User talk:Coolcaesar/Archive2

The following is an archive of comments made on my talk page between 8 July 2006 and 29 February 2008. Please do not alter this page. Any changes made to this page will be treated as vandalism and will be promptly reverted. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pruneyard

If you want to believe the Pruneyard is a mall, but Stanford Shopping Center and Horton Plaza are not, then good luck to you. I could care less. You changed the article without debate anyway. Nevertheless, you had to take it one step further and make an concerted effort to make an insult. There is no need for that. It doesn't force people to see things your way. As a lawyer, surely you know that. My suggestion to you is that instead of bullying, you might try facts and statistics; it's more convincing. If you don't have facts and statistics, try keeping your trap shut! Your opinions, views, and interpretations alone aren't going to sell it. With your credibility where it is, no one will ever trust you to begin with. Good luck with the lawyer thing, I think you're going to need it. --Sparsonsusa

Miranda Warning

Hello, I was just wondering why my extended discussion of the Miranda complexities was deleted as vandalism. I was not attempting to vandalize anything, and thought it added something of weight to the page, as the page is a tad confusing on those particular issues. Just a question. Thank you. Black-rabbit 20:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If you feel the passage was poorly written, then you have my apologies, but as far as content is concerned, I think a discussion of the subsequent cases clarifying, or perhaps muddling, the Miranda rule and its current practical applications would add a great deal to what already exists on the page, and cannot be found on the Miranda v. Arizona page itself. But, perhaps I have just not delved deep enough elsewhere. The citations, to my knowledge, were accurate, and even if there were subtle departures from strict Bluebook format which have escaped me, perhaps one so well acquainted with such scripture could have seen it in the best interest of the general wikipedian community to use his expertise to clarify this humble plebian's errors. However, I will defer to one so well acquainted with the page and its upkeep, and not being one desirous to confuse an already confusing area, I shall attempt to refrain from any further vandalism in the future. Thank for you the rapid response. Keep up the good work. Black-rabbit 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Quentin

DON"T INSULT PEOPLE!!! You obviously have a penchant for doing this. Just because you have to shoot in the sun does not automatically make a photograph bad and does not make your photograph of "higher photographic quality" than mine. My photo accomplishes something that yours does not: it actually shows the San Quentin facility up close. Try not to lecture about photography. I'm happy that our photographs can coexist.

RfC

I've seen you mentioning an RfAr. An RfC would be a desirable first step, which very well might avoid an RfAr entirely. And, if it doesn't, then the workproduct can be shipped over without much extra effort. I'd be willing to split with you the task of compiling an RfC. -Will Beback 10:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away for the weekend. Drop me an email if you want. -Will Beback 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that there was an RfC already: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Since the behavior discussed in that RfC hasn't changed noticeably, the next logical step would be either mediation or arbitration. -Will Beback 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten a start and I'll see what I can add. Recall that the ArbCom is only interested in behavioral issues, not content disputes. This case isn't about the naming conventions, it's about ES's activities. I am most concerned with his knowingly-false edits, even more than the edit warring, sockpuppets, POINT, and similar abuses. Many of his edits have been outright fraudulent, such as the "city seal" he created. That is totally unacceptable in this kind of project. -Will Beback 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you initiated the RFaR, you should probably do a Request for checkuser. I'm not sure what an "Open arbitration proceedings" is. If it only includes accepted arbitration proceedings, you should visit the above link, but if it also includes intiated, but not accepted, RFaRs, then you should ask at the RFaR page for a Checkuser. I am especially concerned about User:OC31113, whose pedantic verbosity, if nothing else, suggests that it is the same editor as User:Ericsaindon2. Since they only keep the information for a limited amount of time (a week?), you should ask soon. ^Blank ^Verse 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you should also request a checkuser for 'brand new' editor User:Mr.Executive. ^Blank ^Verse 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP Codes

I've appreciated your comments on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California discussion page and see that you are aware of the difficulties and problems that result from the place name designations the USPS assigns to ZIP codes. The general public accepts without question the postal designations as reflecting the actual political status and boundaries of communities, when they often do not. In an effort to explain this, I wrote most of the section "ZIP Codes only loosely tied to cities" in the ZIP Code article - perhaps you have some points or additional insight to add. I could offer a number of other examples of confusion and misinformation - and there are surely dozens and dozens more in areas of the country that I am not familiar with. Denvoran 04:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Damage!

