User talk:Coolcaesar

Talk archive:

• /Archive1 (22 August 2004-7 July 2006)
• /Archive2 (8 July 2006-29 February 2008)
• /Archive3 (3 March 2008-20 December 2009)
• /Archive4 (21 December 2009 - 28 April 2014)

Please add new comments below this line. Thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would love to use your image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company) of Xerox PARC for a public presentation.

I would love express permission directly from you on the usage.

Please contact me as soon as possible at carolyna@fb.com.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnabella (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you removed the reference of Robert W. Malone and P. Felgner, et. al and instead attributed the initial mRNA discovery to "researchers at the Salk Institute, the University of California, San Diego, and Vical". However, the citation is exactly the same so why did you make this change. The citation that you use is a paper by R W Malone, P L Felgner, and I M Verma. So why don't you credit the initial discovery to them since you cite their paper? Please email me at greatest125@secret.fyi Greatest125 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasbro Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Highly intelligent posts
	If only we knew the identity of the anonymous poster . . . Horwitz101 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your effort is highly appreciated. However, are you considering an article for the franchise? Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Levi's Stadium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Amtrak]] and [[Altamont Commuter Express|ACE]] [[Santa Clara – Great America Station|station]] (near [[California's Great America]] and the [[Lick Mill (VTA)|Lick Mill station]] operated by VTA.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walt Disney Animation Studios, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Walt Disney Animation Studios has released 53 animated features to date, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to Frozen (2013)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walt Disney Animation Studios. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the grounds of following normative writing conventions. Is not a prominent guide for media writing from a well-known national body basing its recommendations [off research|http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/new-advice-journalists-suicide-reporting-academic] (World Health Organisation), and that have been adopted by a national press standards body (UK Press Association) not a suitable reference to show that such use is conventional (even if others do continue to use "commit", which implies criminalisation from its etymology)?

Best wishes,

Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinPaulEve (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UCLA corporate lawyer,

No need to use the term "INCOMPETENT" on edit summaries when reverting good faith edits or leaving remarks on how ignorant a user is on their talk pages, especially of people you don't know anything about. I realize Wikipedia may be your personal playground and outlet to channel your legal and excellent editing skills, but also realize it is shared by others and a more civil tone would be better for everyone. Best wishes.Gugvista (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Clarita. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolcaesar, could you please take several pictures of the KABC-TV studios in Glendale. If you do the travel, please also make a stop to take picture from 1402 Flower Street (Disney Animation Research Library) and the 1300 Flower Street (Disney Day Care Center). It would be great and mostly complete the Disney offices in Grand Central Creative Campus. Sincerely --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to handle my request. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded a week or two ago and just wanted to let you know that I did. SantiLak (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coolcaesar,

Some of you comments and talk page responses fall outside of Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Please review the policies in place at WP:CIVIL in regards to this topic. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolcaesar! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Disney Renaissance, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't exactly right there. See MOS:NOTUSA. "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods and without a space) has long been the dominant abbreviation for United States. US (without periods) is more common in most other national forms of English. Some major American style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecate U.S. and prefer US. Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article." Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your material added to Delegated legislation is contradictory and misplaced. As Wikipedia is not a US court, American courts are nothing more than mere commentators, and their opinions should not be afforded any more deference. IMO the quote clearly concedes that the executive branch legislates and adjudicates, and should be left on its own without commentary, as an obviously underdeveloped legal theory would deserve nothing more than a "C-" in an undergraduate political science course at a community college. More analysis is needed than the opinion of a single court focused norrowly on fitting a square peg into a round hole. Int21h (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 15 June 2015‎ Coolcaesar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,273 bytes) (-1)‎ . . "Countermand good faith edit by Spshu. The version without the hyphen has been prevalent in formal business English for almost 20 years. Try reading Fortune or Bloomberg Businessweek more often." 

