Coolcaesar

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

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

 

Hello, Coolcaesar. You have new messages at Talk:State Bar of California.
Message added 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

 

---

Details and RSVP here.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

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

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

 

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki and open-source enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

Before and after the brief presentation we allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks.

---

In addition, this month we will have:

• a brief presentation from User:Cullen328 (Jim Heaphy) about the Wikipedia Teahouse
• spontaneous lightning talks from the floor
• community announcements from the floor

---

For details and to RSVP see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, December 2016

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

+++++
P.S. Any help spreading the word through social media or other avenues is most welcome! We plan to announce this on various sites and invite various groups; if you would like to join in, check our meta planning page, and please note any announcements you are sending out: meta:Monthly WikiSalon in San Francisco#Announcements and promotion

Please feel free to add to, refine, reorganize or edit the above linked page: it is a wiki!

We need more helpers and organizers, so if you see a need, please jump in, or talk to us about it! You can add your username to the meta page where appropriate, or create a new role!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

 

Hi, everybody.

We are excited to remind you of the ninth in the Bay Area WikiSalon series that is coming up this Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.

• Details (RSVP suggested) here (RSVP helps us know how much food and drink to bring in)

What is a WikiSalon? A monthly safe and inclusive meatspace event conducted in organized chaos and we all clean up the mess afterwards. Livestream links for the presentation are available during presentation months, and will be forthcoming for those of you that cannot attend. December is a presentation month.

---

Hope to see you there! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Any last minute questions or suggestions? Please ping or email Ben or me. | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

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

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

 

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district.

 

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia Day 2017

The San Francisco gathering is one of a number of Wikipedia Day celebrations worldwide.

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice)

---

PS: We need volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add your name to the Project page, and what you can offer. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the page.

Bay Area WikiSalon usually meets the last Wednesday evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch and learn about new projects and ideas.

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

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

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

...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, Coolcaeasar. I understand that you disagree with the other editor's approach to United States Code, but their edits are clearly not vandalism. Please avoid edit warring and seek to resolve content disputes civilly. Thank you in advance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I take a bit of an issue with your edit summary. There was nothing grammatically wrong with my changes, as you claim. I was merely trying to simplify the language. You don’t have to agree with the edits I made but that doesn’t make them wrong. I certainly don’t see anything ‘odd’ about them. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 23:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I read you commentary on the talk page of Nine Old Men. What misspellings do you see in my text about the history of the Nine old Disney?--Isinbill (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You commented that these edits of Interchange (road) included "obvious vandalism", i.e. with respect to using a different spelling of the plural form of "cloverleaf".

Either of these spellings is apparently considered acceptable, so I'm not sure why you would characterize these edits (changing "cloverleafs" to "cloverleaves") as vandalism. If you merely mean that such changes are unnecessary, well, that's another matter. My observation is that pointless changes are a substantial chunk of all WP edits. Perhaps such pointless edits are not a majority, but they come pretty close. Fabrickator (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

As per Talk:Traffic law in the United States, thanks for the title change, but would you mind telling me what I don't understand about what is a legal code or how American traffic law works? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your explanation was fantastic. You help me a lot. Thanks :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gordon Samuel Watkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The image is of a bank in Charlotte, NC, correct? Not of a bank in Puerto Rico.

• First BanCorp
• First Bancorp

Please let me know which article the image belongs on, as I don't think it belongs in both. They are two separate banks. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. I figured it out. It wasn't vandalism. It was a mistake. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what your gig is, but here is a Wikipedia civility warning: WP:CIVIL. Brush up on it. There is absolutely no call for you to be trolling around Talk page edits from 5-1/2 years ago somewhere and leave a gratuitous, unprovoked insult like this on my Talk page:

It looks like you don't understand transitive verbs. Please explain. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not constructive, it's not adult, and it is profoundly uncivil as expressed.

