User talk:Notecardforfree

This user may have left Wikipedia. Notecardforfree has not edited Wikipedia since May 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

---

• Please put any new message at the bottom of the page
• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

---

Please take this tea as an apology for my long awaited GA review of Reed v. Town of Gilbert! My sincerest apologies! :) Carbrera (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Reed v. Town of Gilbert you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're always telling me to use bluebook style, and I've been looking and can't find a bluebook citation template (since I'm too lazy to just learn the style). I have some experience writing citation templates, and since this seems to be a standard for SCOTUS, if not law articles, I think this might be a useful addition and get more people to contribute to law related articles. Since you're more familiar with the style, would you be willing to help me write the template (or series of templates)? I'm thinking something like {{Cite bluebook}}. Wugapodes (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes -- I'm happy to help in any way I can. Template:Ussc will format case citations according to Bluebook conventions, though I don't think it allows you to cite a specific page in a slip opinion if a case hasn't been published in the United States Reports. Also, it doesn't include citation parameters for books, articles, or websites. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to include parameters for a variety of different kinds of sources, so we may need to create different templates for different kinds of sources (i.e. {{Bluebook Article}}, {{Bluebook Book}}, and {{Bluebook Website}}). In any event, here's a basic rundown of the order of parameters for a few common types of sources:

• Case citations for cases published in reporter: (1) Case title (italicized and followed by a comma), (2) volume of reporter in which the case is published, (3) abbreviation for reporter in which the case is published,(4) the first page in the reporter in which the case appears (followed by a comma), (5) the specific page to which you are citing, (6) the year in which the opinion was issued (for reporters that publish cases from multiple jurisdictions, an abbreviation of the jurisdiction will appear before the year). Example -- Joe v. Schmoe, 111 F.3d 222, 333 (14th Cir. 2016).
• Articles published in law journals/law reviews: (1) Author first name, (2) author last name (followed by a comma), (3) article title (in italics), (4) Journal volume, (5) journal abbreviation (in smallcaps), (6) first page of article (followed by a comma), (7) page of article to which you are citing, (8) year of publication. Example -- Joe Schmoe, How To Win Appeals Without Trying, 111 J. Law & Other Pol'y Issues 222, 223 (2016)
• Newspapers: (1) Author first name, (2) author last name (followed by a comma), (3) article title (in italics), (4) name of newspaper (in smallcaps and followed by comma), (5) abbreviated month of publication, (6) day of publication (followed by comma), (7) year (followed by comma), (8) page(s) on which the article appears (preceded by the word "at"). Example -- Joe Schmoe, Man Bites Dog, Anytown Times, Sept. 21, 2016, at 4-5.

I hope this information is helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thank you again for all your hard work improving Wikipedia's coverage of SCOTUS cases -- your work ethic is truly commendable. Otherwise, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful! {{Cite court}} already formats opinions in the bluebook style, so I didn't need to make one of those. I did make {{Bluebook journal}} which can use some testing to make sure I've accounted for everything and that it renders properly. I've made and added a number of them to Category:Bluebook style citation templates so feel free to add any more you know of or come across to that. Thanks for all your help! Wugapodes (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: The template looks fantastic! Thanks so much for making the template; it will be an invaluable tool for editors who write legal articles. Everything looks good, except that the text of the journal title looks like it may be a smaller font than other text (compare this citation with the template^[1] and this citation without the template^[2]). The only other thing I would mention is that you may want to add parameters for articles with multiple authors (see this guide for dealing with multiple authors) and you may also want to include a parameter for explanatory parenthetical statements, which would appear after the citation (see the example in footnote 2 below). Otherwise, let me know what I can do to help. If there are specific templates that you want to work on, let me know and I can give you the order of the parameters. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should have remembered that {{smallcaps}} doesn't work inside templates. I've fixed it. I'll work on the multiple authors next, completely forgot about that. I'll definitely keep you in the loop! Thanks for being so helpful with all of this, it really is appreciated! Wugapodes (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Reed v. Town of Gilbert you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor and look at an Afd on Robert Louis Miller. I came across it by accident (I don't normally take any interest in WikiPolitics), but once I saw the article it struck me as pure self-promotion by a non-notable subject. I'm not soliciting you to vote one way or the other or to get involved other, just to give me your perspective. Have I gone off the deep end? Why are two people (who don't appear to be lawyers or have any interest in legal subjects) support keeping the article? What is to be made of the subject claiming extortion? (I wouldn't know how to complain of extortion at Wikipedia. How did he?) Why does one of his supporters bring it up? I makes me very suspicious. P.S. If you are too busy, don't worry, it's not that important. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnthroMimus: Thanks for letting me know about this article and the deletion discussion. To respond to your questions:

• Should Wikipedia have an article about Mr. Miller? I don't think you're off the deep end here. As far as I can tell, Mr. Miller has not been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, though it looks like the prison Yelp reviews have received a fair bit of discussion in the press. Nevertheless, because he has not been the subject of such coverage, I don't think he passes WP:GNG.
• The scam allegations: I was not aware of the "Orangemoody" scam until I took a look at the AfD discussion you linked above. I don't want to speculate about the veracity of the scam allegations, but whatever the case may be, I don't think that should influence the outcome of the AfD discussion; the AfD discussion should simply discuss issues relating to WP:DELETE.

I'll say a few words over at the deletion discussion, but feel free to let me know if I can be of help in any way. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See newest edit regarding headstone controversy. More material added to counteract hatchet job and non-NPOV of L.M. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: Thanks so much for your efforts to resolve the issues relating to the headstone. I have been watching the edits to the article over the last few weeks, and I am surprised that so much non-NPOV material has been added. I agree that the non-neutral portions of the article certainly need to be revised -- I'll try to go through it over the next few days to prune out some of that language, but let me know if there is anything I can do to be of service. Otherwise, I hope all is well with you and that you enjoyed a nice weekend. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about LM and why he has a mania to do in the defunct Justice? I knew WOD slightly, and he was as obnoxious and sloppy as Posner (a co-clerk) said he was, although at the same time absolutely brilliant and with a prodigious memory. But I can't imagine why, 40 years after his death, anyone (viz. LM) would care enough to go out of the way to malign him. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I don't know much about LM. I have only interacted with them once or twice on Wikipedia. I can't imagine why they would want to add so much negative material about Justice Douglas, but I also noticed that they added more questionable material in Learned Hand's article, and they also added a rather large image of Justice Douglas in the article for Sierra Club v. Morton.

I've always heard Justice Douglass described as a complex individual with an incredible intellect. A few years ago, I found this interesting clip of Justice Douglas on the game show What's My Line? (Bennett Cerf identified him as "the author of several best sellers"). C-Span also has footage of Justice Douglas on The Mike Wallace Interview. He certainly seems like a fascinating person. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree! I hope things are going well for you. I wanted to know if you'd be willing to look at Heffernan v. City of Paterson before I nominate it for FA. Thanks! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to take a look! I'll set aside some time over the next few days to give it the attention it deserves, and I'll post my thoughts on the article's talk page when I'm done. Thanks again for your hard work with the article -- I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: My apologies for not looking at this sooner (it's been a busy week), but I have posted comments about the article on the article's talk page. I will take a closer look at the section about the Opinion of the Court this weekend and I will post comments about that section soon. Please let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions. Otherwise, I hope all is well and that you enjoy the upcoming weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an insignificant company. There are few companies making conventional electric ovens in the UK. Certainly not many at all for the domestic market. Chandley are what you might call 'industry-standard' for bakeries - they are almost de rigueur amongst those 'in the know'. There are not actually that many manufacturers of domestic large electrical appliances left in the UK. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DinosaursLoveExistence: It certainly looks like the company has a strong presence in the industry, but I am struggling to find sources that talk about the company, its history, and its significance. I know that oven manufacturers don't often make front page headlines, but do you know of any sources that discuss this company? Perhaps it is discussed in a trade journal? Wikipedia articles need to demonstrate the verifiability of information in articles by citing to reliable sources (per WP:V). Likewise, we generally only provide standalone pages to articles when they pass relevant notability guidelines (see WP:GNG), which is established by coverage in reliable sources. In any event, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia; I always enjoy learning about companies with unique histories! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy to start a new thread: thank you for a thank you today (and many before)! Would you take a look at my open FAC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I will definitely take a look at the FAC this week. I am a little busy today, but I will take a close look Monday or Tuesday of this week. Thank you, as always, for your amazing work. Your kindness is so incredibly refreshing. I hope you are enjoying a nice weekend! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning from a nice long hike: yes, I enjoyed the weekend, hope you too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That anonymous person is making a lot of silly changes. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I completely agree that the anon's stylistic changes are unnecessary, and I have found the need to revert his/her work on several occasions. Some of their edits are helpful (see, e.g., this edit and this edit), but like you said, many involve needless stylistic changes (see, e.g., this edit). I'm not sure what we can do about it, but it's definitely a huge pain in the neck to go through all those edits. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!