First of all, I was pissed at you for the comments you left me the other day and I was having an off day ... there's no law on Wikipedia that says I have to spell perfect. I scored in the high 90's for english and grammar in high school so don't make judgments based on several spelling mistakes, I have edited hundreds of articles and the spelling was perfect. I also noticed you have made several (many) mistakes in your work. Also please read the Wikipedia article on Hyphens for the proper usage.

The next thing, is that im not "brain-damaged" nor am I a child under the age of nine. I was having an off day, and I did over do it with the comments I left on your discussion page so sorry, I cannot be perfect all the time. And by the way you really think I hadn't figured out what school you went to before you sent this second message? I did read your user page and your photo contributions. Although UCLA is a nice university, it dosen't meet the standards of Duke University, which I will be attending shortly in Durham. Now that's just my opinion so don't have a heart attack.

Also don't get the impression that I am anti American or anything. I was born outside of Buffalo, New York, and later came to Canada.

Well, you can send me another nasty message but I really don't care. This message was not meant to be nasty. Hopefully you can accept me for the brain damaged child under nine years old, I am :-)

Dear Attorney Coolcaesar

Please do not insult other editors in your edit summarys, to wit: Fixing a mess created by xxxx) I appreciate the likelihood that you disagree with the edit, but you might consider the possibility that the information you deleted was valuable, and use the discuss' feature. rewinn 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright question

Hi there. I saw that you answered a image licensing question at the Village Pump and also saw that you've uploaded many images yourself, so I was wondering if you give me some advice. I'm not sure which copyright tag to use for the following image: [1] I want to use it on the Minamata disease article which I have been editing recently. I obtained the image from a website called Masters of Photography. In their FAQ it states that "You are free to use up to five or six images from the site for any personal non-profit, educational purpose.", subject to a link back to their website. What copyright tag would be correct in this instance? Thanks for any help you can give. Bobo12345 08:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk Page (Anaheim Hills)

I have tried to make my peace with the two editors on the Anaheim Hills talk page who I believe are getting into the same argumentive cycle that we got into earlier this month. I tried to calm them down, but I think if you made a statement to clam them down, it might be a little more effective since both of us do not promote arguing. I did feel angry for being sent to arbitration for something I believed in, but I got over it, and am ready to settle this issue once and for all, and if that means I have to be the one that takes the hit to settle this, than so be it. But I dont want people to argue over the page name anymore, just let arbitration study the views, and take their actions about who they feel is correct in the matter from there. :)--Ericsaindon2 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern over your personal attacks

Have you ever been banned for personal attacks? Judging from your talk page and archives, you seem to make a habit of calling people things like "idiots." It makes me wonder how objective your edits can be, if you get angry so easily. I suppose if you keep abusing people, someone will complain; and with the volume of evidence against you, you might be stopped from editing Wikipedia permanently.

Furthermore, as a lawyer you have a tremendous amount of responsibility; and such hostility can easily take the form of exacerbating the use of your legal system for the sake of one of its most common functions: revenge.

511 image

I moved it to the right; also, I see it is licensed as GFDL, perhaps you should upload to the Wikimedia Commons. lensovet 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on your behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain your attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question, how does one comment as a non-involved party. Coolcaeser has always seemed very reasonable (and hardworking) in articles that I have crossed with him. Francis Davey 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Coolcaesar.

I hope you don't mind my commenting here.

I don't know whether the Request for Arbitration is the appropriate manifestation of the irritation some other Wikipedians have felt about some of your edit summaries, &c.

As you may have read in the comment I posted in the thing about the RfA on you, I certainly don't think you're all bad but I do see some habits that seem so likely to bother reasonable Wikipedians and, I believe, should be curbed into oblivion.