Spell check shows that is not spelled right. And you cease making personal attacks hidden behind "Countermand good faith edit" as you have no business telling me what to read or to assume that I do or don't read a particular publication. WP is not a "formal business" publication in any case. Nor does "companywide" show up in dictionaries, dictionary.com, the Free Dictionary, Webster-dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster. Cambridge business dictionary says they are equal valid. Oxford dictionary (through One Look) indicates "company-wide" while Wordnik indicates both. Businessdictionary.com does not come up with "companywide" but either "company-wide" or "company wide". Spshu (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to discuss the same edit] as Spshu (currently directly above this), but not quite the same aspect, so starting a new section... Might be worth noting that CMoS says for -wide constructions, according to this PDF: "Closed if listed as such in Webster's. If not in Webster's, hyphenated." Wikipedia does not use CMoS exclusively, but the main MOS references it as one authoritative source among several, so it appears to carry more weight than various business publications. Just my two cents. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coolcaesar. I thought I should let you know countermand means to revoke (an order) or declare (a vote or election) invalid, not just "to oppose" or "counter" something, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary. Cheers! ;) —zziccardi (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is requested at Talk:Regents of the University of California#Recent title change. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 10:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit summary here. I see it was already explained to you that you are incorrect in your understanding of how US and U.S. are used in various countries. I am here to warn you against misusing the term "vandalism". Please consult WP:VAND and please do not again misuse the term. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I just found your picture of the Corus Entertainment building on the lakeshore ( Corusentertainment.jpg ), and I'm writing to say thanks! It's a really good photo of the building, from an unusual angle. Here's a barnstar for your effort! PKT(alk) 23:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, the only reason why I add informations from Forbes contributors is because others have used and done it vehemently and severely in many other wiki pages most notably pertaining to superhero pages. For example, look at The Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice among others, they have been quoting either Scott Mendelson or Mark Huges (from Forbes). From poster reviews to trailer reviews. And it's not just once. If the trailer for the film, say Civil War, comes out three times, they always add his review of all the three trailers and quote him. Why isn't that being checked? The only time I'll stop adding from Forbes is when Justice and equality prevails. U can't target some users for doing an illegal thing (I assume) and go on living knowing that there are others out there committing the same mistakes. Yes, I am fully aware that I have been warned perhaps once or twice. In the page, Frozen Fever I was not to add reviews from Mendelson, I accept that that, but then I go on reading other articles but found his reviews to be in some of them. I don't think is unfair to take box office information from them. Because they have accurate data and are professionals at what they do. Infact Scott a Mendelson is one of the best box office pundit out there, comparing to the likes of Nany Tartaglione, Anita Busch and Anthony D. Alesandro of Deadline.com, McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter and Brad Brevet of Box Office Mojo. So I feel it's not wrong to take box office information from him. Yeah maybe reviews. Infact the exact figures for the most expensive film, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Strangers Tides was provided by Forbes contributors and they are still out there in numerous pages and no one is having a single problem. I don't think so Forbes company would wanna pay their employee if they circulate inaccurate information. Who wants to be besmirched right?. So please, put checks on those who put reviews on those superhero pages as well. I would like to see them (the reviews) being vanished then I can be content that equality prevails.

User talk:Josephlalrinhlua786 17

09, March 20 (UTC).

Ok, if Forbes is such an unreliable source, then why don't u try reverting those informations taken from Forbes, like the trailer reviews in Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice etc, you'll have legions of writers attacking u, legions I'm telling u. I don't have any problem, but they will, so PLEASE I insist u to revert those edits taken from Forbes, if it is such an unreliable source. Please go revert it and see multitudes of contributors pitting u. And yes the exact figure for the "most expensive film ever made" which is held by Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is given by Forbes, so please, talk is cheap, go here, List of most expensive films and go revert the edit because Forbes is so unreliable to u and let's see how u hold up to those contributors argue with u. I don't have any problem. But they will so good luck. I'll just sit back, relax and enjoy the conversation. Go on. Also try reverting to the $279.9 million budget of Avengers: Age of Ultron (also from Forbes) and see how ur edit will be revert more quicker than "blink-and-you'll-miss" moment of Rita Ora on Fifty Shades of Grey.