You think you've found a grammar problem, fix it. You think you can help another user understand intransitive verbs, then by all means do so, educationally, in a civil manner. A lesson which, after your opening broadside, I am, unfortunately, not open to receiving from you at this point. But consider the advice before you preemptively insult someone else and arrogantly deface their talk page with an unprovoked derogation. The "please explain" is far too late. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just a notion. What do you think? BD2412 T 23:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was looking at the Warner Bros Interactive page and I noticed it is still part of Home Entertainment. Other pages state that it is part of Warner Bros Entertainment directly while Home Entertainment is moved to WarnerMedia Commercial. Which one is true? WarnerBros.com site states it is still a division of Home Entertainment. Is that an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galagahunt (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your insights at the University of Pennsylvania talk page. I think you're right that what I'm proposing runs counter to the convention, which I'm unlikely to change. Having heard that, I feel oddly at peace. I think this is going to make it easier for me to fight the urge to rebut every little point the state-namers make and to accept my almost-certain ultimate defeat. I content myself with the knowledge that I have spoken truth to consensus. Or whatever. TypoBoy (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conglomerate (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Truly perplexed how you came to the conclusion that I was "trying to edit this article into British English." I'm a professional (American) copy editor who has a Kaiser Permanente health care plan. I'm well aware that it's an American HMO. Happy to explain all my edits if you could please revert them! JustAMuggle (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply! Respectfully, my counterarguments are below:

"Later, Garfield also credited Ordway with coming up with the general idea of prepayment for industrial healthcare, and explained that he did not know much at the time about other similar health plans except for the Ross-Loos Medical Group." You deleted the "and" before "explained", which created a run-on sentence.

Oops! This was certainly a mistake on my part.

In formal written English, especially American English, U.S. is still far more common in American newspapers of record and major newsmagazines, not US. British English began to drop the periods about four or five decades ago.

I do see that U.S. Bank and U.S. News and World Report still use the periods. I did research on the use of periods in acronyms and initializations a few years ago to determine whether my publication should use them and came to the conclusion that the use of periods is seen as more traditional but unnecessary (see Grammar Girl and Grammar Monster). My publication wants to be seen as more modern, so we opted not to use them. I understand that it's still a matter of style but wasn't aware of any difference between American English and British English in this matter.

There has been a trend towards eliding "health care" to "healthcare" for about 30 years. For example, Modern Healthcare magazine.

I definitely see "healthcare" often, but Merriam-Webster continues to prefer "health care."

"Has faced", the current wording, is more precise than "received." "Received" is what happens when one submits criticism through a Web form directly to a business's customer service department. WP generally doesn't cover such private criticism because that's what Yelp is for. "Has faced" more accurately describes the situation here: KP has faced public criticism. The connotation of "has faced" is more confrontational than "received," which is what makes it the better word choice under the circumstances. All experienced writers always check for appropriate connotation and denotation when choosing words.

With this, I was trying to avoid the redundant use of "faced," although you're right that "faced" is more accurate than "received" here. We'll just need to remove the extra "has," which makes the sentence nonparallel.

"Then" when used as an adjective to refer to the holder of a position at a previous point in time is usually linked to the title of the position by a hyphen.

See Merriam-Webster's "the then Secretary of State" example. JustAMuggle (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your reply, Coolcaesar! Grammar Monster is what I direct my writers to for using "all" in place of "all of" where possible, but I have never found a more formal source to back that up. If we can agree to revert your revert, I will add "of" per your preference, fix the "and" I accidentally removed in the first sentence you pointed out, and keep "faced" over "received." Re: "U.S." vs. "US," I just checked the Wikipedia MoS, and it seems that "US" would be preferred. JustAMuggle (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done and done! I appreciate the discussion. JustAMuggle (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kindly worded suggestion, however I am familiar with the manual of style, and indeed took the time to review the relevant sections before adding the cleanup tags and inline comments.

You may find this guideline particularly helpful (Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable) to understand why the cleanup tags are required, especially (but not exclusively) the following sections:

§ Avoid overly technical language

Main guideline: Technical language in Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).

If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.

Consider prefacing explanatory sentences with caveats. When a less complete or precise explanation is given to improve clarity, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions.." so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise.

Eliminate long strings of adjectives, particularly technical adjectives.

Use short sentences when possible. Comprehension decreases dramatically when sentence length exceeds 12 words. However, using too many short sentences in a row becomes monotonous; vary sentence length to maintain reader interest.

Use more verbs to improve readability – you can replace many technical adjectives with verbs.

Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation. Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation.

