :) CTJF83Talk 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia should be a community of good-natured people, behaving good-naturedly. I try to do my part, one random act of kindness at a time. Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
HAHA, ya, it should be, but never will be....oh well, as long as there are people like you, sticking up for others, It'll be a slightly better place! :-D Let me know if you need help with anything! CTJF83Talk 08:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For each one person that sticks up for me, a dozen will stick up for Ctjf83. That even though ctjf83 was the one who started it with his false accusation. I might not have a fancy high school degree, but I have integrity. Slappywag42 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Slappy, I don't even know what you two disagree about. But if more people are sticking up for CTJF83, it's probably because CTJF83 acts in a good-natured way, and you are acting in a nasty way. I'm not judging you personally, or the merits of your disagreement. I just want you to try to strike a more constructive tone in your edits about disagreements, because wikipedia is a community in which we take etiquette seriously. Would you like some help from me with whatever it is that is causing you to have this disagreement? Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No, its becuase he has a large click, some unwitting, some witting, ready to spring up and enforce his defnition of "civlity:" that everyone should respect CTJF83's supremacy and tolerate whatever bad treatment he throws our way. If that's wikipedia's definition of civility, orangemike can jsut go ahead and block me right now.
I thouhgt the disagreement started when CTJF83 falsely accused me of plagarizing yahoo tv's website. That accusation is false. Its someone else who copies from that website wihtout acknowledging where he took it from. But since CTJF83 thinks himself an infallible god, nothing he says is wrong. His click and everyone else will beleive his false accusation and their's nothing whatsoever I can do to clear my name. The santity of his talk page msut be protected at all costs!
CTJF83 is like a grade school bully. He punches and punches and punhces, but when teh victim dares strike back, oh, suddenly the bully has the high moral ground. The teacher happened to be looking when the victim struck back, but was completly oblivious to all the times the bully struck teh victim. Just teh natural order of things on Wikipedia. Slappywag42 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[-unindent-] Most of your above comments here are more argument, rather than fact, so I can't really understand what the dispute is. If you want my help resolving an editing dispute, you'll have to explain the underlying dispute (preferably with diffs) instead of just giving an explanation, and labeling editors or edits.