You're a very special Wikipedian in my book. Being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles for the benefit of the project is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to make editing an enjoyable experience. Atsme📞📧 22:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words, Atsme. This is truly an honor :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 391, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Penumbra (law) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Penumbra (law) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Penumbra (law) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm wondering why I was reverted at WT:MOS. Graham (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham11: my sincere apologies! I was browsing my watchlist on my cell phone this morning and my clumsy fingers must have accidentally pressed the rollback button -- to be honest, I was not aware that I made the mistake until I got your message. I certainly didn't intend to delete your comments, and thankfully it looks like another editor has already restored them. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I just figured I'd check with you before reverting you myself. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contact you outside of Wikipedia pages (privacy reasons) about an important matter. I noticed that you are not setup to receive emails. I would greatly appreciate it if you can contact me. Toda, WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: I just sent you an email. Let me know if you did not receive it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nc4f, I'd like to be able to eml you too off WP net. rstern@khhte.com PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I just sent you an email to the address listed above. Let me know if you did not receive it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notecard, the S Ct cite -- 136 S. Ct. 2056 -- is now available. You may wish to replace slip op cites (?). Also there is some interesting Commentary. E.g., http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-the-exclusionary-rule-is-weakened-but-it-still-lives/ https://law.stanford.edu/2016/07/05/utah-v-strieff-a-bad-decision-on-policing-with-a-gripping-dissent-by-justice-sotomayor/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/utah-streiff-sotomayor/487922/ https://verdict.justia.com/2016/06/28/potential-landmine-waiting-utah-v-strieff http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_has_the_supreme_court_dealt_a_blow_to_the_fourth_amendment/ Link to podcast at http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/utah-v-strieff-post-decision-scotuscast http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/utah-v-strieff-fourth-amendment-rights-without-remedies-and-the-problem-of-arbitrary-police-power

Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PraeceptorIP Thanks so much for these very helpful links. Updating Utah v. Strieff has been on my "to-do list" for a while now, and hopefully I will be able to devote more time to it over the next week or two. The Yale Law Journal Forum also recently published an interesting piece titled "Predicting Utah v. Streiff's Civil Rights Impact". As for the citations to the slip opinion, I have a bunch of articles where the citations are to the Court's slip opinion, and I agree that it is a good idea to start switching the citations to the version of the case that appears in the Supreme Court Reporter. Eventually, my plan is to update the citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, though as you know, it will still be a few more years before the 2015 term cases are published in the U.S. Reports. In any event, thanks so much for your help with this article. I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the great work you did in salvaging Enforcement, and converting it into a well-written article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, RickinBaltimore! I enjoyed working on this article. Many of Wikipedia's articles about broad legal concepts are in poor shape ... hopefully I'll have a chance to work on a few more in the near future. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

MB298 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this edit to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. The word "major" now appears twice in the hook. Is that intentional, or inadvertent? Mathew5000 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathew5000, that was my mistake — I'm not sure how I missed the second appearance of the word "major" in that hook, but that was certainly an inadvertent error on my part. My intent was to distinguish SMS Custoza from previous ironclads (see Drache-class ironclad), but I must have missed the "capital ship" qualifier later in the sentence. In any event, I went ahead and restored the previous version of the hook. Thanks so much for catching this! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit some feedback for a brochure that will be distributed to students editing political science articles (with a focus on theories and laws). It will complement the other editing brochures and interactive training offered by the Wiki Education Foundation. I saw that you're one of the active WikiProject Law members, and wonder if you'd be willing to take a look? If you're so inclined, the draft is here: User:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed)/Political_science. Even if you take a look and don't have any suggested changes, feedback to that effect would be helpful, too.

