Skyler1534

Hello Skyler1534 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

---

Good evening. I have been following your discussion of the Job Training Partnership Act on VfD with some interest. Thank you for taking the initiative to clean up the article. I would only ask one thing. When you have the article cleaned up, do not "remove this from VfD". Please allow the discussion to run its 5 day course. This will ensure that the discussion is properly archived. (Okay, it won't really ensure it, but it'll increase the odds a bit.) Welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami 22:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm so Jealous

I've done a fair bit on Jealous Guy. It is not perfect - It's rushed, overly sentemental, due to a rushed ending, and needs some tidying up. We're sorting it. I know yer not a Lennon fan (sort it Pat) so do us a favour and try to view it in the eyes of someone who isn't blind and ignorant (i kid, i kid). If i get a positive response from you, I'll remove that little stub thing. I think it should porobably come of the delete page then. If i get a negative responce, I'll delete the stub thing anyway and pretend it was someone else (Tee hee hee, the perfect crime). Just remember, what may seem dull and irrelavent to you may, to another, be a metaphorical cascade of knowlege, interest and literary gold. Cheers Bud. --Crestville 23:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Economics; FTA.

I should probably explain. My comment on Vfd was meant as a sarcastic jab at the content of the article, where it seemed to be implying, ludicrously, that economists are motivated by personal greed. This of course, as you recognise, is laughable. Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear.

Excellent work so far on the Free Trade Agreement article. Congratulations. I think the agreement has already passed the senate, so we'd better work quick in order to get it listed on Current Events (although I don't have any idea how to do that. . .) Thanks very much for chipping in and I'm sure we'll find other things to also collaborate on in future. Lacrimosus 08:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peer review

I have posted a respose to your request for peer review of Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 on the article's talk page. I hope it helps. Isomorphic 05:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Case citation formats

The case reporter doesn't get underlined—only the case name is either italicized or underlined. Thanks! Postdlf 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project

Hi, I moved Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project to your User space, and will be deleting the redirects. You can find it at User:Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project. RickK 00:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Great Job!

You're doing a great job, which leads me to wonder if you're an attorney or just a law buff. Either way, thanks for the help -- this info deserves to be in Wikipedia in a good format.

Rlquall 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Hope that you thought that I caught the gist of Missouri v. Holland. If you can read the decisions and get their message, you may need to go into a field related to law or into law itself. The major cases need to be here in a format accessible to the public. I remembered Missour v. Holland from when I was in college as an example of Federal supremacy, and it needed an article. When I see a major case that I'm aware of and could write something constructive about, I try and do it, but sometimes know nothing of the case. I'm an insurance agent, which is, believe me, a law-related field.

Rlquall 00:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SCOTUS Case Article Improvement Project

Thanks for bringing this project to my attention and inviting me to join it. I claim no particular expertise but, like Rlquall, think that having good articles on all the major U.S. Supreme Court cases would be very beneficial. I'd be happy to help participate in the project, which should prove very educational. Jacob1207 00:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've signed up for the project, as well. I have a few questions. How do we determine if a case is too minor to brief? Are the case boxes running along the right-hand side a policy, or merely a trend, or what? Email is best. <removed> Thanks! --Kchase02 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)--Kchase02 05:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases

You might want to merge your project with this Wikiproject, or at least check it out. Yours is more detailed at the moment I think —siroχo 09:52, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Since it seems yours is much more complete, and you've already done more work, I think your project should replace the "abandoned" WikiProject. You could either be bold and decide to do this, or talk with one of the users who worked on the old project. There is a list here. At least one of the major contributors is active on Wikipedia, if not the project.

The only major problem with replacin the old project is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases also deals with Justices of the Supreme Court. You might want to split that off into a child or sibling project. Since there is very little text about it it shouldn't be tough, at least. Also, instead of just deleting the page for the project, it should probably be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases/old or something, that way its not lost in case those who abandoned it want to see it again. Then your page can be moved to the Wikiproject location. This page replacement requires one deletion (of a redirect), so if you want it done contact me or another admin.