As for your feelings about CTJF, I'm really sorry you feel that way about a fellow editor. My brief experience with him, her, or it has been completely different. He, she or it seems like a 100% goodnatured, upstanding, and rule-abiding wiki. You, on the other hand, have been very negative in your comments. Maybe there is a reason that few people are taking your side. If you treat wikipedia as a "me against the world" proposition, you're not going to get what you want, because it just doesn't work that way here. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In case Slappywag has been blocked by now, I'll give you the diff that started all this. As you can see, in Slappywag's version, was credited at the beginning of the paragraph, there were quotation marks around everything that was copied from that website, and to top it off, a footnote which provided the URL. Ctjf83's edit summary ended with "also copying from word for word is a copyright violation," which to us sounds like a technically true statement of fact, but which perhaps to Slappywag sounded like an accusation.
There is no Wikipedia rule against paying lip service to rules one obeys only in the letter of rather than the spirit of. So from a purely technical POV, Ctjf83 is completely in the clear. Not that it would do any good to try to have such a rule. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Anton -- thanks for the update. My read is that Slappywag is well-intentioned but a little bit sensitive and probably felt castigated by CTJF. This is not reasonable behavior, but it happens; people react strangely sometimes, and it's not even that strange to feel hostility when someone wipes out your edits. I agree that CTJF's actions appear proper. Still, I want Slappy not to feel like wikipedia is a hostile environment, but a community of people with fair standards. He seems unhappy with his wikipedia experience, and I'd like to try to change that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been kikced off yet, but I will soon be. I will post a neutral message on ctfj83's talk page, and that violation of the santity of his talk page will result in my immediate and permanent kicked off this site.
wikipidia is a hostile environment to anyone who refuses to bow down to teh might of ctjf83. I refuse to bow down. i wasn't demanding much. An apolagy wuold have been nice, but I wouldve even been satisfied by a denial! no, insted ctfj83 decided he was above being held acountable for falsely accusing me in any way. He can do anything he wants, and anyone who disagrees wit him be damned! Slappywag42 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I have no idea what Slappywag42's problem with me is. Technically I never actually accused him of a copyright violation, I just noted to him that you can't copyright violate, and he is blowing it way out of proportion. Sorry the rest of you got drug into this pointless argument. CTJF83Talk 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
what arrogance! technically you never falsely accused me. oh that's good enough. never mind morality. Slappywag42 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Slappy: on wikipedia, civility is not optional. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Lex, earlier you said: "Still, I want Slappy not to feel like wikipedia is a hostile environment, but a community of people with fair standards. He seems unhappy with his wikipedia experience, and I'd like to try to change that." I might be wrong, but I think it would go a long way towards this goal if there was a way to show that Wikipedia's rules on civility apply to everyone, and not just to newcomers. However, I have no idea how to show that or if it's even true. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Anton - you pose a question that deserves more than a simple response, but a simple one is all I have time to give, since I have to be up early for work tomorrow. I think that simple response is that if you look around, successful editors - the ones who last, do the best work, and the ones who enjoy wikipedia the most, are the good-natured ones, for they understand the purpose of this community. Bitter editors with big chips on their shoulders mostly don't stick around; some do, but their experience is not enjoyable (or enjoyable only in a sadistic or masochistic kind of way that some people may, but shouldn't, enjoy.) So, in other words, the answer should be to "look around," but for that to really sink in, Slappy has to WANT to believe it. If he does not, or cannot, he's bound to get out of the experience, as little as he invests. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Slappy is uncivil to Ctjf, he receives warnings and is then blocked. That's fair. Ctjf is uncivil to Slappy, what happens? Slappy receives warnings and is then blocked. Maybe people who complain of unequal treatment are actually being treated unequally. Maybe people who complain of being falsely accused of something are actually being falsely accused of something. As a gay man, I can understand both scenarios. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Jindřichův Smith, where do you see me being uncivil? And for the record, slappywag42 has never been blocked. CTJF83Talk 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On Slappywag42's talk page, where you made sure that he noticed your edit summary (without facial expressions, I can't say for sure, but it seems like you really wanted to make sure he specifically read that and became offended by it); and on your talk page, where you immediately reverted anything that was even slightly critical. And on this talk page, where this discussion is taking place because it can't take place on your talk page. As Anton Mravcek has said, all these actions are all technically in the letter of the civility rules; but if they incited this reaction from Slappy, the spirit must have been missing. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I have no idea how informing someone of something, as in letting them know not to copy and paste for a copyright violation, and not even accusing them of adding it is some how uncivil. As far as removing stuff on my talk page goes, even though I can remove what i want per here, are you saying it is uncivil to remove this personal attack, or here, here, or here, note the edit summary. So Jindřichův Smith, which of those removals do you find as uncivil? Perhaps it would be Slappywag42's continued harassment, here, to basically demand an apology, or here, to insist on an apology, while offering none to me, in his personal attacks on me. So you see, Jindřichův Smith, I am extremely perplexed where you see me acting uncivil? Please to elaborate? BTW, I don't remove constructive criticism from my talk page, for the most part, just unconstructive comments. CTJF83Talk 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the way that you baited Slappywag to be uncivil to you. I could be wrong, but the reasons which make me think that you caused these reactions from him on purpose are: 1) How quickly you cite the times he was rude to you; 2) The fact that you made sure he saw your edit summary; 3) That I myself have done something like this (not on the Web, though). I do have to admit that it takes a lot of skill to pull it off online, where you can't read facial expressions. But the pride of accomplishment should only be on an intellectual level, not a moral level.
There is more to civility than following rules literally, and one shouldn't need religion to know that. Yes, civility is the way "it should be, but [it] never will be" as long as everyone is more concerned with being right than with actually being civil. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this matter. CTJF83Talk 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats right, wiggle away, don't let yuorself be held accountable for anything. Slappywag42 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Discrimination against homosexuals in the law, employment, in private, in religion, is very real, and it is a blight upon the human race tha we are so intolerant of our fellow man. I am something of a crusader against sex orientation discrimination myself, so I know that there is nothing imaginary about it. Slappy, on the other hand, seems to be imagining this incivility. I just don't see the evidence to support that claim, and I can only comment on what I see. What I see is a an edit that needed to be reverted, justifiable revert, and editor who is taking it personally that his work was reverted, and responding unreasonably. I may be missing something, but I would figure that with all of the attention this issue now seems to be getting, that someone would have a diff to back it up if CTJF did anything even arguably wrong. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Matt, for your fight against discrimination against gays in the real world. It is very much appreciated by me, and all other gay people in the world. We need more straight (presumably you are) kind hearted people such as yourself, who put up a fight for others, and the fight has no affect on them personally. Again, thank you very much!! CTJF83Talk 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Lex, do you IRC chat, buddy? CTJF83Talk 04:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on that judge[edit]