User talk:Josephlalrinhlua786 19

48, March 20 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Zootopia page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia's guidelines on Civility at WP:CIVIL. Ad hominem attacks are neither helpful nor appreciated. (67.183.142.93 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just stopping by to say I agree, Coolcaesar can you please stop it with edit summaries like this. This is unacceptable. 1. The way you name the users you correct makes it seem like you have a problem with them as people, not their actions. 2. Calling it "Engrish" can be very disheartening to editors actually trying to learn English. 3. It just has a rude and condescending feel to it. And I see you've had issues with this in the past. Maybe now is the time to start a new leaf. Sro23 (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - you need to work on this still. Inappropriate behavior and personal name calling on talk pages and in edit history are not appreciated. Jooojay (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the abrasive tone of your comments aimed at me on the US state talk page. Your disparaging words were both uncivil and unconstructive. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal and that not everyone is as steeped in the law as you are. Drdpw (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furhter participation from you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_law#Proposal

My note, asking for your further participation --

       Thanks Coolceaser. I added that very explanation in a footnote as soon as the issue surfaced -- I didn't discuss it on the Talk page because I engaged with it in the text. I can't do it now, but I'll move the footnote into the text within a day or so. Does that close out the "connotations" issue? 98.229.147.75 (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 

       Ah, I see Qexigator already took care of it. Thanks. 

       Now we come to the other problem. This is another round with an editor that is singing the tune of the Cliven Bundy / no Sixteenth Amendment crowd, the folks that insist that the common law ended with the American Revolution, that we still operate under the common law as it existed in 1789, and all subsequent legal developments are unconstitutional. Up the page, you'll see that Qexigator pointed us to the National Liberty Alliance web site. Whether Qexigotor is or is not part of this bunch, I don't know -- but the points he wants to introduce are the same ones that Coolceasar and Famspear and I have repelled in the past. 

       I believe the article should, first of all, be accurate. As one example, "the common law" is as recent as the Supreme Court's opinion from 10AM this morning, not frozen in time in 1789. In today's world, Antonin Scalia and Steven Breyer are the relevant authors of the common law.  Coke or Blackstone are not "law" -- they're just commentaries.   Etc. etc.  The article should not imply otherwise. 

       Similarly, other artifacts of the 1890 description from Black's 1st Ed -- which had carried forward almost verbatim though the 1969 edition, despite Erie, FRCP, merger of law and equity, and the Field Code and all the rest -- should not be presented as current fact. Fine to discuss historical artifacts if they are labeled as obsolete, but it's not OK to present them as current reality. 

       That's the current point of disagreement. 

       98.229.147.75 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.147.75 (talk)   

Later same day --

If you have any questions about who's acting in good faith and who isn't, take a look at this [1] -- Qexigator proposes to remove all cites to the current edition of Black's, so that he can run with his agenda.

I think it's time to ask to have Qexigator banned. I have no idea how any of that admin stuff works.

98.229.147.75 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick ping here, since I know a revert of a revert [2] can be seen as antagonistic/aggressive. I do understand that story titles are denoted by quotation marks; my (rhetorical) question in my original edit was as to why they were being used in this case. The particular usage here indicates a character name, not a title. I was choosing to remove the quotation marks and leave the wording alone, but it would be equally valid to leave the quotation marks and delete the preposition (based on the story "Rapunzel"). Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit of my typo. I noticed that you called it a "weird typo." It was a lower case "p", and you simply changed it to a capital "P". There was absolutely nothing "weird" about it. I'm not sure why you chose that adjective (or why you even felt the need to describe it at all) I notice that you have previously had comments on your talk page about your tone. You should really heed those previous comments. Thanks for your time.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Consider this your last warning on tone. This talk page is a rap sheet. If you aren't able to handle yourself with Wikipedia:Civility, the next step is a block.  czar 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your additions. I wanted to make some edits to what you wrote. I think some words should be taken out to preserve the objective feel of the article. Like taking out 'desperately' form "supporters desperately believed" and 'extraordinarily' from "become an extraordinarily long constitution". Would you agree? Rybkovich (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Contributor321. I noticed that you made a change to an article, University of California, Merced, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work but the use of the word "vandalizing" is extremely out of context. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrican (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing as I edited - please feel free to review after I have finished posting this segment. As to utilizing negative reviews for balance, I agree = but there aren't any. Please add them if you find them or send the reference my way and I will get them posted. Thewizardsgirl (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working for a german geography university professor, searching free pictures for his new book about the geography of the economie for students in south america (in spansich). I would like to use a picture of the Silicon Valley like yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siliconvalley.JPG. Would you allow us to use the image for free, naming you as the source(which name, your username?)? King regards, Klara KBBKol (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered your comments on the Cumis Counsel page and wanted to try and make contact with you. I need help and it seems like you're the most knowledgeable expert on the subject particularly with your interest in healthcare. Can you contact me at BerthasBoy @aol.com? I'd really appreciate the chance to speak with you. I understand you may actually be close to Sacramento where I live. I hope to hear from you. Thanks BerthasBoy (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your revision of my edit to Magna Carta: it's one comma, and you're welcome to it; I'm not about to fight over it. But don't presume to browbeat me, or hope I'll be intimidated by the phrases "close reading" and "full parse tree". I am not impressed. I know how to use a comma. I happen to feel strongly that your preferred style is wooden and ugly, but it is not wrong; when you seek to make your own prose taste a question of "maintain[ing] the correct pacing" (my emphasis), however, you overreach. Your comma is not "correct": it is merely yours. If your parse tree strictly forbids any other pacing, maybe you should consider clinging less fiercely to your parse tree. And stop using "countermand" in reversion summaries, please: you are not my superior officer. Your supercilious tone may be getting more subtle over time, but it is still alienating your fellow editors.