I think you may lessen this irritation of others if you drop such words as "mess" from your edit summaries—which you used as recently as yesterday. Just an idea.

Quite a while ago, when I first was inclined to leave an edit summary similar to those you sometimes leave, I decided against it because of its likelihood to put someone off unnecessarily; I thought instead of writing something like "improved organization" (rather than, e.g., "cleaned up this mess")—and then I noticed that I could be even less POV in my edit summary if I just wrote "reorganized" and then let the edit's merits speak for themselves, rather than using my edit summary to say that the previous version supposedly sucked and my new version was an improvement. Whether an edit summary is specific (e.g. "spelling: 'dekc' -> 'deck'", "rv unexplained date change") or general (e.g., "reoganized", "several punctuation changes"), things seem to go more smoothly if "dumb", "idiot", "mess", assumptions about whether English is someone's first language, "screwed up", "anonymous coward", "what the hell", "you're not too bright", "brain-damaged", "not smart enough", &c., don't appear, no matter how much someone may think them justified.

I ... well, I'm sure that you understand the reasoning behind this and are aware that I think you have been quite a good Wikipedian in other ways. Just some self-restraint, and I bet things will be easier for you and others.

Really, I offer this all in good faith. We already have enough real, important battles at Wikipedia; we don't need more about who deserves to be called an idiot. I'd rather see you get to spend your time and effort on the good edits you make instead of being drawn into these things because others got tired of your calling things a mess and calling people idiots.

President Lethe 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Coolcaesar. How about also not telling people they've made a mess, unless you're sure it's vandalism; not calling things pigpens; and not making assertions about other Wikipedians' capabilities, and what mature and intelligent University of California graduates would do. As you rightly advised one Wikipedian, "Please see Wikipedia:Civility." Let's all stay cool and take the high road at Wikipedia. Thanks. — President Lethe 10:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for your reply. I know you do plenty of good work at Wikipedia and you make plenty of good contributions. — President Lethe 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, I believe it's time to stop with "mess", "pigpen", and the like. — President Lethe 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting off the task of adding evidence to the RfAr, and was pleasantly surprised to find you'd already done so. Thanks. Preparing RfCs and RfArs is a big task, and one that is unlike most Wikipedia work (original research!). It appeals to few besides lawyers (hey- wait a sec) or lawyer-esque folks (er, that must mean me). While they seem like a major distraction from productive work, they are important for protecting the productive work of others. One bad editor can harm the efforts of many good editors. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realspace bar artice on wiki arbitration?

Would you be interested in jointly authoring a article on wikipedia arbitration for a bar journal? Our state bar (WA) is always looking for materials in re technology and ADR; this cutting-edge procedure (however unpleasant it may be to you at the moment) could furnish interesting & useful material. Please feel free to contact me offline randyw@rewinn.com rewinn 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact tag you just added to freeway

We need a fact to show that this does not mean a road without tolls. Everyone agrees, I think, that the word freeway is well defined in state codes. It's the common, and equally valid, other uses that need to be considered. Rulling that meaning out, as the article does, without a cite is wrong. Vegaswikian 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note concerning the RfArb

Sir, you may have noticed several of my talk postings closely after your own in the recent past. The truth is I have been following your career in Wikipedia with interest of late, most notably the RfArb raised against you. I think it's ridiculous in the extreme. Now I feel compelled to point out, although it gives me no pleasure, that you have shown yourself to possess a vitriolic tongue (or is that keyboard), and to conduct yourself with a certain pomposity at times, both of which I truly hope you will make an effort to dispense with. But in your defence it is apparent that you, like myself, do not suffer fools easily. The name Ericsaindon2 comes to mind. Frankly I could care less about the issue underlying the Anaheim Hills article, something so trivial it escapes me at present. Indeed I could care less about his crusade against you, for you are more than able to stick up for yourself against the likes if ES. But what really gets my goat is his flagrant abuse of the rules, a long list of pitifully transparent misdeeds which I won't repeat here. All it does is bring the whole Wikipedia project into disrepute. And now this person's RfArb against you, which of course is nothing but a puerile tit-for-tat exercise; a classic case of, what's the term you used, psychological projection. Something young children do because they have the mental development for neither logical argument nor rational judgement nor empathic restraint. It also shows a sorrowful lack of imagination. The most tragic part is one would expect an adult who drives, works, and votes to have grown out of it by now. The whole Anaheim Hills debacle would be laughably pathetic were it not such an unprofitable drain on many good peoples' time. Sadly, this kind of infantile mentality is not limited to just a single editor, as evidenced by the links ES has posted to further his case; ironically in many instances they do quite the opposite. Regards, Jquarry 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I have added my opinion on this matter on the talkpage. I would appreciate your response on the talkpage. If you are no longer interested in this matter then nevermind, but I would expect you to refrain from further involvement. Tchadienne 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ==Please talk about the journeyman article.==

