User talk:Zoticogrillo

This user may have left Wikipedia. Zoticogrillo has not edited Wikipedia since 23 October 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

		The Original Barnstar
		Too Zoticogrillo, for all the contributions you make to improving the Doctor of Juridical Science, thank you and keep up the good work. South Bay (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Zoticorgillo's superb resoultion of a multi-year editing debate on Juris Doctor. Wikiant (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. With thanks for your hard wok on the Torture Memos page earlier this year, which has now established what one hopes will be a long and informative presence on Wikipedia. Give you joy of the season. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You sound like a serious guy so I offer to adopt you. Plz confirm. Here is a tip. Use the show preview button so as to save wikipedia money! Each edit you save, essentialy creates a new page, taking up more server space. Also if you look at the history of Petrini's here [1] we see it is totaly dominated by you, this is not a prob but most of these edits where in a few minutes of each other. Ta! frummer 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop leaving article discussion comments on my talk page. Put the comments on the article's discussion page. Wikiant (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm willing to help out any way I can. But it looks like you were already adopted by User:FrummerThanThou. I guess he wasn't as helpful as you had hoped? P.S. - How did you find me? Useight (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the talk page on Juris Doctor, there's a lot of information there. In fact, you have 41 edits to that talk page. How about you just briefly sum up the most recent/current issue? Useight (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It seems that only way to convince them whether a J.D. is a graduate/doctorate degree is to find some external, reliable source and present it. Do you have any outside evidence? Useight (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I HAVE GIVEN YOU NOTHING BUT SOURCES...YOU LIKE TO IGNORE THE CITES, EVEN FROM LAW SCHOOL DEAN REFERENCES. JURIS DOCTOR IS DOCTOR...IT IS NOT MASTER, BACHELORS, CERTIFICATE, ETC. HOW CAN YOU NOT READ DOCTOR AS DOCTOR (LATIN FOR TEACHER) IS A PUZZLE TO ME AND TO ALL OTHERS, INCLUDING THE ABA!!![reply]

response

One way to recruit a third party would be to use WP:3O. And that's just what I would suggest in this case. Useight (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THE TALK PAGE BUT YOU SEE THE ARTICLE THAT I HAVE REFERENCED IS RIGHT FROM A LAW DEAN IN CANADA WHICH IS MORE RECENT THAN YOUR REFERENCED CITATION. DESPITE THIS REFERENCE, AND THE OBVIOUS CHANGE IN CANADA TO THE JD YOU STILL PERSIST. SO WILL I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.161.213 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not familiar with a term for creating another article to support a POV. I'll look into it. As for changes not appearing the article's history, there is a process called oversighting that removes them from the history, however, this is very rare. Useight (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to WP:POVFORK. Useight (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see proposed article here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) /name of subpage[reply]