I have one remaining concern. I'm sure you address these questions that are asked int he current WikiProject, but you should probably make them more explicit in the "Desired outline" section of your project, so anyone joining or helping had a little more guidance:

"Analysis. Why is the case important? What problems did this resolve (or create?) What have scholars written or said about the case?"

So thats my thoughts on it, you don't need to make it a WikiProject yet if you dont' want to, but I think it can only help.

—siroχo 21:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Straton Oakmont Inc., etc.

Thanks. I guess I wasn't looking at the article very carefully. Mateo SA | talk 04:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Request for admin status

Hi Skyler, I think that your self-nomination may not go through. If you give it another month I'll nominate you - just remember to stay frosty-cool (don't engage in edit-wars, make silly comments and Don't Feed The Trolls) and you'll be fine. I reckon you totally deserve the status, however you just need to give it a bit of time. If you want, give me a reminder in a month (I can be a bit absentminded). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I have withdrawn my nomination. Skyler 11:41, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Patrick, for feedback!

Very helpful links. --NathanHawking 02:52, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Oyez,! Oyez,! Oyez!

Greetings, Skyler! I've done a bunch of Supreme Court articles myself, such as John McLean, Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions, and put the predecessor/successor tags on all the associate justices. I came across your Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases page and wonder if you might take a look at my article on the case Wheaton v. Peters. (I did the article because one, I'm interested in copyright, and, two, Mr. Justice McLean, who is from my neck of the woods, wrote the opinion.) No one else has touched it and I'd appreciate any feedback. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:06, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind word. I blush. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:12, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Being Julia

Thanks for the info re the link to the German wikipedia. I'd noticed someone adding these tags before, but never noticed the in other languages bit on the left. Now I know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Yeah, this is Noah Peters, thanks for your message, I'd like to join your Supreme Court project; as you may be able to tell I am sort of a Supreme Court junkie.

NP

re. Atheism

Thank-you for your note - I will do so. I have been offline for the last two days due to an unexpected bout of inlaws. (not unpleasant!) (20040302)

Thank-you very much for your ongoing work. I have just finished commenting on the article, and, before editing anything at Atheism/DR I have put my comments at User:20040302/Atheism comment I am happy that they are public. (20040302 15:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC))

PS, feel free to use masculine terms when refering to me; thank-you for being aware of gender. (20040302)

Okay - I've had a first stab at Atheism/DR. I feel that there is a lot more good stuff to say about atheism, but hey. You may find the comments helpful as well. I am not particularly stron either way regarding the paragraph on Judaic views, but do feel that it is a bit unbalanced, so left it out for the time being. (20040302 17:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC))

RfM

Hello. I just wanted to let you know, I have removed your comment to Raul on the Requests for mediation page. I know this is an unusual and always controversial action, but I feel that in this case it is best - in part simply to be even handed in responding to comments in that thread. I hope you understand. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism

Thanks for the dispute resolution on Atheism. The reason I withdrew is that from my perspective the issue was clear, the POV of those who wished to limit the definition was as I see it, very blatant.

My wider concern is that those with a dogmatic POV agenda will usually tend to win the day and I'd sooner focus on how best to address this root cause rather than waste my precious time arguing around in circles with folks whose intellectual integrity I seriously doubt. I'm not quite sure where to start on addressing the wider Wikipedia issue in this regards, I shall ruminate--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks to you, Skyler1534, the article on atheism will become a desolate wasteland of ignorance. I'm amazed you actually cater to naivete. Your disregard of the etymological, epistemological, historical, literary, and legal evidence for the maintenance of the article's state is astounding. Since you've set precedence for the destruction of NPOV articles, I suppose the Christianity article can now be legitimately introduced as a "cult of mindless, dogmatic, and deluded fools." Obviously POV, obviously false, obviously subjective, and obviously biased. All these things are obviously attributes of 20040302's (and his cronies') arguments.

Of course I'm not willing to negotiate. I don't negotiate with neither "factual terrorists" nor simple-minded pseudo-intellectuals.