Regulov (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a relief we won't have to "rewrite the entire article from scratch."

Regulov (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the ICANN page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolcaesar, I see you are a lawyer and have made some constructive edits to pages like California Penal Code. I posted a simple edit request at Marsy's Law last month asking editors to include recently enacted Marsy’s Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. I thought this might be something you may like to review based on your interests. Can you look it over? I have a conflict of interest that is fully disclosed on the Marsy's Law Talk page and I will not edit the page myself. Instead, I have worked with others in the past to update Marsy's Law and created Marsy's Law (Illinois) through WP:AfC, but have had trouble finding assistance from editors for the most recent changes. I would appreciate any help you may be able to provide or any advice on where I might be able to find help if not. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! - Friday, March 10 - SF CCA ArtAndFeminism 2017			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Friday March 10, 2017, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Jscarboro (talk)

Could you take a look at Talk:Common law -- Quexigator asserts that Black's 10th Ed and Bryan Garner's dictionary "look like a student's garbled notes of a lecture" At "court of record" you had some choice things to say about the absurdity of some edits -- it might be appropriate here too. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I, Jamesjpk (talk), would like to invite you to join WikiProject YouTube! We're working on: Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about YouTube, in particular, these articles Putting {{WikiProject YouTube}} on the talk pages of articles involving YouTube, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles! Sourcing BLP's affiliated with YouTube Updating the project page, and spreading word about the project and more! It seems you might be interested, so please stop by! Thank you. You were given this message because of your involvement in the YouTube article.

He Coolcaesar, unsurprisingly the Paris Agreement gets a lot of attention lately, with editing especially focussed on US withdrawal at some point. What keeps popping up is the bold statement that the agreement is not applicable in the US anyway because it was considered an executive agreement rather than a Senate-ratifiable treaty. Could you clarify things a bit from a US law point of view at Talk:Paris_Agreement#US_is_still_a_signatory.3B_the_withdrawal_process_takes_time.21? L.tak (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to The Black Woman is God Edit-a-Thon at SOMArts in San Francisco on Saturday July 22, 1-4 pm. It'll be at 934 Brannan Street (between 8th & 9th). Everyone is welcome to join this editing event, held in conjunction with The Black Woman is God exhibition to raise the online visibility of Black women artists and challenge the gaps in art history that erase or minimize Black women’s contributions as artists, activists and social change-makers. (Message requested by Dreamyshade and delivered on 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC). You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)[reply]

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.[reply]

You seem to be one of the people that looks after law articles. I'd like to alert you to a pattern of vandalism -- long indictment at [4]

Qexigator has a problem with the definition of "common law" that all the rest of us (including Black's dictionary) work with -- so he edited out the parts of the definition from a footnote that he disagrees with. When I was actively practicing, that would have gotten you sanctioned. From that starting point, he rewrote "common law" with a very heavy hand, but very little knowledge.

Are you an admin with disciplinary authority? If not, could you refer this to someone who is?

Thanks

DCLawwyer (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (deep breath) DCLawwyer (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also concerned with your recent edits to the common law page.