You are wrong, the correct term is lineperson, the government says so.100110100 09:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, there is the all important reason of gender equality. You can't play a better card than mine.100110100 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do adopt the word jouneyperson, I'm sure they would adopt the world linesperson. It's not a matter of acceptability, it's a matter of logic.100110100 09:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Attorney's Offices

Since you've edited a lot of the capital punishment and appear to have been at this longer than I have, I thought you might be able to help me with something. I think the Category:United States Attorneys' offices page should be deleted or the links should be changed to pages that are actually about the offices in each district. As it stands it only links to U.S. District Court pages, which each appear to have a only single line saying that there is a U.S. Attorney there as well. I have no idea how to go about either deleting the Categories page or creating individual pages. Any ideas? JCO312 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload to Commons

It would be nice if you would upload all images/media not specific for one language to Wikipedia:Commons. I came across Image:Yahoo_Headquarters.jpg and Image:Entrance To Yahoo Headquarters.jpg and think Commons would benefit from it. Would you please upload it there? --83.171.184.62 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Usptojamesmadisonbuildingsouthside.jpg

Image:Usptojamesmadisonbuildingsouthside.jpg: That's probably the best picture I've seen of yours - it looks professional. Thanks for contributing it. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FirstWebServer.jpg

That photo is no longer "yours", and the non-flare version looks better. Did you forget that, by uploading it, you explicitely allow people to edit you work mercilessly? If you want to make an attempt to more cleanly remove the flare, do so, but don't start ranting about "your" photo. -- Netoholic @ 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC Circulator

Nice photo! Would you consider uploading it to Commons? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin, PA

In the Lawyer article, you added a citation containing the phrase "(Franklin Center, PA: The Franklin Library, 1982)". You linked to Franklin, Venago County, PA, but this another town entirely from Franklin Center. Was this on purpose? Thanks. --Chris Griswold 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago terminology

Please write at User:Coolcaesar/Chicago definitions why you think the band, not the city, is the primary meaning of Chicago. Georgia guy 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Coolcaesar. I want to say thanks for your latest post at Talk:United States. I sometimes have difficulty in deciding how to deal with the posts of B ojikutu / sewot_fred, who seems to have a large, firm (and highly inaccurate) idea of my motives and goals, as well as an odd understanding of English (e.g., (1) the difference between saying the article has "no mention" of immigrants, on the one hand, and, on the other, saying "I don't like how the article mentions immigrants"; and (2), because I chose not to continue to copy his/her posts from my talk page to the article talk page and not to search through old archives to see whether he/she had added posts to them after they were archived, asserting that I was disingenuous in saying that he/she had never refuted the stuff at (the article's) talk page (when, indeed, the last 12 hours or so have been the first time he/she has ever posted at that page)). — President Lethe 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham

It's always interesting how lawyers like to criticize other lawyers, or to denigrate their programs. What's the point of your message on the Fordham Law site? Top tier generally means Top 50 when it comes to US News. That's how *they* define it. Pales in comparison to Columbia and NYU? I guess as far as a number goes, but few legal professionals feel that way. Only immature people who don't recognize that most law school programs are taught by competent people. Fordham has more graduates at top law firms than your "well-known west coast law school." Don't be such a jerk. --DavidShankBone 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that name.
Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.
Ericsaindon2 is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts.