Wow, that's a good-looking article, and it has 119 citations. I also see you edited the article 129 times, far and away more than anyone else, so good work. If you want to get it up to Good Article status, here's the criteria. Then it can later be nominated and assessed. If you have any more questions or if I didn't answer your question, let me know. P.S. - Sorry it took so long to respond, I was washing my car. Useight (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. MASSIVE KUDOS ON THE JD ARTICLE!!! Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I was on a geological expedition for Geology 101 (no, I'm not a freshman, it's my last GE and I'm graduating in December). Anyway, I will take a look at the article now and see the best plan of action. Useight (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I noticed that the other editor involved in this matter had never been spoken to directly on his talk page regarding the issue, so I have sent him a message requesting that he discuss it on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor is non-responsive, and has reverted the same change counter to consensus more than 3 times in 1 day you could consider reporting him for a 3RR violation. But AIV isn't the way to go because it's not blatant/obvious vandalism. Hope this helps. xenocidic (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Orielense for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. Useight (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there continues to be problems, yeah, there are other options that might have to be persued, but let's hope the 3RR block is effective. Useight (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lafayette morehouse, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.lafayettemorehouse.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an error and the issue has been resolved, thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lafayette morehouse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  Channel ®   07:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an error and the issue has been resolved, thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers indicate the change in the size of the page. If there is a +544, for example, it means that through that particular edit, the page's size was increased by 544 bytes. If there is a -267, then the page was made smaller by 267 bytes. It's a quick way to know if text was added or removed and the quantity of said change. Useight (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great article! I did a little WikiGnoming on it, adding some commas, hyphens, and such here and there. As for getting it to Good Article status, I see it's already listed as a nomination, so hopefully someone with more experience in that area will be able to take a look. If not, I'll take a closer inspection when I have more time. Useight (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have provided GA feedback on this article a week ago, but it doesn't look like you've revisited it since I did. Can you please make an effort to do so in the next several days? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ed bovet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Bovet August 1944.jpg --dave pape (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to fix the info on these images. The basics look good, but the details are still a bit vague - please try to add specific source information. For Image:Bovet August 1944.jpg, that would mean identifying the newspaper it was printed in (name, date, where published). For Image:Ed bovet.jpg - if you scanned the image yourself, state that (and where the photo came from); if you got it from a website, give the URL of the particular page it came from. --dave pape (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, just FYI, I came to those images while browsing WP:GAC for articles with poorly sourced images - in addition to copyright concerns, unsourced images are no different than unsourced statements; e.g. what's the citation for the claim that Image:Ed bovet.jpg is actually Bovet? --dave pape (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the images being removed, I guess you're referring to OrphanBot removing them from articles. The bot does this automatically for any images that are likely to be deleted soon; being a bot it can only operate based on the templates (such as "no source") on an image's page, it can't make judgments about whether the image really will be deleted. Since you've been updating the image info and have removed the templates, there probably won't be any problem with them being re-added to the article. --dave pape (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the article and made some comments in the GAN section. Overall it seems pretty well done. there are some clarity and POV issues to work through but this is a pretty interesting subject and article. Protonk (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bovet_Fleurier/GA1 there is the link. I've never reviewed an article for GA status before, so this may be too harsh or whatever. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:WikiProject Companies/Assessment, it doesn't have any criteria regarding history. If you think it belongs in a history project then add approriate tag, thanks Tom (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoticogrillo, it's probably best if you just change-up the importance of the article as you have, very few people are going to argue or notice if you change from low to mid importance. Tom (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one, because the same words are used in both the UK and the US to mean subtly different things. In the UK, a 'faculty' is a division within a university (such as the 'faculty of science', which would typically contain the departments of physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc) and the usual term for people teaching or researching within a university department is 'academic staff'. From my reading of US departmental web pages, I get the impression that there's a distinction made between 'faculty' (people doing teaching and research) and 'staff' (which seems to mean administrative and support people). The term 'professor' also has important differences: in the US it seems to be used as a generic term for anyone who teaches at a university, from the lowliest part-time teacher (like me) right up to the most senior and eminent people. In the UK, the generic term is 'lecturer', and the title Professor is accorded only to the most senior rank of academic staff (equivalent to 'full professor' in US terminology). I'd otherwise be inclined to go for 'academic staff', but from what you've said it sounds like that term has a specific meaning in the US. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I understood that assistant professors (≈ 'lecturers' in the UK) and associate professors (≈ 'senior lecturers' or 'readers' in the UK) are all addressed as 'Professor X' rather than 'Dr X', and are commonly referred to as 'professors' - is this then not strictly correct? (Also, I'm not sure I'd refer to the administrative staff as 'mere' anything - in my experience they're the ones who actually keep everything running.) I wonder, then, what the best wording would be to refer to those who teach at a university. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct. Non-tenured "Assistant Professors", non-tenured or tenured "Associate Professors", and tenured "Professors" are ALL addressed as "Professor X" in the United States. Accordingly, the title "Professor" in America is in itself far less prestigious than in the UK or Germany. In fact, the US equivalent to a "Professor" in the UK system would actually be a so-called "Distinguished Professor" or "University Professor", who holds an endowed chair (there are comparatively few of those in US universities).