The immutable nature of common law is a common talking point and should not be excluded from the conversation. Citations would include https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1631&context=hastings_law_journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.53.93 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "young lawyer" holding J.D. (UCLA School of Law?), perhaps experience would show that to infer and pronounce consistent evasiveness is off the mark, if the page is reviewed, particularly given the reasoning in sections 5, 6, 7, 8, "For the record", 10, and 11. The Archives show some earlier concerns of editors, such as discussions on "Three connotations" and "Improving opening sentences" at Talk:Common law/Archive 6 May-June 2016, including 17:15, 3 June 2016 "...pointless to engage...". Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm a bit new here, and I'm not too sure how to handle this. But I was wondering if we should include a section on Mr. Lasseter's recent allegations, or at least go into more depth on them. I'm only asking because you recently edited the article, and also your user page indicates you might know how to avoid accusations of defamation. Just wondering. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolcaesar:

I was slow in understanding my mistake editing the lede sentence of Zoning in the United States. The problem was not what I wrote, but the fact that I changed the subject of the lede sentence. My apologies and thanks for catching my error. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you believe the USA state of Georgia should have a Wikipedia title of just Georgia at the expensive of the country. Just want to let you know that the reason you state this is because the economy of the state is larger than the country is completely ridiculous. Georgia is a country whereas the state is just a local government body. Also country has a diverse culture and history unlike the state. Finally that is an extremely American centric view - coming from Finland and having lived in the UK and Belgium (apologises for limited English) I know that Europeans will also mean the country when they say Georgia. In conversation Georgia always means Georgia whereas the state is always called the American state of Georgia. Outside North America Georgia always means the country not the USA state. Also should history, culture and worldwide status (as a country) be more important.

Bring a more local example in would you support instead moving the page of Suffolk (currently the county in the UK) to Suffolk County, New York given the New York county has double the population? Obviously such a move would be mad given the Suffolk County in New York is only a district of local government whereas the UK county is more important given it is a local government unit. Also the history of the UK Suffolk is far greater than that of the New York Suffolk.--80.189.139.45 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Athsquare. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please read WP:OWNTALK. Editors can remove comments from their own talk pages. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to use a racially-loaded word in an edit summary?[5] II | (t - c) 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term pattern[edit]

...continuing from Talk:Contract#Proposal:_change_of_name_to_"Law_of_Contract" - is there any way for you to use polite language? A user proposing to rename an article should not be called a "troll". And this isn't an isolated incident - it's gone back many years! Name-calling is infectious. Anyhow, just a heads up that I'm at my wits' end and ready to take this to the admin noticeboard and Arbitration if necessary. II | (t - c) 04:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Coolcaesar, I would point out that editors who put themselves on the front lines of contentious topics see a lot of trolling, and can therefore become highly attuned to it - perhaps oversensitized. bd2412 T 13:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation can happen wherever Coolcaesar prefers, but since they responded on my talk page (User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#The_issues_you_recently_raised), we'll mostly discuss there for now. I'm initially encouraged that Coolcaesar has seen that the word choice could be toned down. And of course I very much appreciate Coolcaesar's contributions to Wikipedia - they are extremely knowledgable, with a gift for concise language. II | (t - c) 14:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been? You haven’t made an edit since May. Just asking. CriticismEdits (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your skilled edits! II | (t - c) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy (Wikipedia) birthday. Balloons and presents all around. I saw you tried to open up an RM at manifest destiny, but the coding didn't take. That's my problem too, I can never figure out the coding to open RM's, someone should really simplify the thing. Maybe you can ask for admin assistance to fix the coding. Will keep watch on that talk page to see if something opens. Thanks for the ping there. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your revert of my edits to Template:Law of the United States with the reason given "That is TMI for a navbox template." Pls translate? DadaNeem (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "Too much information"? Who defines that? Let me present my case: As a lawyer you may appreciate the concept of precedent: looking at Category:Law navigational boxes for similar Templates I found:

Canadian law has Core areas & Other areas which together would roughly correspond with the Types of law I inserted

Law of Singapore which is quite detailed, even giving Acts, which would be unmanageable for the number of US Acts

Law of Sri Lanka...

I submit that Canadian law sets a useful template. I think Types of law is a useful addition, putting the sub-areas of US law together. It could be retitled eg Areas. Over to you... DadaNeem (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have been restored on April 5, 2019‎ -many thanks to TJRC who commented: "Those were worthy additions; certainly not "TMI", the nav template is pretty sparse compared to most". Regards DadaNeem (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted two of my recent edits, to "Sherardising" and "Shepard's Citations", with the identical reasons:

Removing incorrect edit. There's clearly a p in "Shepardizing," not a b. Are you dyslexic? This is nearly as strange as cross-linking "Umbrella" and "Beretta."