For the Arbitration Committee. --FloNight 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock or no sock?

If you are not too busy in the next couple of days, and because you probably know a lot more than I do (I have not been paying much attention to the specifics recently), I need your advice: After examining this specific user's contributions and this edit, could you please give me a simple answer to the question, "Sock or no sock?" and I will deal with it appropriately. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that sock account is now blocked, and as per WP:BAN, the ban on the original account was reset back to one year. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Lynn Deutch

Dear fellow editor: Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, Famspear 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I'm sorry about my script, i was only testing it today. I shall discard it and use vandalproof now. Thankyou for telling me though.-- JiMoTh Y^TALK 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Hi, I just made a correction to the caption of your photo Image:Usdepartmentofjustice.jpg. The building is not named for John F. Kennedy, but for Robert F. Kennedy. That's all. 24.199.113.142 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well-Known Law School?

Hi, I'm just wondering if UCLA Law school should be described that way in your short bio. Based on your description, I thought you meant Stanford at first, and I was surprised when it turned out to be UCLA. Besides, Harvard, Yale and Stanford, few people (especially outside the U.S.) have heard of any other law schools.

Bush despised ...

You added the passage about Vannevar Bush despising various categories. Is there some background to that, particularly the anthropological bit? Midgley 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three strikes law

Hi there. I haven't yet had the time to dig up good online references in support of the criticism in the lead - thanks for your patience! However, as mandatory sentencing laws by definition limit judicial discretion, would you accept that the basic point being made is uncontroversial? Btw, the overlap with the main mandatory sentencing article, both on three strikes and criticism, could usefully be merged in or harmonised with corresponding content in the three strikes article. If we are pursuing solid references, could you also have a look around for a cite in support of the "stated rationale"? Obey 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Since you participated in the last survey, just a couple months ago, you may be interested to know there is yet another proposal to move Los Angeles, California. Jonathunder 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your comparison of me to someone who used sockpuppets and all kinds of disruptive techniques. Please don't make our difference in opinion personal. --Serge 15:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the Picture on UC Hastings Wikipedia Entry

Dear Coolcaesar, Do you think you could modify the picture you posted on the UC Hastings Wikipedia entry, possibly posting a better photograph (perhaps of other buildings) and not a picture of the main building during construction? Thanks, that would be greatly appreciated.

"American" in Trademark Law

Please comment at Talk:Use of the word American regarding trademark law. I have been reluctant to edit your contribution without your input, but I won't wait forever. You seem knowledgeable about the subject and several of our interests appear to intersect, so I have been a bit of a softy. The discussion picks up after your edit of 07:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) on the talk page. I look forward to your input.

.s

X ile 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I seem to have lost the part of the page I referenced above. If it isn't there when you check, maybe you can fix it. You can check the Talk page history and see what was deleted by a user with IP 69. ... That was me, and something went wrong when I lost my connection. X ile 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb sizes

I was going off of Wikipedia:Images#Forced image size. I think you underestimate the number of people who still use dial-up and I also think you're exaggerating how small the images are at 1024x768. Did you actually look at it at 1024x768? The font DPI on a 1280x1024 screen is usually higher than for 1024x768, so the effect you saw at 1280x1024 should not be as bad at 1024x768. My feeling on this whole thing is that we should respect the technical decisions made by the team running WikiMedia's servers and let their chosen default thumb size come through for unregistered users and uncustomized accounts. If you think the default px size should be changed, it should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I don't see it being increased to 275px, but I also don't plan on making a fight out of this. Mike Dillon 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry to annoy you with my changes! Mike Dillon 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: A discussion about this issue has been started at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Forced image size. Mike Dillon 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Bar Page

issuethewrit notes that you continually vandalize his additions to the State Bar Page. issuethewrit has atempted to engage in civil discourse. Your response has been to degrade him and the significance of the State Bar Law Ofice Study Program. You continue to remove the information in violation of wikipedia guidelines. issuethewrit is requesting arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/State_Bar_of_California

Please sign, stop deleting he disputed valuable info and behave civily until then. /s/ issuethewrit

Admins

I recently asked user:Mike Dillon if he like to be nominated for adminship, and he wondered if he had support so I dropped by to see if you'd endorse it.

