Welcome!

Hello, Mmmbeer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Edcolins 08:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased with your Case of first impression article - I had that one on my list of things to do! Please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, where we are doing a complete overhaul of common law subjects, in our effort to make Wikipedia the world's premier free internet source of legal information. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 23:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern about "safe harbour exemption" redirecting to "research exemption". If there are indeed safe harbour exemptions in many sections of law, being American or foreign law, I suggest redirecting "safe harbour exemption" to "safe harbour". --Edcolins 07:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm on new article patrol, keep seeing you every couple of minutes. Good stuff, keep it up. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was closing thd VfD for this, and saw you had rewritten it and recommended relisting on VfD. Since there was only one vote (apart from yours) subsequent to you rewrite, I have taken your advice. You can find the new VfD here. -Splash 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contribution of University of Wisconsin Law School. If you'd like, you're welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin and contribute to other articles on the state. Cheers. --BaronLarf 15:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting the citation to the case was recommended by Toytoy at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. I think it's a particularly good idea, so I do it for all of my cases. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such article. But it would be an excellent idea to start one indeed. I'll try to help. --Edcolins 19:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you think of new articles that do not exist yet, for instance intellectual property-related articles, you may wish to drop a request here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Intellectual property. --Edcolins 20:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

We could indeed fill wikipedia with patent law articles if we tried. The challenge however is IMHO to simultaneously create general articles summarizing the important aspects of a subject while presenting it in proper perspective; the subject may for instance be the U.S. patent law. I have created a poor stub with the ambitious title "U.S. patent law" and it badly needs something substantial in it. I have also created articles about "European patent law", which I will try to expand! After more than a year contributing in wikipedia, I found it easy indeed to create articles on small subjects. Creating a featured article might be much more (demanding and) interesting at the end of the day. I will pick up one article one day and make it a featured article... (can't figure out which one to choose though). --Edcolins 07:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Please join the discussion at Portal talk:Law - we're getting things off the ground for featured articles, pictures, cases, and a collaboration of the week! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you continue, I will KEEP the NPOV tag on that article because you think that YOU ALONE have the right answer, and are monopolizing your perspective into it. I do not appreciate what you are doing to that article, and what you have done to that article. It's a disgrace how you are injecting YOUR point of view. It's typical of the developed world to take this stance on something which hardly affects it.

So go ahead: Impress me with a good article, if you can do it - but telling everyone NPOV when you are the ONLY one saying it is NPOV is just an abuse of the system. --TaranRampersad 23:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, if you stopped thinking you were the only person on the earth who thought Biopiracy was something that you alone understood, you wouldn't be apologizing on my Talk Page. You're taking your own perspective and forcing it on everyone else simply because you can force the NPOV tag down everyone else's throats. That is exactly what you are doing, and it's inexcusable. Save the apologies, I'll NPOV what you write if it reflects your perspective alone. And so far, you've done an outstanding job of telling everyone else they are wrong WITHOUT BASIS other than your own *education* with PCT law. Continue, but know that if it is a US-centric perspective, I will NPOV it to hell because you have not just injected but *hijacked* the article.

I hope that you can write a good article that is well balanced, because myself and others will suffer nothing less... and history is a wonderful thing. You can listen to us now, and negotiate a meaning, or continue on your present course which can easily be undone and cause a war between you and the perspectives of the developing world. If you think that this perspective cannot be solidified, then time will tell. I will no longer waste my time on the short term. We in the developing world know what Biopiracy is, and if you choose to continue on your present course you ACTUALLY MAKE OUR CASE.

Thank you. Abrazos, mi amigito. --TaranRampersad 05:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your sensible comment re absence of details on management items for cases of viral meningitis. Technically the advice you quoted is correct, but there are important reasons to take care in how that might be incorporated into the article. I raise my concerns in Talk:Meningitis as no mention would be better than a poorly worded one. Please don't think I'm "biting your head off over this", this will be an important consideration in the article's talk page for other later editors to consider too. As a doctor myself who may be required to advice patients or relatives, before and after treatment, as to what to do, I truely found the issues very difficult to reach a conclusion over. I see you are a law student, so you will appreciate precise language and how the choice of phrasing evokes a variety of interpretations. So please do think over my comments and I welcome any suggestions on the phrase I suggest. David Ruben^talk 01:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mmmbeer--