Read these essays before you say your job is "done."

The scope of atheism by George H. Smith, from his 1980 book Atheism: The Case Against God, regarded as the "Bible" of atheism

Defining atheism by George H. Smith, from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

The Presumption of Atheism by Anthony Flew (1984), regarded by George H. Smith as a signature piece on atheism

By the way, as you can see the primary defenders of atheism left the silly theistic debate: Andrevan, Nick-in-South-Africa, and myself. Bryan will most likely leave as well. If that's what you consider "dispute resolution" and doing your job, you're mistaken. Thanks for nothing. Adraeus 11:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to dispute resolution closure

I think the tone of Adraeus' critique here is too harsh and rather unkind to Skyler.

The trouble with moderation is that it seeks to be neutral and to take a non-committal position between two POVs. Alas the reality is often that one side is entirely correct and the other wholly wrong, and that is the case here as anyone who has taken on board the arguments presented and/or knows about the topic will attest and Adraeus' references above only drive this home further, the argument that the definition of Atheism should include both the meaning of Positive and Negative Atheism, and that is the point; is completely, utterly and overwhelmingly crushing.

One pedantic but important point on Adraeus' diatribe above - I did not seek to be one of the "primary defenders of Atheism", indeed I didn't defend Atheism or Atheists at all, not a whiff of it! I only sought to ensure that the definition of the term was correct and full in Wikipedia.

His references and point on "factual terrorism" and "simple minded pseudo intellectuals" was accurate, if again a tad harsh.

One failure of Skyler is that he did not properly encapsulate the dispute, cut to it's essence, define it in clear, simple prose. My and I'm pretty certain Adreus' dispute here was that the general definition of Atheist should encompass both the meaning of Positive Atheist and Negative Atheist. Sam Spade and others sought to have the general definition only include Positive Atheism (I’ve checked some of Sam Spade's other writing and this rather supports what I posited in the Atheism discussion page about him having an agenda and being driven by seeing the term Atheist as a pejorative).

Next time I would advise Skyler starting the dispute resolution by defining the dispute, and getting agreement by the protagonists on the essence of what the dispute is. One then can start, on the basis of agreement, which increases your chance of success from a human psychology point of view as well as positioning the dispute to be addressed methodically. Skyler's effort at defining the dispute were frankly lackluster. They were unfocussed, wishy washy, and plain wrong, so his attempt at moderation was alas doomed from the start.

Anyway my interest is in addressing the Wiki process which seems to favour dogmatists with an agenda, rather than arguing against dogmatists with an agenda, which is generally a fruitless endevour! --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on Atheism

I know it didn't turn out well, but I think that your efforts to try to get it to turn out well were great. I don't think you should blame yourself that things went badly: I think it's just one of those hotbutton issues where it's very difficult to come to something all sides agree on.

The way you conducted yourself is a credit to you, and I hope you get your adminship next time around, since from what I've seen there you certainly deserve it for keeping cool under fire. Shane King 13:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you as well for your efforts, though I don't really think they would have worked even if the others and I had hung around. Personally, I do not mind the article as it stands now, and I'm not too worried about what Sam Spade would like to do it. I don't know, however, what ShaneKing and 20040302 want to do... but it was causing me unneeded headaches, so I'll leave it to anyone else who wishes to fight POV. Andre (talk) 20:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm Andrevan and Adraeus couldn't leave for more than a week after all. I don't really know if anything has changed either. Seems to be a good free-for-all wildfire that won't be damped down for some time yet. If there weren't a whole load of affiliated links for the fire to spread to (e.g. weak atheism ), I would suggest protecting even the talk pages - the whole shebang - for a cooldown period.