Actually, unlike "umbrella" and "Beretta", "Sherardising" and "Shepardizing" differ in spelling by only two letters, one of which is in the middle of the words, and the other of which is due to regional spelling differences (-ising/-izing)—"Sherardising" would be changed to "Sherardizing" in American usage, reducing the difference to a sole letter. Both words are also verbs derived from proper names, with a leading capital letter. They are very easily confused when spoken aloud to someone like myself who is or was unfamiliar with either of them. Additionally, entering "Shepardizing" in the Wikipedia search box gives both as results, but entering "Sherardising" only gives that one. Therefore I felt they met the third usage criterion of Wikipedia:Hatnote fo the addition of disambiguation hatnotes: "they [the reader] sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names or are otherwise easy to confuse" (I being one of those readers).

In view of these points, would you please be so kind as to undo your reversions of my edits? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have this page on my watchlist, as Coolcaesar and I have had discussions before, and checked the edit. I was a bit surprised that in the edit summary you were "diagnosed" with dyslexia. That could be based on a medical analysis, but also be a personal attack. Such attacks or suggestions about the mental state of users do not help very much in understanding whether Coolcaesar is serious about the revert. It also is not the way to behave on wikipedia. I have therefore restored your edit. L.tak (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ I was ignoring that point in the interest of civility on my part. (I don't have dyslexia, but my hands often do type out of order of each other, a significantly lesser affliction.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits that accidentally obscure or misrepresent information should obviously be changed or reverted, but they are not an excuse to be overtly hostile to other editors. There’s no reason to act out like that on here, it doesn’t do anything other than making the Wiki community a worse place to be. -Drevolt (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe in compliance with community consensus on MOS issues? If not, read no further as we have no basis for communication.

• MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3: "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description." The word "The" is a definite article and in fact is the only definite article in the English language.
• For illustration of the case, see MOS:JOBTITLES table column 2 example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." — not "Richard Nixon was the President of the United States."

This seems clear enough to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lanterman–Petris–Short Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 5150 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You removed the paragraph I added to the Summary Judgment page. There, I had mentioned that while the S.J. rules ("SJTOR") are absolutes (required by common law to be followed by judges), nevertheless many judges abridge them. This is particularly true for federal employment discrimination, and is very well documented, and I did cite the standard reference ("Unequal" book by Sperino & Thomas). You removed this information, calling it a "polemic". But it's not polemic, it's fact, and it's a important fact about S.J. that Americans need to know. Can you think of a better way to document it? Wtuvell (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wtuvell#It's_off-topic_and_a_tangent) to my preceding note. Thank you. But it's not really responsive to the topic here: S.J (and violation thereof) is orthogonal to, and far more general/important than, the McDonnell-Douglas (and progeny) framework you mention (noting that S.J., is "transubstantial," i.e., applies to all subject-matters, not just empl disc). The paragraph I tried to insert is on-topic and non-tangential.

The topic I raise is this (which is purely S.J.-focused, not empl disc): "judges frequently abridge/violate SJTOR, even though the rules/laws of court require them to observe/obey SJTOR unconditionally (no discretion permitted)." Period; this assertion has nothing to do with empl disc or McD-D. It is, however, a shocking assertion (if true), and is certainly something litigants/readers learning about S.J. should know about (if true), I think you'd agree. Therefore, being potentially controversial, some sort of corroboration about "if true" is appropriate/required. That could be done in several ways, but the best/easiest (most persuasive) way is to point to an explicit example-area (if it exists) that is well-studied/accepted (in a non-controversial way). Such an example-area does exist: federal empl disc, which has been discussed/proven in many places, and its best (main-stream) exposition occurs in Sperino & Thomas's book, "Unequal." A faithful review of that book (which I cited) has been published by Beiner, "When Courts Run Amuck," https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol5/iss2/3/ (concerning spelling see https://writingexplained.org/run-amok-vs-run-amuck-difference). See especially its footnote #14 for many references to the relevant literature, esp. many articles at the N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev Symposium in 2012 (which even has judges admitting violations of SJTOR happen in the empl disc context). For a very recent explicit example, see the Pet Writ Cert for Micheo v. Stericycle at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-967.html. Seriously, it's quite shocking that the courts are getting away with this (if true, which it is).