Much appreciated. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the reminder about this. I do want to offer some feedback, and I hope to be able to leave comments in the next day or two. I am still catching up on work after going out of town for Thanksgiving, but I should have some free time coming up in the next few days. Thanks so much for taking the time to make this guide! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed):, I left a few comments on the talk page of the draft. Thanks again for your work on this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this goes on the talk page or user page, so I'll try it here first -

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being generally encouraging to new editors! MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, MBUSHIstory! If I can ever be of assistance, please let me know. And thank you as well for your excellent work to improve our coverage of legal cases. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:207.181.215.128‎; PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: thanks for the notification about the discussion. I left a comment on the IP's talkpage. Needless to say, I agree with you 100 percent. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's another idiotic comment at Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Nowa describes himself on his User page as: "A US patent agent specializing in business method patents." I suppose that means Alice put him out of business. I too am a patent agent (as well as a law prof who teaches § 101), but I view Alice with great equanimity. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: And now another familiar voice has started a RfC about the cartoon. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree. I'm back from what turned out to be a long wikibreak after the wikicup and am looking to get back into some writing (the back end processes are not nearly as interesting). You were fun to work with before my break, and I think some good collaboration would be fun. Are there any articles you've been wanting to tackle lately that I could help out with (SCOTUS or otherwise)? If you're interested, I've been wanting to get Loving v. Virginia up to FA quality especially since the renewed interest from Obergefell and the recent movie. Hope you've been keeping on well, let me know. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Wugapodes -- thank you very much for the kind words. I very much enjoyed working with you as well, and I am very impressed with your technical knowledge (and your commitment to keeping things working behind-the-scenes). In politics, people often say "don't ask how the sausage is made." I'm sure the same is true about many of the behind-the-scenes functions here at Wikipedia. I would love to take you up on your offer to collaborate on an article or two (or more, as time permits). Loving v. Virginia is definitely in need of some cleanup, and I'd love to expand the article's discussion about scholarly commentary on the case. Here are a few other articles that I think might make for a fun collaboration:

1. Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley (1982), a fascinating SCOTUS case where the majority ruled that a a public school was not required to provide a sign language interpreter for a deaf student. You can read the opinion at this link. According to SCOTUSblog, the attorney who argued this case was the only deaf lawyer to have argued at the Supreme Court.
2. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan (2015), an incredibly sad story of a disabled woman who was shot by police. SCOTUS held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established standard under existing law that the officers needed to accommodate her disability.
3. Kerry v. Din (2015), this was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse. The case was viewed by some as "proxy war" for Obergefell. I started this article last year, but I'd love to expand it and possibly take it to GA or FA status. If you'd rather work on an article that already has some content, this might be a good choice.