Second, it is also correct that professors in the US are collectively referred to as "faculty", whereas administrative staff members are referred simply as "staff". The term "Faculty" may be also used however, as in Britain, to refer to a constituent academic unit within a university, e.g. Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences. That usage is infrequent though (academic units in US university are more commonly called "schools" or "colleges", sometimes "institute"). Toeplitz (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but ... in actuality, everyone on the faculty at an American institution knows perfectly well who is an assistant professor, who is an associate professor, and who is a full professor. It is true that all are addressed (!!) as 'Professor Smith,' and so forth, but on their business cards and other similar written items of identification they will style themselves, John Smith, Professor of Law, or Jane Smythe, Associate Professor of Law. Therefore I would not say that the term is necessarily less prestigious than that of a European 'professor.' This differentiation is very important within the academy, and, as I've written above, everyone within a particular faculty or school will be aware of everyone else's status, or if not aware, it will be an important distinction. Additionally, it used to be that the American title of (full) professor used to be tied to the granting of tenure. Thus only 'full' professors used to be able to vote and so forth. Nowadays many associate professors are tenured. Lawman15 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bovet 1822 Chrono.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will pass GA; its coverage, while wide, is too brief. As a legally-minded individual I'd be interested in helping you expand the UK-related topics at some point, however. Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. Well yes. The information is also wrong in the bit you do have; "In England and Wales it is not required to be formally admitted to practice law, but admission is required to use the title of solicitor or barrister."? If you know of a type of lawyer in the UK other than a solicitor or barrister I'd love to hear of it. I'd also note that you got rid of (pardon my language) a shitload of information when you merged Call to the Bar to Admission to practice law. Personally I'm against such a merge, and I note you didn't discuss it beforehand. England and Wales should keep a seperate article (for barristers at least) with a summary in Admission to Practice Law. Ironholds (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, and all the admins seem afk, but I'll do what I can. Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/juris_doctor, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Wikiant (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juris Doctor. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that the Mediation Committee asked me to help out by mediating Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor. I've opened the case here and am asking the parties some initial questions. If you could watchlist that page, it would be helpful in keeping track of things. Regards. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have email. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoticogrillo,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good hello. This morning I've watched with delight as you expanded this article and added sources. Good job, kudos to you, article is looking much better. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is how to leave a message, please let me know if you receive this. Mv-22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the my page. Please continue to monitor the Doctor page and help.DoctorDW (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you file an RfC for lack of civility Coolcaesar's behavior on that page I will comment on it. You can then notify anyone else who has commented there, or on his talk page (several) and it may draw some attention to lack of civility. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zoticogrillo, for your message to me. I looked at your proposed page, and I thought it fine.

Note this. It is not an argument because it is is immaterial that some country somewhere does not accord the title 'doctor' to those to whom it issues a JD. (Of course, that is their own rather humorous problem; when, as you say elsewhere, is a doctorate not a doctorate.) To expound further: a country has its own system of degrees. The JD is an American invention and as such is a latecomer to certain countries. It may make sense that, let us say, Australia, wishes to retain a research degree in law as its primary teaching degree and therefore recognizes only that degree as conferring the title of doctor. But if the restriction on the title is indeed a feature of the Australian system, which I much doubt, then ... who cares. At least in terms of the American degree, it has no bearing on it. How could it? Are these people prepared to say that President Obama is a faker, as after all he taught law at the U of Chigago for eight years. A lesser note: the president of the U of Rochester also holds a JD as his only doctorate.

A more important comment: I very much doubt that there is anything in an Australian academic regulation which would say that a juris doctor cannot call himself a doctor in an academic setting, especially inasmuch as there are many Americans who teach in Australia. In other words, my first impression upon reading the Australian website cite is that it is the work of some one individual and not the expression of the university as a whole nor less the country.

I would like to add an argument regarding the SJD. Very few American law profs have that degree, inasmuch as only about 20 are awarded each year, and those primarily are awarded to foreign students; people who do not have a normal bachelor degree, but only a law bachelor degree and an LLM. The statistics are in the official ABA book issued each year on law schools. Further, the LLM is not a higher degree ... in essence because it doesn't really help one get a higher job. It is a degree which helps one get a job in the particular specialty. But it doesn't seem to move one up anywhere. It is more like a post graduate research fellowship would be for a PhD in the sciences. It looks good, but ...

Basically, I am venting here, and trying to be a bit helpful should you again take up the sword.

Note that the problem with the article is that people abroad read it and believe it. They generally believe the article, inasmuch as the JD is foreign to them anyway.