Also, I think I asked you this a year ago, but would you be willing to be an admin? You're very well-qualified due to your experience, length of editing, variety of topics, conflicts survived, cases presented, etc. I hope you'll consider again being promoted to janitor. -Will Beback · † · 07:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait another year before I ask you again. Anyway, getting involved in Kaiser Permanente is enough of a hornet's nest for you. Or have they settled down? Thanks again for your work on the Anaheim Hills case. [2] Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline being developed for malls

Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which shopping malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!Edison 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Westfield Group

Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet.Ga rr ie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clorox HQ

CC - Thanks for uploading Image:Cloroxheadquarters.jpg. It's much more colorful than I'd have expected. ;) -Will Beback · † · 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on Contract

Thanks for your supporting comments on Contract... and you are a JD!! Wow. Now I am very flattered. I have no formal education in law; I'm just an amatuer hack, but I did take a case pro se to the second highest court in the land :) I am honored you feel my understanding of contracts is correct and my defense of those edits is justified. Many thanks! -- Bhuston 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Yahoo!?

Are you joking me? Changing an i to small letter in the word internet is called vandalism? I changed it because i thought internet isn't a special name, when is that the case? Use the term vandalism sparingly, this is a strong term which borders on accusation, in no way i'm attempting to vandalise anything. --wil osb 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serge Issakov

If you start an RFC for User:Serge Issakov's numerous polls related to the "comma convention" for naming US cities, I'll help as much as I can. The damning evidence is the reply he once gave when asked if he was ever going to quit after a failed name change, and his reply was "no friggin' way" (or something similar). You'd probably have to go through all of his contributions, but I think that he ending up deleting that comment before the discussion was archived. I seem to recall him expressing very similar sentiments on a number of occasions.

Your argument when it does go to ArbComm (which I have no doubt that it will) would be that just like their ruling in the Abraham Lincoln ArbComm case where they ruled that there was no infinite right to reversions if they were kept below the 3RR limits, that there is also no infinite right to create very similar surveys if it is obvious that the community consensus is against the proposal. ^Blank ^Verse 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"weird" edits

You wrote in an edit summary:

Reverting some WEIRD edits that have little to do with professional responsibility law

So do you find it "weird" that there can be such a thing as professional responsibility in other professions than that one? Michael Hardy 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gated Communities

Come see comments on Homeowners association talk page under "How some very important issues can be addressed in the article." I concede it is a wee bit of a rant. You might enjoy it, though. I also am an attorney.Jance 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I'm sorry, but I have just lost a lot of respect for you. Take a look at this diff [3] and tell me how the anonymous user that proposed the move was acting in bad faith. The user saw a page at United States, thought, "Wait, the country's name is 'United States of America'", and requested a move. If he had decent intentions, you were biting the newcomers and assuming bad faith, both really bad things to do on Wikipedia. If he didn't and was just looking for a rise, then you were feeding the trolls, another bad thing. I hate to sound like your mother, but I'm really dissappointed in you because of this. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say. But you still were failing to AGF, which as far as I know is a pretty big deal here. Besides, he himself only put in a line of text requesting a move; User:SigPig did the actual paperwork (check the page history). You were accusing him (the anon) of being a troll based on (unknowingly, of course) false information. This makes you look rather silly, which is why we tend to assume good faith--it helps us look less silly. Check the history (see this diff and this one). That's about all I have to say on this matter, I believe. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Good to hear it--and don't sweat it, we've all been there before.

Happy editing. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to add tags or are you going to transwiki things?