There are dozens of other projects I have on my to-do list, but let me know if any of the above look interesting. Otherwise, I hope all is well and I hope you are enjoying a nice Monday afternoon! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all look interesting! Are my interests that transparent, haha. I think Hendrick Hudson would be a good place to start; old enough to have some good scholarship on it and historically interesting. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the levels of notability in the world of law, so would you give Lettmaier a peek, and weigh-in on this BLP's Talk page? I'm thinking now that maybe her book is more notable but maybe not. Thanks in advance!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Atsme -- thanks so much for letting me know about this discussion. I left a comment over on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell, I think one could make a fair argument that she passes WP:PROF's first criterion. I also think that her book is definitely worthy of a standalone article. In any event, I hope all is well with you and that you are enjoying a lovely holiday season. Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2017! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NCFF - it seems to me that from both an academic and professional approach, the BLP meets notability for inclusion. I may be too lenient but her accomplishments (scholarly) and legal professorship/director position are not exactly commonplace, or are they? What I've experienced in some notability discussions is that notability expectations for some editors lean more toward fame than notability. For example, how many millions in monetary contributions make a philanthropist notable? I believe notability should be determined by what published sources have written about the philanthropist, including motivations, efforts and the result of those efforts rather than focusing on the amount of his/her contributions. Another question, how many sources meet the requirement for "multiple independent sources"? Is 3 enough? There is also the issue of academics being relatively low key, lacking in MSM attention, and we're supposed to take that into consideration. Anyway, long story short - I was hoping you would write a paragraph or two that focus more on the legal aspects of her accomplishments and views which can easily be cited to independent sources. I can't seem to wrap my head around the legalese in order to expand the article but maybe if I had a starting point, I could join in the expansion. I'm thinking maybe we can elaborate on Lettmaier's position vs what John Doe believes and/or what the law dictates, and that will help make her notability clear, or maybe it won't. --^{Atsme📞📧} 12:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I'll add a paragraph or two over the next few days, and I will continue searching for additional sources that discuss her contributions. In general, I share your perspective regarding the difference between fame and impact. Unfortunately, legal historians devote little attention to the legal rights and duties of women prior to the 20th century. At some point, I'd love to spend significant time cleaning up Legal rights of women in history; right now, it doesn't discuss the rights of women in the United States. I've always love the phrase "you can only take one step at a time" . . . I think it is especially applicable to our work on Wikipedia. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I added a paragraph to the article that describes her contributions to her field of scholarship. I tried to make it as accessible as possible, though if there are portions that you think are too dense or unclear, please let me know and I will try to clean it up :-) Otherwise, I hope 2017 is going well for you. I just returned from an impromptu vacation, and I hope you had a chance to enjoy some rest and relaxation over the holidays. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NFF - my "vacay" started in September and it's still in process, if you're of the mind to call it a vacay. I'm on a small island in the Dutch Caribbean tending to business. Regarding the article, I think independent sources were the primary issue. I tend to be a bit more lenient when sourcing academics, especially considering the caliber of this particular academic and the impact of her book in a subject area that is not highly publicized, except maybe in the past by Johnny Carson. 😂 While I realize we should avoid compromising GNG, there are the deserving few, some of which are female, who don't get media attention. In the interim, porn stars are inundated by press hounds, and their BLPs are rarely challenged. I don't think that's the kind of message WP intends to send to our readers. Thanks for your help! It is greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:Many thanks for the holiday wishes! I hope are also enjoying a festive holiday season as well. Best wishes for a happy, healthy, and fun 2017! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your new year is going well. I've been working on Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley and am having an interesting time with one of the citations. I'm quoting the opinion at 188 where they are quoting the text of the. However the text at the current 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18) is not the text that is in the opinion. It was probably amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but I'm not sure when or how to find out when. How should I go about citing this since directing people to the current statute isn't particularly helpful as a citation? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes -- thank you very much for the kind new years wishes. I recently returned from an impromptu vacation, and so far the year hasn't thrown me too many unexpected surprises, so I'll say it's been successful so far :-) I hope things are going well for you too, and I hope you were able to enjoy some rest and relaxation over the holidays. I just took a look at the Rowley article, and it looks like you've done fantastic work so far! Many thanks for helping to improve this very important article. I expect that the Rowley article will see a surge in traffic over the next few months as the Supreme Court decides Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. FYI, SCOTUSblog has posted a recap of today's oral arguments for that case. I'll give the Rowley article a more careful read-through over the next few days, and I'll see if I can find law journals that comment on the Rowley case.

As for your question about the citation, if you scroll to the bottom of the text of section 1401 at the Cornell site, you will see a list of congressional enactments that created/amended the law. Unfortunately, when evaluating legislative history, there is no easy way to match portions of text with the act that amended that text. For this statute, if you click the link for "Pub. L. 108–446, title I," it will take you the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website, which provides a version of the congressional act that reintroduced the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 2004 (Public Law 108-446). That Act changed the definitions enumerated in 20 U.S.C. § 1401 and moved the definition of "free appropriate public education" from subdivision 18 to subdivision 9. The Cornell site also provides a link to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel website, which displays a version of the act as it appears in the United States Statutes at Large. For more information about citations to congressional acts, see this useful guide from Marquette University.

When citing to a statute that has since been amended by a subsequent act of congress, per Bluebook rule 12.2.2(b), writers should cite to the old version of the statute and then include a parenthetical statement after the citation to explain that the statute has been amended. In this case, the full citation would look like this: 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9), Pub. L. 108–446, title I, § 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2652). To make a long story short, I think the important thing to do is simply let readers know that section 1401(18) is now codified at section 1401(9). I hope this is all helpful and not too arcane, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought Chicago Style was complex! It took a couple read-throughs but it makes sense. I'm glad to hear that your year is going well so far, and hopefully your vacation was restful at least! I had actually completely forgotten about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District until I saw an article about it in the Washington Post this morning. I haven't looked too much into its coverage, but it might be worth making an article on that case soon, especially since the SCOTUSblog coverage sounds like they may start to move away from Rowley. If you are interested, there is a substantial list of law review articles at the end of the Rowley article. I'm not familiar with much of the scholarship on this case so a wonderful help would be if you could cull that list to the more significant publications. An even bigger help would be if you wanted to write up anything about them in the article, but I don't want to impose on you (at least not so soon after your vacation, haha). Hopefully we'll have a solid GA candidate in a few weeks!