Use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms. Avoid far-out analogies. The best analogies can make all the difference between incomprehension and full understanding. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook, so analogies need to be written in an encyclopedic way and be attributable to reliable sources. Extensive explanations without a specific source may constitute original research, or original research by synthesis.

and also (emphasis mine):

§ Lead section

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) § Introductory text

Shortcut

• WP:EXPLAINLEAD

It is particularly important for the first section (the "lead" section, above the table of contents) to be understandable to a broad readership. Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they don't already know the topic in detail. Those who are only looking for a summary or general definition may stop reading at the end of the lead. An understandable lead encourages readers to continue reading into the body of the article.

For these reasons, the lead should provide an understandable overview of the article. While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and including the technical details in the body of the article. The lead of the article should tell a general reader the field of study of the topic, the place the topic holds in its field of study, what (if anything) the topic is good for, and what needs to be learned first in order to understand the article.

In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. For highly specialized topics where it is difficult to give an overview in terms with which a general audience will be familiar, it may be reasonable to assume some background knowledge in the lead while linking to the prerequisites required to understand it.

With this in mind, and due to the obvious and numerous ways in which the article's lead section is currently not fit for purpose (which I have enumerated on the talk page if you would like further clarification), please restore the cleanup tags I appended to the article (or if you think a different cleanup template would be more appropriate, of course add that instead).

Best Regards,

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I removed the word "sovereigns" because there was a sign of so-called failed verification on the same statement in state law, not added by me, and I took it away from there too. I don't know that much about your legal system except for what I may've found about it so far but "sovereigns" in regard of the states sounds at least misleading and neither the law nor the article about the law referenced contain a mention of terms like this one. Maybe you've got an argumentation why it should be used, along with this source. I looked up an article that indeed discusses this issue, so it doesn't seem decisive, at least in American reception. I don't agree with its comment on the further formation events of the European Union in the introduction. Apart from that, not an uncommon position is that no part of a country can be sovereign. HeliosX (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Coolcaesar! I was just looking at File:SoCalMontage.jpg, and I noticed that a photo you contributed to it, commons:File:Hermosabeachpier.jpg, has been deleted by JuTa as lacking permission. You seem from your bio like an actual photographer, and I couldn't find any notification to you of the deletion, so I wanted to check to see if it'd be possible to sort this out and restore the image. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't tag people when you make inconsequential adjustments to stuff they wrote half a year ago. I'm not sure if you think anyone appreciates it, but I certainly don't. That's what watchlists are for.

Also, for future reference, try to refrain from characterising stuff you think is a mistake as "obvious". It can be obnoxious, especially when you're tagging the editor in question. VineFynn (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I received a vandalism warning from you for removing a nickname for Greater Los Angeles from the article. It had no citation for its use, and this article (https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/1993/aug/26/straight-what-la-times-means-southland/) says that Southland refers to anywhere south of San Francisco, not just Greater LA. Thanks, 72.134.116.163 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You recently tagged me in this comment [6]. I see many editors on this talk page have noted your inability to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Your poor choice of words about other editors reveals a lack of understanding of how WP:CIVIL actually works. Perhaps you can familiarize yourself with the letter and spirit of this foundational policy. Once you understand it, I hope you can consistently participate in a respectful and considerate way. Jokestress (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

While I appreciate your apology, you are missing the larger issue, which others have also noted about your behavior. Perhaps in the future instead of being "as coldly civil as possible" you can try being being as warmly civil as possible when interacting with other volunteers? There is no benefit to the project for you to behave the way you are behaving toward me in our interactions. Why not simply change the term without the pontificating? Your behavior makes volunteering here less enjoyable for others and drives editors from the project, especially women and minorities who deal with your kind of behavior more often here. Jokestress (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The case, In re Estate of Max Feinberg, clearly shows that the case law, as derived from the Common Law, does not necessarily agree with the Restatements. As such, it is a valid example of a restatement being incorrect. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

If Facebook is planning to rebrand its own parent company under a new name, what’s going to happen to the Facebook social media platform? Will it still remain the same and its pages unaffected by the change? AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've invited you to air your abilities at Talk:The Washington Post.