It seems like you spend more time adding tags marking images to be transwikied to Commons rather than actually pitching in and doing the transfers (or making any substantive contributions to the encyclopedia such as uploading pictures of your own or drafting some new article text). Perhaps you might want to actually try creating something for Wikipedia sometime! Just a thought. --Coolcaesar 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually done a lot of transfers (see my log at Commons) as well as adding my own images (see commons:Category:Files by Liftarn), but now I have also tagged a lot of images as well (partially as a "note to self"). I hope to get around to moving them to Commons soon. So to answer your initial question. I will probably add tags for now and transfer later. The actual transfer should be able to do automaticly, see Wikipedia_talk:Moving images to the Commons#Move bot suggestion // Liftarn

Fred Meyer History

Sorry to come to your discussion page about this. I grew up near this Hollywood and Rose City Fred Myer. I'm in VA now, but I'm trying to get some of my frinds to dig up the needed information. Problem is what should they dig up. I can give this size of the city block that the stor took up (the Hollywood one). And that it had all the stuff. But I have not found any one who said it is a Hypermarket. Yes I'm the IP address that has been adding information on this but I'm new (well that is getting old).24.254.21.174 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP HQ image

Hello. Any news about a photo of Hewlett-Packard headquarters, visual access to which you've described in good detail? -Mardus 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Greetingcardsretaildisplay.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. BigDT 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you through Wikipedia.

The reason for the email/user talk is to ask about some of your images, do you license them?

If you could provde me with an email address it would be useful so I can contrcat you directly to discuss this matter further.

Kind Regards

Kaiser

Sorry, I don't disclose my email address or identity on Wikipedia, for a variety of personal and legal reasons. I would have to reveal my identity to execute a license and I'd rather not do that. But anyway, I already license all my photos to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Coolcaesar 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of "trolling"

Although I generally agree your suspicions articulated in this thread may be justifiable, one may question the sagacity of openly accusing another contributor of "trolling" solely on the basis of contrarian views that lack thorough substantiation. This is especially true for the post you made on the reference desk, which seemed to be little more than a Me too that didn't even answer the original question or add any new information. As much as we may disfavor the views of other users, we would also do well to remember WP:AGF. Thanks for considering these remarks. dr.ef.tymac 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I am reverting your edit

Check my talk page. --98E 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture :-)

Image:1000dollarfineforlitteringsign.jpg is a nice photo with an interesting description. Thanks for contributing it :-) (I came accross it while deleting images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons).--Commander Keane 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Mozillaheadquarters.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:P5130122.JPG. The copy called Image:P5130122.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fry's Electronics

In response to your edit, that, uh, really doesn't sound like you...as far as I know this is the edit you're referring to, and it's obvious he doesn't know how the ref tag works. Regards, Tuxide 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I think we're allowed to blow up every once in a while. I don't know much about the chain, but what we need is some active user who can adopt the article for maintenance. Regards, Tuxide 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hewlett-Packard

I have raised some concern about the controversy section of the Hewlett-Packard article, and having noted that you have shown interest in previous talk page discussions on this topic would invite you to input at [[4]]. thanks Keylay31^hablame 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q about reght to use a Commons pic

Hi! I don't know how often You're at Commons, but I found this question at a picture talk page

Hello. We would like to publish this image of "Waste Management garbage truck" in a Sociology textbook. Would you please contact me at jillenge@yahoo.com for details? I would like to obtain your permission to publish this photo. Thank you. -Jill

Picked from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Wastemanagementfrontloader.jpg

I assume this Jill didn't think of contacting the author rather than the picture.

G®iffen 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving (or unmoving) articles

Hello! Just to let you know, it's always better to move a page using the move tool rather than cutting and pasting, since we're required to preserve article history to comply with the GNU Free Documentation License. I was able to repair the cut-and-paste move by performing a history merge, but that's a bit of a pain. :) If all an article has is the redirect created by the move, you can move it back over that redirect, if it's since been edited, someone can delete the page moved from so that the article can be moved back to its proper location. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyvale, California

I am requesting your assistance with a dispute on the crime section. I have invited User:Southsanjose and User:SunnyvalePublicSafety to discuss. Could you review my edit on it[[5]] which were undid by this(these) users. I would like to resolve the dispute. I believe that I address the issues regarding citation and relevancy. Clearly, statements such as "most Latinos that are born in Northern California generally become Norteño's" are completely false." Thanks,