Progress is unforgivingly slow. But maybe there is progress of some sort. The sheer stamina required by all core discussants should help to provide some concessions. (20040302 10:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Advocate

Skyler, thank you for your response on my request for an advocate. I was unsure, and your answer gave me helpful information. Another user, not an advocate, saw my frustration elsewhere and is trying to help. I will see how that works out and withdraw my request for the time being at least. Maurreen 07:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

adminship

thank you Skyler. I didn't feel at all that you somehow voted against me, and I understand your reasons. It is true that I have not a terrible lot of experience with WP community building etc., but I hope I will become more involved in the future, and I certainly indend to make my contributions as useful as possible. regards, dab 10:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abington School District v. Schempp

How do you suggest that we improve this article? It seems like a massive POV essay. Your feedback on this would be very much appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some stuff

I didn't want to edit the Supreme Court to do list myself, but I should let you know that I've written Diamond v. Chakrabarty and expanded Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios - if you think they're up to standard then you could remove them from the list. Evercat 03:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA candidate

Salve, Skyler1534!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Salve, Skyler1534!
  I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause

Hello, I am soliciting comments from all those Wikipedians whose edits to legal articles I've noticed. I've been editing Equal Protection Clause, submitted it to peer review, and now have nominated it for featured article status. Please tell me what you think of it, and if you support it, please add your support at the page written above (or, of course, add your objections). Thanks so much, Hydriotaphia 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 20:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

COORDINATOR'S OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — © Alex756 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting

You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

"The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

• How many individuals did you help as an advocate
• What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
• Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
• How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

— © Alex756 23:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

OFFICIAL AMA THIRD MEETING NOTICE

The second AMA IRC Membership meeting was held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals

MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW

Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.

The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

• How many individuals did you help as an advocate
• What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
• Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
• How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here if you have not done so already. — © Alex756 23:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supreme court question

I have something which I'd like your input on. The Surpeme Court case Small v. United States, decided today, is currently in the 2004 in law category. It was argued in 2004 and decided in 2005 so should it be in the 2004 cat, the 2005 cat or both? Yes I know this is a small picky detail. I thought you'd like to decided this since you started the wikiproject. BrokenSegue 20:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nix v. Hedden

Hi, could I get you to check the infobox? I'm not quite sure it is correct... - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kinda need some help...

... interested in helping me out with USA PATRIOT Act, Title II? I'm going to complete my last section and a section on the ALA, then I gotta split it. However, that said, could you review the summary of each individual section? I know it's a big task, but I badly need some expertise here... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocate

I may be in need of an advocate due to charges currently pending in the Shiloh Shepherd discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence

Trillhill Breeder

Pushes POV, advocates meatpuppets,reveals info on court documents 154155156157 158

2.Recommends article deletion if not given POV 159

3.Threatens to disaparage Wiki to public when her POV is not granted 160

24.242.252.125 aka Carmen

Pushes POV and makes attacks on a picture of a dog an editor put in the article, posted signing another name: 161 162 163 164

Would you be willing to act as my advocate? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for any help that could be provided.

Trillhill 11:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Three things...

Skyler1534,

1. I need an advocate to give me advice. I'm involved in a huge argument at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Would you be able to help me out?

2. I created an article over at Judge Richard Casey, and I was wondering if you or somebody from your WikiProject could review it, make any needed corrections, etc. (Federal trial transcripts are public domain... right?)

3. How does one join the U.S. Supreme Court Cases WikiProject?

Thanks! --Hyphen5 05:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS cases

Some cases have names like "Anonymous," 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 397 (1830). How do you propose to name articles with case titles like this?

--MZMcBride 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm interested in helping improve Wikipedia articles related to SCOTUS decisions. One that I've noticed that can be seriously improved upon is Plessy v. Ferguson. I don't think it's unreasonable for that article to be up to Featured Article standards. Ryanluck 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviving SCOTUS case project

Skyler, I don't think you still check your talk page, but I just wanted to leave you a msg to say that I am attempting to revive the project. If you do come back, any help you can provide would be wonderful. --Kchase02 (T) 09:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA statement was deleted

Your AMA statement was deleted apparently carelessly from the AMA statements page (see this edit)if your statement needs to be restored, the text is at User:Pedant/AMA error Pedant 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Atheism/DR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Atheism/DR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Atheism/DR until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)