I think we agree on that judge but come across on the talkpage as disagreeing. I don't think Esox needs to keep on going there, the article is fairly negative as it is - but rightly so. I don't think that the middle section needs to be there - it's just negative on top of negative and not well referenced. The underlying issue, which the RMN spells out (within a word or two, at least) and makes their own reliable ref to (a TV interview I think) is Ob of Ju (delete this if you want). I don't think that should go in - but, given that, I think that it should be made clear that a whitewash should not be allowed and Esox should be dealt with fairly gently (but asked to avoid a COI). Smallbones (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree. Thanks for the message. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

what the?[edit] St. Puid, Head of Assisi 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was cryptic. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-representation and access to the courts[edit]

Well, "anon" adieu, here I am, and meeting a hale fellow well met. So, for you, a fellow attorney from Los Angeles (well, moi non plus) who could be dating my daughter (please don't, I've always hoped better for her), I'll argue with you about the .01 of doubt, not so much for Kay's sake (heaven forbid that rough draft) but for the good of the institution that we love (as does Kay). Oh, and also because at this point in my life, I've realized that no one listens to me except other attorneys.

Again, my friend, the problem with "Self Representation" begins with its title. The true subject is "Popular Access to the Courts" or some flowery legal language to that effect, describing the political principle long identified and claimed by the US, which I could only hope to pull out of my dusty hornbooks (if I had the inclination) at this late hour.

Following up on the issue I noted as "anon" in the article talk page, it seems to me that many courts have recently done at least basic (if localized) studies and surveys exploring the extent to which they provide access to citizens in their jurisdiction. Many have created "pro-per clinics" or somesuch to try to bridge the gap between the pros and the pers.

Yet, it seems that most jurisdictions (US, I know, I know) seem to frequently cite the usual decisions that seem to require "pro pers" to diligently conform to those procedural rules that professionals must observe, on pain of humiliation if not disbarment. Some courts even seem (OR) to hoist pro pers on their own petard as a means to dispose of a matter that otherwise might deserve some attention, apparently only because the focused legal analysis necessary to resolve an important issue is missing due to the appellant's inexperience and the Court's disinclination to lift weights due to limited resources, overwork, or disinterest. POV and OR prevent me from pointing out that most courts would not likely treat a new and inexperienced attorney in quite the same manner.

Should not an objective article discussing the important theoretical democratic principle of access to the courts and other instruments of governance note the practical difficulties many citizens encounter in exercising this important right? Indulge me, my friend, I think you're seeing the glimmer of truth that I'm seeing in the mess that the article in question raised.Steveozone (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!! There is much food for thought here. I certainly do see it - it's about justice. Will talk more about it later, but it's my bedtime. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll look forward to it. This may seem deeply philosophical (my apologies) or even bring on the deeply physiological like last night's takeout-over-the-desk pastrami coming back (I swear I don't know Kay, thank goodness) but I don't think so. I'm just coming over here to say hi (and log on and do away with the "anon") somewhere out of that goofy morass left behind in the course of the subject drama. If nothing else, this is a topic that is WP:NOT:antitrust, which you know has given you a few minutes respite from serious brain damage. If you're still feeling pain, move this all over to my talk page, there's certainly plenty of virgin space there (I'd like to say that law review articles should not stall for three years, but hey, WTF). Steveozone (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I guess you don't have access to this information from the {{user5}} template and didn't see it in the discussion, but the current block is the 4th for this type of behavior since Sept 12, 2008. Don't know if that will change your opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it DOES change my opinion. Mercy is great, but you can reach a point of futility. I think this guy has had enough second chances. Wikipedia might truly be better off without him. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look?[edit]

Hi there, for some reason the Thomas M. Cooley article is on my watchlist, and it has undergone a dramatic rewrite today. I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me if it has become quite POV; it seems to be almost entirely focused on one aspect of Cooley's work, but I don't have the background to know if that was his main claim to notability, or if there is something else that is missing. Much appreciated if you have a chance. Risker (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