I have been wondering if there are too many dictionary terms listed in the Law stubs category and if these things would be better off in Wiktionary. I'd like your opinion; see my talk page for details. Thanks! Massysett 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it was useful to have a link from patent misuse to other articles on "patent-related perceived abuses" or the like. Just in case somebody was looking for information on "patent troll", but involontarily arrived on the "patent misuse" article. I removed the disclaimer. Indeed useless. Biopiracy is a good one to add as well. --Edcolins 20:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate you coming to me about the article(s). It's issue that I've been mulling over for a while and it would be great to discuss it with others. I spent some time debating whether to use "private law" or "common law" descriptors. As it stands right now, neither seem ideal. Most legal dictionaries make a distinction b/w the civilian system and the "other" type of "civil law". The problem is that they are not consistent in defining the "other". Some define the word "civil law" as being a dispute b/w private parties, while others define it as being anything that isn't criminal, there are also a number of variations on those two definitions. My attempt to use the "common law" disambiguator was to be inclusive of all the variations on the "North American" use of the word. But you're right to point out that there is nothing preventing the term "civil law", as we use it in North America, from being used in the civilian world. Honestly, I just assumed that it was a common law term. From my exposure to civilian law, I haven't seen the term used but it doesn't mean they don't use it. Thinking back, perhaps "private law" is a better descriptor. I really can't say for sure. It might be useful to start a discussion on this point. --PullUpYourSocks 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your suggestion of "civil law (action)". Though, you're right that there may be a bit of confusion with "civil action". Maybe that's not even a bad thing since they are so close in meaning anyways. While we're brainstorming, I'd suggest something like "civil law (jurisdiction)" since the heart of the term is to group jurisdictional matters of law. --PullUpYourSocks 03:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We had a discussion a while back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases about putting in the case citations. It never really got concluded, but for reasons explained in the discussion it was leaning in the direction of having the citations done like so:

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined...

(fast forward to external links section at the bottom)

• ^ 427 U.S. 445 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)

I've changed it to this for all of the cases I contributed (I think there's about 60), and am gearing up to do a few hundred more. I think it's a better format, but I want to avoid a back-and-forth with these links. Please let me know what you think. BD2412 T 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It may be possible to make them uniform (one way or the other) with a bot - otherwise, I'll gladly do them myself. There's only about 415 cases in Category:United States Supreme Court cases, which I can go through in a day. I think there's something to be said, though, for the first link on the page not taking the reader out of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By the way, note that when you use use the ((ussc... template, you can still link the date like so: Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). BD2412 T 02:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also came across the article/press release you mentioned [2] and I thought of reviving the article. However, after a quick investigation I think it is not appropriate to revive it (yet).

1. eMediaWire does not seem to be the usual mainstream source of information. As highlighted on their site [3], it is some sort of "free online press release distribution services";
2. This particular press release seems to be sponsored by the same guy who applied for the patent(s) and probably created the Wikipedia article;
3. The press release only concerns patent applications not patents yet. Stricly speaking, there is no such thing as a storyline patent yet, only applications. I will seriously reconsider my opinion once a U.S. patent is actually granted for that kind of subject-matter; and
4. Finally I believe creating the article would amount to accepting some kind of commercial advertisment.

IMHO. --Edcolins 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a matter of practical application, the doctrine comes up in contract more than anywhere else (perhaps because there are more contract cases than there are other trademark, antitrust, etc.). I'm not sure that there is unough to be said about equity to justify a template - besides this and specific performance and laches... ? (note that equitable conversion is covered under property and the constructive trust is under wills and trusts). BD2412 T 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help! Its not much, but its certainly better than what WAS there.  ALKIVAR™ 08:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the BBC. I would just like to have this opportunity to say I like your username. When I was 18 years old I hated the taste of beer. But it grew on me and nowadays I like beer a lot. I appreciate people who appreciate beer. — JIP | Talk 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to good catch message from my talk page

You are very welcome! I fixed up the notes some made sure each were properly described and added the missing 50 U.S.C. §#... -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

www4.law.cornell.edu vs www.law.cornell.edu

In the future you might want to change http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html as this will let them do some load balancing on incoming traffic.

Authorization by Previous Admins

OK, thanks for the information. Fine on the revert, thanks for the notice. If I come with a reference, I'll edit it in.--Kbk 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Work!

Hey Mmmbeer, are you still a 3L? If so, double-kudos for your work on the NSA wireless warrants article.Ulpian 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NSA stuff

I said this on the article talk page, but I thought I might as well repeat it here. Thanks for your work on the legallity section. It's dramatically better than it was before. I have a question: in the rename section, I've added a few ideas for possible alternate names that are shorter and more intuitive. I don't want to move without consensus, so I thought I'd get a comment from at least one person before taking action. Thanks, Dave (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, could you specify (with a link or with copied text) what changes to the AUMF you're referring to? Are they my changes from yesterday? Is it this?[4] I haven't figured out what versions of the paragraph you're looking at or what the problem is. Dave (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What reprecussions could there be for wikipedia's spilling the beans on highly classified stuff? Metarhyme 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm more worried about wikipedia being shut down than suing an attorney. Dave wants reported Ft. Meade activities verified. I posted a worried note to the section. Metarhyme 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rewrite

I made a printout. Although I could refrain from calling Scott McClellan the president's plump propaganda minister, my rewrite wouldn't be clean. Would you be willing to fix it up if I did a rewrite? (metarhyme at gmail dot com) Metarhyme 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, you're a good deal less eager than me to do anything at NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, and I want to do barely anything. The NPOV contested label may be back - I put it there. Edits are going over the line into vandalism. You got time? Metarhyme 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for flirting with the accretion disk. Yeah, it's a black hole. That was the right thing to do about User:Federal Street. I note that you didn't remove the NPOV template. Maybe it'll turn into a book. Metarhyme 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length

Want to contribute an opinion to Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy#Length? Metarhyme 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV title

