User talk:Simon Dodd/Archive 2010

Articles for deletion nomination of Bourgeois v. Peters

I have nominated Bourgeois v. Peters, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois v. Peters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Taelus (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia at FAC

Hi, I notice that you were involved with the Scalia article and are a self proclaimed Scalia nerd. I've worked to improve the article and it is now at FAC. I am hopeful you will be able to weigh in with some comments here, and evaluate whether you support or oppose per WP:WIAFA. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Google

-- iBen (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Mercy Channel

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Divine Mercy Channel, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Divine Mercy Chaplet. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Divine Mercy Chaplet a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Miller v. Campbell for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Miller v. Campbell, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miller v. Campbell until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alito RFPP request

It appears the disruption has only come from two sources, JamesMLane (talk · contribs) and 204.68.32.6 (talk · contribs). As the latter is blocked, and the former's edits to the same page came after edits by the latter, perhaps it would be appropriate to start request for investigation on the two, at WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Some questions of tone

Ok, it seems you accepted about 1/3 of my changes on the Miller v. Campbell article to "go along to get along", and that is nice and much appreciated. I do the same thing, but do not make a point of it. My view is that reasonable people can agree to disagree in reasonable fashion and it is not necessary to make that remark three times (once in the edit summary, and in a comment). Maybe you think I should point out all my concessions? I think it is a waste of time, but I would appreciate your input on this point, and I believe it is likely we can reach an understanding.

One other thing is troubling me about our interactions though. It is beginning to seem to me that you should use more care in your remarks. For example to use the terms "silly", "pointy", and "rationalizations" and to patronize as in "Let me help you to understand this lawsuit", begins to border on WP:Uncivil imo. As for the patronizing, I will ignore it if you can tell me something about your credentials and legal background that elevates them above mine. Nothing specific, just something general that will allow me to ignore what I think are actually numerous instances of patronizing tone. For example did you get a A in Civ Pro? I only got an A minus. How about Con Law? Were you law review? I will check back on your page here in the next few days, and will forward to your response. --Best regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)