[7] Undid revision 1051607098 by Widefox (talk) No, that's NOT what the cited source says. Please refresh your memory on close reading. (I learned how to closely read a source in an English department routinely ranked in the top five worldwide. Are you aware that we title/spell by our own rules, not that of sources? (so ability to copy/paste sources is moot!). Widefox; talk 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Irrespective of the merits of the issue above, you would be well advised to a) be more WP:civil in interactions with other editors, b) WP:CLUE yourself up before reverting others work and c) consider the first impression you've left me! Widefox; talk 20:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The message you left on an editor's talk page here is inappropriate, and you should be well aware that "vandalism" does not mean "edits I disagree with". You appear to be in direct violation of WP:VANDAL, a policy that explicitly says “Mislabeling good-faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a user warning template”. For what it's worth I agree that "could get away with" is POV wording that has no place being stated in Wikipedia's voice - whether or not you found that in the cited source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Thelegomovieset.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

gewoon bedankt voor alles 212.239.224.59 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting my factual error, which was hardly "bizarre". I was copyediting the article (as requested) for the Guild of Copy Editors and the prose was, frankly, less than comprehensible; checking every single source to figure out what an editor was trying to say is above my pay grade. The article badly needed a copyedit to be promoted to FA (which it was shortly afterwards), and I did my best as always. Please AGF, even (especially?) in edit summaries. Miniapolis 21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good faith content disputes are never vandalism. False accusations of vandalism amount to harassment and disruptive editing. Please refrain from disruptive editing in the future. Use the various forms of Dispute resolution going forward, instead of making false accusations of vandalism. Consider this a formal warning. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you continue editing without having reacted on this I will go straight to ANI. You are not in a position of falsely accusing me in vandalism and in threatening blocking my account (which you can not even do because you are not administrator).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Coolcaesar and baseless accusations in vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College and university rankings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

On 9th December 2008, this user left a comment on the “conflict of interest” page, stating that the article was a mess. The comment stated that “a bunch of idiots with no formal training in philosophy” had made a mess on the article. However, this is somewhat misguided. On Wikipedia, it is essential that formal edits must be balanced against informal ones, so as to avoid jargon. To demand that editors have “formal training” in philosophy goes against Wikipedia’s editing guidelines. Now, make no mistake. This user makes overwhelmingly positive contributions on the whole. We as the Wikipedia community are enormously grateful to have this user among our ranks. However, this specific edit back in 2008 is somewhat confusing. LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of equity and trusts. Hi Coolcaesar, I am trying to improve the state of History of equity and trusts and a couple of years ago you rightly pointed out that the article in its state then did not really address the history of Equity. I've begun to change this. I just wanted to keep you in the loop as I see you had expressed views and made substantial edits in the past. All the best. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of California, Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vernon Cheadle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warner Bros., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.      — Freoh 19:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Do you do photo requests in the San Francisco area? If so, is it OK if I give some ideas for topics that could have photos for their Wikipedia articles?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Understood! Anyway, happy editing! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Hundreds of years before the introduction of true animation, people all over the world enjoyed shows with moving figures that were created and manipulated manually in puppetry, automata, shadow play, and the magic lantern)

This above text is mentioned in the animation history section of the article. which refers to shadow play and puppet show as an initial attempt to make animation. In fact, the authors do not mean the shadow play as an animation, but only refer to the initial actions. The paintings found on the cup that burned in the city are not animations. We are talking about 5000 years ago. But these drawings are the first step to make animation. If I am not mistaken, five images of a goat are drawn in different positions, when we rotate the cup 360 degrees, we can see the movement of this goat. The same idea was used in the creation of the first real animations, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and this work was created. I hope that in this article you will allow us not to call it the first real animation, but the first attempt at animation or the first idea for making animation. Mitrayasna (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you please have a look at Animation - you have earlier edited there... do you agree that the cup is not "animated" when spun around? Janke | Talk 04:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good morning sir 103.186.197.129 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Coolcaesar: Persistent and widespread incivility, disruptive behavior, and calling good-faith edits "vandalism.". Thank you. SilverLocust (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lok hojyq kholdijiya please 103.186.197.129 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Abi ham bahut parisan he sir ji 103.186.197.129 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Healthcare,Healthcare, healthcare. 2603:6080:ECF0:2D0:4440:B954:4EC5:2C0C (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. Mfellowsabc123 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High courts of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State court.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you made claims directly accusing me of adding numerous unsourced claims and statements in my writing here. Not only did you directly attribute disruptive edits to me and only me, but you failed to ping me or leave a message on my talk page discussing the issue. Please remember to follow WP:WHAC and WP:AGF, as we're all here trying our best. Wikiwillz (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did nothing of the sort. I said: "Also, User:Wikiwillz put in a great many unsourced statements without adding cites to sources, such as this edit. This creates an obvious risk of OR getting through in violation of WP:NOR. I propose to delete any statement which fails verification against the next citation or set of citations immediately downstream in the article from that statement. The burden is always on the editor adding content to add citations to support it. See WP:V and WP:RS." I have already responded at that talk page to further explain how you added two new sentences before an existing sentence which found no support in the citation for that existing sentence. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do you suggest best responding to conspiracy theories on the Maui talk pages in the future? Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intellectual, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College of Letters and Science.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Special:Diff/1181542156/1183988287 - I would argue their page scans are not faithful reproductions. Compare with the page scans at Internet Archive. The GB pages are all white and heavily post-processed. Unless you mean the books hosted at Haithi Trust, which do appear photo realistic. Either way I think IA has the best scans (usually) since you can access the very large raw data files. -- GreenC 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