Cumis counsel

Thank you for your many little fixes to Cumis counsel. I am sorry it was so sloppy. I have been adding stubs quickly, based on requests from WP:AR1. Again, thanks for the help. Bearian 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your continuing good edits. Bearian 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up link to rough draft of new version of Attorney-at-law

This is a temporary link to a temporary rough draft of the Attorney-at-law article so that I can keep my new version separate from the main article until ready to go: User talk:Coolcaesar/Attorney-at-law

Input

Thanks for your input, could I also get your input over here please Talk:IntelliTXT/Archives/2012#Ryan_Block_article. Even though a third editor has attempted to clarify this, it seems to not be enough.[6].--Crossmr 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to refactor your comments

I didn't appreciate this comment, and request that you refactor it to eliminate the insult and incivility. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello, I have been reading your very nice contributions. I would like to extend you an invitation to join us at WP:TIMETRACE. What we help with is:

Where dates or periods are mentioned that are important to the article's subject, we see that those are clear, accurate and have citations to reliable sources
When an article's subject should have its orgins and development described, we see that the article has a history section and that this is accurate and has reliable sources.

You can read why this is important and more information at WP:TIMETRACE. You don't need to dedicate special time to this, you may for example, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, you can either fix it if you have that information, or you can place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display ^{[chronology citation needed]}. There are also other resources and templates you can use, just visit us to know more. We will be very glad if we can count with your help. Regards Daoken 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Image

Nice pic of the sign @ IBM. Thanks for the contribution! /Blaxthos 23:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumis counsel

Thanks for your improvements to this article. Bearian 03:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. I've been giving this issue more thought, and I realised that what we really need is a guideline governing the creation of notability guidelines. I have therefore created a guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Notability sub-pages, and I would be grateful for any input people can provide. Please post comments, etc, on the proposal's talk page. —gorgan_almighty 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary on Snow Crash

As much as I agree with you and support your edit, you might want to try to not WP:BITE the users. --Mdwyer 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please remember that Wikipedians are civil, or at least we're supposed to be. MFNickster 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Your image Image:Californiastatecapitol.jpg was the random picture of the day for October 28, 2007. It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

The California State Capitol

Image credit: Coolcaesar (talk · contribs)

. Again, Congratulations! - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Nicolaususry

Please review my rationale for the suggestion of moving the "United States" to the "United States of America". I did read the FAQ by the way. I have posted quite a lot on the subject just now at the bottom of the discussion also, in case you need more rationale. I only suggest or move what I view is appropriate to do so. Naming conventions are not ALWAYS the right way to categorize something so it is easiest to see in my opinion. Please do not compare me to a WP:TROLL, to a user who does not know what "banned" means, and who does not know that your IP and your user-name cannot be linked. If you have any other queries for me, feel free to mention them. Thanks, Nicolaus Usry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaususry (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, I moved our discussion to "discussion" from "survey", and have posted a response. Thanks (Nicolaususry 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thomas Bros. picture

Nice picture of the Thomas Bros. building... I'll have to take one of the Rand building in Skokie!—Lazytiger (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent copyvio

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Franchising, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.youshouldfranchise.com/. As a copyright violation, Franchising appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Franchising has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Franchising and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Franchising with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Franchising.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

It seems to have started with your inclusion of "brand and formula are carefully designed and properly executed, franchisors are able to expand their brand very rapidly across countries" into [7]. Of course it's possible that the site is mirroring wp content...LeadSongDog (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lexisnexisinterface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lexisnexisinterface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

A1. Benjamin Cardozo
A2. Learned Hand

B1. John Marshall Harlan
B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Why?

What did I vandalize? Oboeboy (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for helping to improve and expand the article I started on Case Information Statements. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also

Thanks for your clean-up [here]. I did my best, but certainly left it "mangled" and "mangy". That's what I get for editing way past my bedtime. I was hoping someone else would be able to improve it,a nd you certainly got across the points I had in mind. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westside (Los Angeles County)

We need Sources for Westside (Los Angeles County). Can you help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your contributions in adding photographs, particularly legally-related ones, you are awarded the Photographer's Barnstar. --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWW

You comment was incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.236.86 (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]