PrimeFan - Del arte case[edit]

The evidence here is overwhelming that these are all the same person. I'm unblocking User:Del arte, which seems to be the real master, to time served with a warning not to sock again. I advise interested parties to watch the IP range and articles related to this case. I am also renaming Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PrimeFan to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Del arte and retagging the socks. This decision was made in consultation with other checkusers and a member of the arbcom. RlevseTalk 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable person[edit]

just overhauled the whole article... could you review it for errors, please? Foofighter20x (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Follow-up re: "Freedom of Movement"[edit]

Thanks for the talk page note. The answer is that it's a fringe viewpoint which doesn't have any acceptance among mainstream historians. The "human rights charter" claim was essentially a propaganda claim made by the late Shah of Iran back in 1970 to promote his regime - see Cyrus cylinder#As a charter of human rights. The specific claim that I deleted is actually sourced to a fake translation that has been circulating for some years - the text of the cylinder actually says nothing about the "recognition and protection of the freedom of movement". Robertson and Merrills, the author of the cited book, aren't historians and they certainly aren't scholars of the ancient Akkadian language in which the cylinder is written. When you have non-experts contradicting the experts (and especially when you have experts specifically rejecting the claims of the non-experts), I think you have to go with the experts - there's no point in perpetuating errors. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tort reform[edit]

Hi Matt, I wondered if you might like to comment on the conflict of interest I just reported for User:THF and the tort reform article, here? Wikidea 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, most references in .uk domains seem to be about the U.S. tort reform, and the same seems to be true of British law journal references. From this I infer that it usually goes under different name. The article as written doesn't summarize U.S. tort reform aims at all, even though "tort reform" in general is supposed to be the subject of the article.

In this case, there does seem to be insufficient weight on U.S. tort reform. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

CHL: Thank you for stopping by. You make very good points, and I basically agree that the full measure of the U.S. "tort reform" problem is not covered. However, I think I'm much too biased to make major substantive edits about U.S. "tort reform" at this time, myself. I would like to see others who can deal with this touchy subject in a frank but unbiased manner. Unfortunately, I'm also too overworked to find particularly WP:CITE-worthy sources. So I am inclined to be hands-off here, myself. Wikidea may think that his efforts are being maligned. Can we agree that this is not the case? I want him to understand that, so we can move in a positive direction. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We agree, but Wikidea also seems to be oblivious to his own attacks. I think one of our problems is our unwillingness to enforce rules like WP:CIVIL. I would argue that these nasty remarks are how Wikidea chases editors he doesn't like away from his articles—he has a long, long history of such attacks. I would like him to continue contributing, but they must stop. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I will look into this. Thank you for your efforts to remain civil throughout. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interested in a rewrite about a lawyer?[edit]

Hi there, if you're still about and might be interested in editing on a notable lawyer, could you ping me please? The article needs the perspective of someone who understands legal scholarship (i.e., more than I do!), but has the potential to be quite interesting. Hope you're well! Risker (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not been suuperactive lately, but I always have time to handle a request from Risker. Send me the wikilink? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be Douglas Kmiec, whose biography is overweighted on the political side and underweighted on the legal accomplishments side. I was hoping you might be able to fill in some gaps. :-) User:Tznkai has done some work there today, but he doesn't have the access to some of the data that you'd have. Thanks heaps. Risker (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I will do what I can. I don't think I have any bias that would interfere with this. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Task force you may be interested in[edit]

Ironically, on the talk page of someone who was be rather unsuitable for the task force. Enigmamsg 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents[edit]

You expressed an interest in the Bivens article, specifically its analysis section, and seem to have relevant knowledge. I am posting this note to inform you that that section of the Bivens article will be removed in two weeks for a number of reasons appearing on the face of the article. I'd love for you to improve the article before then, if you're capable of it. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Canon III a 4
  2. ^ Canon III a 7
  3. ^ Canon III b 8
  4. ^ Canon III a 7 SCR 4.300
  5. ^ Canon III a 6
  6. ^ Canon III b 7
  7. ^ SCR 60.4 g
  8. ^ Canon III a (4)
  9. ^ Canon III a 7
  10. ^ Canon III a 7
  11. ^ Canon III a 4'
  12. ^ Canon III a 7
  13. ^ Canon III b 8