As an aside, between this case and Robert's use of ASL to admit deaf lawyers to the Supreme Court bar, I've been thinking about creating Deafness at the United States Supreme Court. It's little more than an idea at this point, but any thoughts you have on that would be greatly appreciated. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, I'll try to add a section about scholarly coverage at some point during the next week, and I'll also try to trim down the list of articles. Rowley is a very interesting case and I think you've done great work with the article so far. Also, I think a Deafness at the United States Supreme Court article is a fantastic idea. Would it cover SCOTUS cases that have dealt with issues affecting the deaf community (e.g. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District), or would it focus on the experiences of deaf attorneys, judges, clerks, etc. at the Court? One thing you may want to consider covering are the SCOTUS justices who were deaf or hearing-impaired during their tenure (for more information about that, see footnote 13 at p. 1188 in this fascinating article from the Valparaiso Law Review). For example, President Taft once described Justice David Brewer as "so deaf that he cannot hear." Let me know if there is anything I can do to help with that article's development. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case captions, should it be Mfg. or Manufacturing? Someone changed Mfg to Manufacturing in Dawson Chem and Barber v Leitch. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• PraeceptorIP, I just double checked my version of the Bluebook (I have the 19th edition with me at the moment). Per R10.2.1(c), in textual sentences, the word "Manufacturing" is not abbreviated. If you were to write the case name in a footnote, then it would be abbreviated "Mfg." per T6, but I see that the editor changed the name as it appears in the body of the article. I should also note that R10.2.1(c) states that the following words are always abbreviated (unless they are the first word in a party's name): "&," "Ass'n," "Bros.," "Co.," "Inc.," "Ltd.," and "No." Therefore, in this case, I believe that the correct title should be "Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co." However, I noticed that the article for Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Company doesn't abbreviate "Co." in the second half of the name. Perhaps we should move that to Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.? In any event, I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, FYI, I've been adding the {{WP SCOTUS}} and {{WikiProject Law}} banners to SCOTUS case articles that don't already have them. If a page is tagged with those banners, then the Law and SCOTUS case Wikiprojects will receive notices about those articles in their article alerts pages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts). This is particularly useful when editors nominate SCOTUS articles for deletion or when editors start a request for comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there should be a redirect too? Will you make necessary corrections per your above comments? PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • PraeceptorIP, I moved the Leitch article to Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co., and Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Company is now a redirect that sends readers to the new title. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cd you take a look at the ... issue in User talk:Magioladitis‎ - PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PraeceptorIP, I apologize for never joining that conversation. This last month has been particularly busy for me, so I missed this discussion. If there is another similar discussion in the future, I will be sure to jump in. In any event, I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

justice
... you were recipient no. 1340 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, many thanks for your continued kindness. I can always count on you to make Wikipedia a happier place. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blushing. - Thank you for your contributions to today's Heffernan v. City of Paterson: "This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now, and How lovely to return! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, thanks so much for the kind message! I hope all is well with you. You always find ways to make Wikipedia more friendly and welcoming. I have been very busy over the last few months, and I haven't had much free time, but I hope to be able to work on a few articles soon! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree,