Your citation of McD-D framework is orthogonal to the concept of SJTOR. Namely, it's as orthogonal as the classical dichotomy "findings of fact" vs. "conclusions of law" (this happens both at S.J. and at trial); which means (as you know): once the relevant facts are found (at trial, this would be the jury, or judge at bench trial), the question then becomes whether-or-not any laws were broken. At S.J., it is required that the court follow the SJTOR (esp. crediting nonmovant's story over movant's) to "find the facts." Then after that is where McD-D (which is very empl disc specific, not "transubstantial") kicks in: given the "facts," were any (empl disc) laws broken? Some of the McD-D burden-shifting discussion can happen at S.J. (if the litigants argue it in their filings, which they typically do), but more likely it happens at trial (because it's there that the factual credibility-determinations happen, before the jury).

(Also, I don't know why you bring up Google's "site operator," I know about it, and it's irrelevant to this discussion.) Wtuvell (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION: I've now seen your 2nd reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wtuvell), just now. You criticize my contribution by saying: "The sources cited [Sperino & Thomas, Beiner] go to how American anti-discrimination law is broken, not how summary judgment law is broken," and that my interpretation of Sperino & Thomas is "strained." But that is not the case. For, what the judges are doing is violating S.J. IN ORDER TO break empl disc law.

It seems you have not bothered reading Sperino & Thomas, nor even Beiner's (faithful) review of it. Here is what Beiner writes: "Limiting their analysis to individual disparate treatment claims, the authors spend chapters two through six describing the various ways courts have [ILLEGITIMATELY] found to dismiss or grant summary judgment against plaintiffs in these cases or reverse a jury’s determination that discrimination did indeed occur. … The authors accomplish this the old-fashioned way — by examining legal theories used in actual federal cases. This is a very law-on-the-ground approach, whereby they use compelling examples from case law to illustrate the ways that courts have found to dismiss these cases prior to a jury trial or, in some cases, after a jury has rendered a verdict for the plaintiff." There is nothing "theoretical/speculative" about this. It's "well-known" (by experts in the field, hence should be surfaced to public attention, THE Wikipedia goal of educating the world). In particular, if you'd look at Beiner's footnote #14 like I suggested, you'd see that the sources she cites there (apparently you haven't read those either) are impeccable, exactly the sort of references Wikipedia likes. So none of this is my "opinion" or "original research."

Now, it is true that Suja Thomas has written other books & articles, and you may be thinking of those, but I don't cite them. THAT would be "strained," but it's not what I'm doing. Also, although you have legal training, it it seems you don't know this area of the law. Isn't there somebody else at Wikipedia with expertise in S.J. & empl disc that we could ask for another critique?

(Also, I already know about WP:NOT and WP:NOR, and I didn't violate them.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtuvell (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[ADDITION #2] I mentioned Suja Thomas has written other things that I don't cite. One of those other articles is at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5507&context=flr. It contains this line (which is nowhere rebutted, i.e., it's known to be true): "[I]n many cases in which courts grant summary judgment, judges describe the facts, creating an impression that no dispute of fact exists when such differences exist." That is, judges violate the nonmovant-trumps-movant clause of the SJTOR. I repeat: NO ONE DISPUTES THAT THIS HAPPENS A LOT!

FWIW, Suja Thomas argues that S.J. is unconstitutional. She may very well be right about that (IMHO), but since that's not supported by "everybody," I don't cite to it. But what she says above IS supported by everybody: judges very frequently "fudge"/lie about the facts (that is, credit movant over nonmovant, or violate other of the SJTOR tenets). I repeat: NO ONE DISPUTE THIS, so it's perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to notice it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtuvell (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider a very simple straightforward explicit example. Suppose a judge (federal, district, say), at Summary Judgment (in a very regular, non-pro-se case, say), wrote the following:

• By law/rule at S.J., this court MUST credit all factual assertions of nonmovant (Plf), together with all reasonable inferences thereto.
• BUT, in this particular case, I think I will instead credit all factual assertions of movant (Def), together will all reasonable inferences thereto.
• On that exact basis, I grant S.J. dismissal.

Under these circumstances, would you consider that to be judicial misconduct, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtuvell (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( × × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now × €4.95 € 9.90 / Modal title × Close Save changes × User_talk:Coolcaesar" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once