The NSA spying not cleared by FISC controversy occurred to me after I pointed out the procedure for obtaining a contested move to the "terrorist" pluggers. It's fairly neutral, bland, abstruse and moves the article. A while ago I had a long fight with a screaming lefty who, at the end, set up his own little kingdom at Legality of warrantless surveillance. AustinKnight was the original thuggish righty - threatening to out a user. Both attacks are in Talk archives. In my analysis of how to shorten the article, I dismissed Congress's ability to work out a surveillance compromise. That may turn out to have been unwarranted - I hope so. Metarhyme 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You took part in an Afd relating to "Storyline patent" 9 months ago. I have just created an Afd page on a related article "Andrew Knight (patent agent)". You may wish to have a look at that one: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Knight (patent agent). Cheers. --Edcolins 12:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Mmmbeer. I aim to make Freedom of movement (fascinating and important topic as it is) a featured article by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've blanked Talk:Cease and desist and added a message on the user talk page. Do you think the history needs to be deleted as well? I could do that. I am not sure whether this is necessary. What do you think? Cheers. --Edcolins 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An anon attempted to sucker punch the NSA warrantless legal analysis section. See =>Talk<= there if you care to revisit your old struggle. Metarhyme 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please could you have a look at patent pirate and give us your opinion as to whether we should make it a disambig or redirect to patent infringement or not. See the discussion on Talk:patent pirate. Nowa thinks we should keep the article. I do not concur. Thanks --Edcolins 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Legal disclaimer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Inasmuch as you're the template's creator and only contributor, I thought I ought to let you know about my nomination; had I known you to be a fellow Wisconsinite, I'd have gone easier on the template :)... Joe 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I found you through one of your posts in WikiProject Law. I'm here to plea for a bit of help on the fan fiction article.

Fan fiction is usually defined as unauthorized or semi-unauthorized derivitive works, most of which are nowadays published to the internet to websites such as fanfiction.net. As such, copyright law in any and all countries with access to the net has a huge impact on the international fan fiction community, and is obviously of great importance to the article on it. The problem is, of course, that both in the U.S. and other areas of the world, copyright law is inconsistent, as are books' or series' canon creators' reactions and stances on fan fiction.

As such, the "Legal Issues" section of the fan fiction article is at current a complete mess. Almost all of it is completely unsourced and uncited, much of it contradictory and confusing to the reader, and some of it flat-out wrong. Additionally, there seems to be a bias towards U.S. law, with only tangential references to other countries' copyright laws, despite the fact that foreign copyright law can be of equal or in some cases greater importance.

I lack the resources, base knowledge and experience to fix the entire section on my own, so I've elected to implore a handful of WikiProject Law participants to help me fix it.

Any help whatsoever would be appreciated; so much as a single properly-cited court case, terminological explaination, etc., would be of enormous help at this point! Runa27 23:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to patent troll.--Nowa 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmmbeer, Anything to add to the discussion regarding the section on weaknesses in the patent system leading to patent troll behavior? I'm trying to avoid a revert war and I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Discussion ongoing at Talk:Patent_troll#Weaknesses_in_the_patent_system_leading_to_... --Nowa 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you are at U of Wisconsin. What a great law school! I went to law school in my late 40s, as a second career. Then I became very ill, and did not take the bar exam until recently. I have just been admitted to the bar in Florida, where I live. My previous career was electrical engineering. It's always nice to see lawyers with a technical background! jgwlaw 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated the article Foley & Lardner for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Foley & Lardner satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Foley & Lardner during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PatentLaw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PatentTypes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Mmmbeer. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
• User:Chowbok/Robth's_RFU_Explanation
• Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ran across the template ((US Code)) that you made a couple years ago. I redirected it to ((UnitedStatesCode)). I assume you've found the latter template by now but thought I'd mention it anyway. Cburnett (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another editor found an issue with an edit you made back in mid-2005, and is requesting clarification. I noticed you're not actively editing anymore, but if you do happen to get this message, please drop by the talk page and help with the conversation. Thanks! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I've been workign together with editor Pianno Non Troppo in addressing all the links on search term "law school outlines." I've noticed your contribution to that page and wanted to know what it would take to add another site to the 2 currently listed under External Links. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to look at Outlines.com and letting me know if it could be included. Pianno recommended it be added as a reference within the body of the page, which has been done successfully and I think it should also be considered for an external link. The registration process is free and quick and meant to ensure the quality of user submissions to the outline database. The database is course/school and professor specific and offers users free downloads in exchange for their uploads, to keep this database growing. There is a nominal fee if users would prefer to just purchase the outline. I understand the concern you and Pianno share, so all I am asking is that you consider this suggesstion. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. (UTC)

Hi Mmmbeer,

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

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

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

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

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

What you can do now:

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

2. If you're a law student,

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

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

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

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Judge Robertson.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Judge Robertson.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Judge Robertson.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Thomas Hogan.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Thomas Hogan.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Broomfield.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Broomfield.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Malice aforethought has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, nothing here is cited.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CTJF83 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States patent law cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contributory infringement (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) 11:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Foley & Lardner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foley & Lardner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Protospiel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mmmbeer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Protospiel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mmmbeer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Protospiel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]