I noticed over at WP:RFD that you say you speak Hebrew. Do you read or write Hebrew? I have some problems with text rendering for Hebrew in the software that I write, I can explain more fully but it would be nice to get an expert opinion on whether it is good Hebrew (from just a typographical point of view, not whether it makes any sense, oy vey) and you could help me out there maybe. This is in a sense by way of a commercial offer because it is something I do for paid work, but if you're interested in helping out, I am sure we could arrange a fee and so on. We're not interested in what it says (and this is not Abrahamic texts but modern Hebrew) but none of us knows the alphabet so well to spot obvious flaws which you may be able to do if you can read and write it. I live in Budapest, Hungary, and there are very few Jews or Hebrew speakers around here... a certain German politician put paid to that. Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make clear, I am not Jewish. That is not an apology or defence, just a statement. One cannot reliably calculate how many Jews were evacuated from Hungary, but it was in the millions, far more than from Poland or other countries. This may sound strange, but a synagogue is an odd thing to see in Budapest. They were that thorough. There are two that I know of, but one was built in about 1977 I imagine, in Ujpalota, I go past that a lot, the other in the centre of town somehow managed to escape, perhaps because it was pretty. There are Jewish sections in some cemetaries, but in the National Cemetary it had to be basically rebuilt, and in the others it is always a bit unkepmt, because there are no descendants to look after them. I try to clean them up a bit when I go to the cemetary. It still seems a bit hopeless, planting a flower on a dead man's grave who you never knew. I just hope that one day the family will walk past and say "someone cares for him, who never knew him". Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SimonTrew, thanks for your thoughtful messages. I am interested in discussing this with you further, but I am very busy for the next 5-6 days (Passover is right around the corner). Can we touch base about this on Wednesday or Thursday of next week? I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SimonTrew, are you still in need of assistance? I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well not as such. Or perhaps. We are trying to stick this typography "complex script" it is called in technobabble onto mobile phones. Typography I can do. I know hebrew script (I am not Jewish) and can kinda reverse and do back to right and stuff. I think... perhaps... paid consultant might be the right word to use? I have to be careful here bit you know the satnav company that makes the igo? Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not the paid consultant. You would be. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. Who was it who was the Jewish comedian who said that joke, the Christians have to spend forty days for Lent. Forty days for Lent. We only have to have five or six. Even at religion you are paying retial (big smile) Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Easter came here too. Much blessings to all and yours. I don't know I do not check user pages and stuff, I was born in the Christian faith because I lived in a Christian country. It sticks to you like chewing-gum on your boots, you will never get rid of it, however hard you try. (Not suggesting you try.) Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SimonTrew, thanks for your message. Can you please send me an email regarding this matter? You can use this link to contact me via Wikipedia's email system. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you have left messages on some of discussions for the changes I recommended. I've been attempting to clean up some of the disambiguation pages for court cases and I probably nominated to change some of these too early. So, your comments and the comments of others motivated me to create articles which I felt were worthy of an article. Regardless of whether my changes are approved or not, I just wanted to say thanks for the comments and support.-- chipermc (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chipermc, thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad to see you have an interest in U.S. Supreme Court cases; we are certainly in need of more editors to work on our coverage of legal articles, including articles about SCOTUS cases. I hope that you will continue to contribute! Please let me know if I can be of assistance with respect to the editing process, and I look forward to working with you. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a question you may be able to help answer. I'm having a problem with the Court membership parameter for United States v. Morgan (1941)and I see you have participated in the talk section of the Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case where there were similar questions. I was attempting to use the |SCOTUS= Feb-Jul 1941 for this case because this is what the Court Composition Key provides. However, I get an error when attempting to add this as the parameter to the article. So, I just used the 1940-1941 date and put McReynolds as notparticipating. I know this isn't correct, but I couldn't think of a better solution. Who could help me enter the correct SCOTUS information so it will populate with the correct Court membership? Thanks. chipermc (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chipermc, I came across the same problem when editing Olsen v. Nebraska. I think placing Justice McReynolds' name in the "not participating" field is the best solution for now. You could also start a post at Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case to ask for a new court composition key for the period of time between February and July 1941. I don't have the technical expertise to make a new court composition key, though MZMcBride is particularly knowledgeable about these issues and may be able to provide further assistance. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NCFF! Hope all is well on your end!! I've recently become involved in WP:NPP because I believe it is a worthy project with a high level of importance as it relates to maintaining the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. As a reviewer, I am occasionally faced with challenges that exceed my area of expertise, so I hope you don't mind my asking for your input regarding Disability Exceptions under Copyright Law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - looks like it was already handled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I apologize for never responding to this message. Over the last few weeks, I have been swamped by work at my firm so I haven't been able to edit much (or at all). I'm happy to see that the issue was resolved, and I am happy to help again in the future. In any event, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 19:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Alex Shih. I appreciate your prompt response to my request. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your request! Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree. I stumbled across the discussion (in January-Feb 2017) about the Pre-Islamic page while editing Dar al Athar al Islamiyyah-I didn't see it before it was deleted but your comments struck a chord with me and seem the sensible way ahead. I'm willing to make that page based on your suggestions and what a search turns up. Any input would be appreciated, including political ones. Among all the verbiage of WP, "be bold" is the one thing I most often recall... Best, compadre. DadaNeem (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DadaNeem, thanks for volunteering to take on this project. I do think that a disambiguation page at that title could be useful for readers. When I was looking for articles (or redirects) that contained the term "pre-Islamic," I primarily relied upon the search box. As you find links, it might also be helpful to re-assess whether the overall organization of "pre-Islamic" articles and redirects should be moved to different titles. To give you one example, I noticed that "Pre islamic hindu and buddhist heritage of afghanistan" and "Pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan" are redirects that send readers to Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan, while "Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan" is a redirect that sends readers to Ancient history of Afghanistan. Perhaps this content (and the redirects) should be consolidated in some way? Also, you may want to include some articles that include sub-sections about "pre-Islamic" topics. See, for example: the "pre-Islam" section at Post-classical history#West Asia and Oriental studies#Pre-Islam. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have time to help me bring the article above to GA status (again)? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Cartoon network freak, it is nice to hear from you. I hope all is well. I will take a look at the article over the next few days to see if I can offer any additional feedback. Were you able to contact an expert in Romanian law? I know very little about Romanian law, so I don't know if I will be able to answer all of the questions about this article, but I'll see what I can do. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you have told me that a couple of times, but I really couldn't find such a person. Maybe we can first identify issues and then search for an expert in Romanian law. Isn't there something like a "question page" on Wikipedia? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cartoon network freak, you may be thinking of the Teahouse, but the people who answer questions at the Teahouse are not experts, and I doubt that we will find someone who is knowledgeable in Romanian law. Is there an equivalent to WT:LAW at the Romanian Wikipedia? I took another look at the article today. As a general starting place, I think you should begin by answering the questions that are listed at the bottom of Talk:Dec. No. 5946/212/2015/GA1 (the most recent GA review for this article). It is still not clear how the various legal proceedings are related. For example, if prosecutors dropped charges in 2016, why did Prodan receive a seven-month sentence in 2016? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Here are the issues of the GA1:

• • • • • If the Constanța judges decided in 2014 not to prosecute the case, why were there any subsequent proceedings, under what auspices, and was this criminal or civil?

According to the official script release, the case was criminal (battery). There is no information about what happened between 2014 and the follow-ups, but the only possibility is that there was an appeal from Stan's side. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Was the November 2016 judgment a normal follow-up to the December 2015 one, or had there been an appeal?

Now, I don't know what to say about this. According to the script (see bottom), there were three appeals (2 from Stan on 10.03 and 16.03 2016, and 1 from Prodan on 26.02 2016). Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • This article references a number of different cases -- a suit filed by Stan against Prodan, a copyright suit filed by Prodan against Stan in 2014, and a criminal prosecution of Prodan.

I think this point was solved already, wasn't it? Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network freak, I am very sorry, but I don't speak Romanian, and I am not familiar with the Romanian legal system, so it is difficult for me to understand the information that is included in website that you provided above. For articles like this one, it is particularly important to find individuals who are familiar with the subject matter (this is especially important because the article makes claims about potentially criminal acts committed by living people). If there really are no sources that explain the relationship between the 2014 proceedings and the 2016 proceedings, then you may want to limit the scope of the article so that it only discusses the 2016 proceedings. Alternatively (and this may be a simpler/easier approach), you may want to change the scope of the article so that it only discusses the June 2013 roadside incident and does not focus on the court proceedings. Celebrities are often involved litigation, and even if the same parties sue each other in multiple lawsuits, the cases may not be related. In any event, I encourage you to keep looking for an expert who is familiar with Romanian so that you can clarify some of these issues. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a much needed essay and would very much appreciate your input. You can reply in the Discussion section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme, thanks so much for inviting me to comment. It looks like a very interesting essay! I'll look through it a little more closely this weekend and offer some feedback. I've been swamped at work and haven't been able to edit as much as I'd like, but I hope to be back here more frequently after things clear up. In any event, I hope all is well, and I hope you enjoyed a fantastic Thanksgiving! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a Happy Holiday Season and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

...hope you are doing well, Mr. Notecardforfree!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the message, Atsme! I've been meaning to write to you for a while to say hello. My work life has been extremely busy the last few months so I haven't been able to edit as much as I have in the past. In any event, I hope all is well with you and that you are enjoying a nice start to 2018! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been a party on this topic, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes (as well as on [[talk:User talk:GreenMeansGo#Yo, Shield o' Sham-er]] and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation. Thanks!