Best wishes, Lawman15 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I just edited your sandbox article on the torture memos (at User:Zoticogrillo/torture memos), and commented out the article categories and the interwiki link. Only mainspace articles should have article categories and interwiki links. See Wikipedia's categorization guidelines for userpages for the relevant guideline. Horologium (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you give up on your revision of the "Bybee Memo/Torture Memo" page? I glanced at your sandbox article and was impressed. It did seem a bit prolix, and omitted or glossed over important info about Jack Goldsmith's retraction, the partial 'resurrection' by his successor, and finally the stake driven through the hearts of the memos by the Obama Executive Order. Still, yours looked like far better treatment than what is there now. I do not suggest it will be easy: you'll run into a buzz saw of editors who in my view are from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, resisting improvements in the hope of eventually tagging anything that says 'torture' for deletion, scissoring up history to comport with the party line. Still, it seems a shame to give up on all the work you've done already.ElijahBosley (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS--You may note I did a little gentle editing on the lede. That was for better NPOV which will assuredly be an issue when you post this. The explanation is on your sandbox discussion page. I am happy to do more work on your fine draft including adding some cites--if you let me know you intend to finish and post it.ElijahBosley (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind remarks on my Talk:ElijahBosley. Probably it's best to communicate on the talk page for your sandbox (which I'll add to my watchlist) at least about your fine Torture Memos article in progress.ElijahBosley (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Doctor of law, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Stephen (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales have removed unique content that is not the same as the other articles you refer to in the editing summaries. Please see the Torture memos article for more information. Please contact me if you have any questions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies for that. The structure of the text seemed identical to the previous article, and the lead was virtually the same. After i ran a cursory inspection on the different parts i assumed that the article was mostly duplicate with the longer article. However on a somewhat closer inspection there are clear differences between the two. My mistake. With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles per copy and paste. Use the "move" function instead so that the page history is preserved, which is important for copyright tracking reasons (among other things). I have reverted the move before more edits are done to the article at the new location, to avoid a more complicated situation that only some specialised admins can fix. You could have done a proper move yourself, but after the copy and paste move the target has non-trivial history, so only an admin can do it now. Hans Adler 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the content is completely new, and is implementing proposals approved on discussion pages as a result of collaborative drafting by multiple editors over the period of more than nine months. The "Bybee memo" content was replaced with a re-direct. Furthermore, having those articles redirect to "John Yoo," particularly in a mis-directed way, doesn't make any sense, particularly when John Yoo didn't even write all of the memos, and when Bybee's name is more popularly associated with the topic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I made a mistake in the details when reverting you, but a cut and paste move is never OK and that's what you did, even if there was some editing in between. For example the old section Withdrawal of the "Torture Memos" and the new section OLC Head Jack Goldsmith's Withdrawal of the Torture Memos appear to be identical. At the moment I don't care about the naming of the articles or what directs to what. I care about you causing technical problems that require tedious fixing by an admin. See WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen for background. Hans Adler 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am going to bed now. I have posted at ANI so that an admin can take care of the situation. Hans Adler 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked thru the discussion regarding the JD degree again. I chimed in here and there with an "I agree" or other comments. I respect you for the work you did and the burden you shouldered. The matter is still maddening. Lawman15 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: That reference to the Australian school's statement regarding the JD and the honorific 'doctor': 1) it is a weak reference anyway, not being attributed to anyone on the faculty/teaching staff; I even suspect that the school's leadership may not be aware of it, and 2) how weird it would be if the reason they are of the expressed opinion is because of a misunderstanding created by ... the Wikipedia JD article! Lawman15 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:James parker hall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I haven't addressed your multi edits to Juris Doctor yet as I'm walking out the door but could you please explain what 'likely POV' means? Are you suggesting that my edit was POV or am I misunderstanding? I merely added that to show that there is actually no license given in Canada merely with the J.D. or LL.B. education - a person must still take Bar Admission courses and pass them before being granted a license. What is POV about that? I'm merely a Canadian lawyer and prof - I have no agenda other than accuracy. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I appreciate your message on my talk page. I fully support your edits as they have further improved the article. I'm perfectly happy leaving out the explanations (in brackets) as unnecessary to the chart - it looks cleaner now - I was merely wanting it reflected that Canadians need to take additional Bar Admission courses (not just sitting for exams) set by their respective provincial Law Societies - merely answering 'no' works for me, as you've done in the edit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:BovetFaceAndMvmnt.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Jd gown.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Jd diploma.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bo Wei.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]