On the Oppenheimer article, why didn’t you just click on William Jacob Knox, Jr. page. I even gave a .gov source to the point of Knox, Jr. omission. You removed my addition without giving a valid reason. I produced a valid source that you did not fact check in addition you could just click on his article on the hyperlink I tagged Lantye (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have already replied to this at Talk:Oppenheimer (film). As I have explained there, I did give a valid reason in the edit summary: you inserted original research in violation of WP:NOR and inserted a statement that failed verification in violation of WP:V. The NPS Web page you cited does not say anything about the film Oppenheimer. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Coolcaesar,

OK. I understand that I can't rename the article "Universal Pictures" in Unviersal Studios without good evidence. But this:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/economics-magazines/universal-studios-inc

Would this be a good evidence to rename the article Universal Pictures in Universal Studios and make Universal Pictures as a separate article? SkipperHero (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Coolcaesar. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the pages University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and University of California, Berkeley School of Law, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Cfls (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I have no COIs to disclose. My interest in UC and the UC law schools is purely academic and arises out of my casual interest in the sociology of the legal profession. That's why I wrote, for example, most of the Lawyer article. I suggest you refresh your memory on Wikipedia:Civility. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Coolcaesar --

Another maleditor is messing with common law [8] This one isn't one of the cranks with an axe to grind (trying to rewrite back to the mid-19th century), but still doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't appreciate what's important and what isn't. Some of the additions are plausible, but most of the cuts/edits reflect lack of appreciation of the nuances and lack of expertise.

I haven't ever requested an intervenor or arbitrator -- for example, a couple years ago, I just let Qexigator get it all out of his system, and then reverted it all. I don't have the energy to do another war of attrition. What should we do?

Thanks

DCLawwyer (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your practice of making tendentious claims in edit summaries is abusive practice. Edit summaries are not the place for you to make any claims about other editors. It's not the place to tell me something, nor is it for discussion. For example, what you said in your recent edit summary is simply false, and you have been wrong before in these summaries. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I've pointed out on your talk page, the Stadtman book is clear that it was not a merger, and that fact is already stated in the University of California article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of that excuses your tendentious, abusive edit summaries. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

For which I have already apologized on your talk page. But the fact remains that you made a mistake in this edit. You wrote it was a "legal merger". The Stadtman book is clear that it was not. Let's take this discussion to the article talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ronald M. George has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 11:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I commented on your recent DMV edit. Could you share there your opinion and reasoning? galenIgh 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind your reinstating "significant" to modify "influence" in Benjamin N. Cardozo; it is not important to me. I do mind, however, your insulting tone. I spent 34 years as a lawyer before I retired, and I do not have "a fundamental lack of understanding of how the common law works." As I explained when I deleted "significant," "If he's remembered for his influence, then it goes without saying that the influence was significant." "All attorneys and judges whose work results in a published opinion" are not "remembered" for having influenced the development of the common law. "Remembered" as used here means "famous" (at least in legal circles); all attorneys and judges whose work results in a published opinion are not famous for having influenced the development of the common law. Furthermore, your statement isn't even true. Some attorneys and judges whose work results in a published opinion do not influence the development of the common law, because the published opinion may address solely the interpretation of a statute. I suppose you could call decisions that interpret statutes the "common law" of such statutes, but please don't, because that would be misleading. I suggest that, instead of assuming that someone who sees things differently from you is ignorant, consider that there might be other ways to see things. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Lawyer into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Concerning the page History of the legal profession GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply