User talk:PullUpYourSocks

This user may have left Wikipedia. PullUpYourSocks has not edited Wikipedia since January 2, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk Archive 1

Please place new conversations below.

Strict liability[edit]

I think strict liability and absolute liability need to be moved off of regulatory offence. The former indicates the presence of a regulatory agency, and generally is not something i have ever heard in US law. Strict liability, on the other hand, is something used a lot, and absolute liability appears to be the same thing. Since you are Canadian, this might just be a jurisdictional difference. Do you have any interest in the articles? Manney 13:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCRF[edit]

Is this page on your watchlist? It'll be on the main page on August 2, so expect some vandalism and bad edits- I hope you can help out with that. How's your summer going? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think that passage can be stated better? Please fix it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks though. However, I must say I've been noticing that with this article those who have a problem with it isn't so much because of whether it's unreferenced but because the references offend their own little version of events. They like to think of Quebec being betrayed by fascists, the United States towering over a Canada in the Dark Ages, and they don't like the idea that we should neglect the fact that some extremist right wing theocratic pro-life property rights enthusiasts support the Charter. *Sigh* CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Judges[edit]

I hope you don't mind this wikification [1] on one of your subpages since I just wrote the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCC cases[edit]

Do you have any opinion on whether some Supreme Court cases should be considered notable or non notable? Are they all notable? I'd personally say they're mostly all notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Judges Reference[edit]

Since you started this article, I was wondering if you have anything to say about its expansion. Note that while there are some criticisms, these were added throughout the article in an attempt to make it understandable, and hopefully, interesting. Is there anything else that should be added? Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Canadian trial court cases[edit]

Hey PUYS, I just created an article on R. v. Jim; it was not a trial case, yet not heard in the British Columbia Court of Appeal; it was an appeal to the British Columbia Supreme Court. How should this be categorized? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about provincial court cases? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there would be few, unless you count things that were later appealed (the Remuneration Reference pointed to Big M as an important provincial court case, even though it was later appealed to no less than the Supreme Court). Why not "inferior and superior" leaving out the description "federal"? All superior courts are federal anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or we can be a little less scientific and say "lower court cases". After all, the law schools aren't grading us :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases[edit]

You should write some articles regarding this,including compiling some lists such as List of Dominion of Canada Privy Council Cases,List of Nova Scotian Privy Council Cases,etc. When a case had been to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,& one of the parties represented the Dominion,& the other party represented a province,then this case's article should be listed in both the Dominion's list,& the list of the relevant province. - (202.180.98.82 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Article that will interest you[edit]

Here's an article that will be of interest to you; - List of Canadian Privy Council cases - (Paisleyite1976 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

New RFC[edit]

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Please feel free to participate in what I hope will be a fruitful discussion. - Mcasey666 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cdn govt images[edit]

Just a point of clarification: those arguing for deletion are not necessarily basing their argument on U.S. fair use law, they are arguing that even if these images DO qualify as fair use, they should be deleted anyway. The concept of "replaceability" has no basis in U.S. fair use law, and is, frankly, a little dubious. - Mcasey666 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Louis-Philippe de Grandpre.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis-Philippe de Grandpre.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Abu Badali 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: List of publications in law[edit]

I've nominated the article List of publications in law for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of publications in law 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/List of publications in law. 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 List of publications in law 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. WJBscribe 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada[edit]

Hey, I'm trying to get List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to be a featured list. I noticed that you've done some work on that page, so I was wondering if you wanted to help out or give it a vote so it can meet the required 4 supports. --Arctic Gnome 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakes test and Bakan[edit]

Its well known at UBC, the school that I go to, that Bakan wrote the Oakes test, he has told the story in class and other professors have mentioned that he did.

How do you want it verified?

Exceptional? Keep your socks on, I asked because this is not the kind of thing that gets well documented, officially Dickson wrote it so short of him explicitly saying Bakan is the author this isn't the kind of thing that lends itself to documentation from an independently forthcoming source.

That you think he is making it up is interesting. [personal attack removed]

I HAVE RETURNED[edit]

Wikipedia belongs to our evil alliance again. MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA >:D CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PullUpYourSocks- I just want to make sure that I understand the license granted, as the page for this map refers to you as the author (and releasing it into the public domain), but also says "This file is a work by Javitomad." Would you let me know who created the map and color coding? I am interested in using it in a powerpoint presentation, and want to make we have the proper permissions. Please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennannbv (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

legal systems map[edit]

Hello PullUpYourSocks, I posted the following on the Talk:Legal systems of the world page, about taking out the customary law classifications - then I noticed that excellent coloured map, which I think is yours. I don't know how to change these things, but if you'd agree, I wanted to ask for your help. Here's what I posted: Wikidea 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that the sections about 'customary law' be removed. The reason is that I just don't think it's an actual legal system in its own right. Custom is certainly a source of law, and an important one, but it doesn't constitute a legal system. The only two examples given are Andorra and Mongolia. This is a link to law in Mongolia, which I googled in about 2 seconds, showing a distinct lack of 'custom' - it's a civil code based jurisdiction. As for Andorra, it's a European country, and I bet it's got a civil law system much like the places around it. If you wanted you could call the common law customary law under the definition given on the customary law page, and you could call England a mixed system with custom and common law: think of all the Parliamentary procedures, or the custom that the monarch doesn't sack the elected government (since 1707 I think). I'm sure that you can easily remove it from the page, and it'd make the page far simpler, neater and more accurate. Would it be okay for me to go ahead on this? Wikidea 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department[edit]

Since you created this article, it's been expanded into a long-winded POV essay by another contributor, and since tagged for cleanup. I think the present version is unsalvageable, so I'm going to revert back to your original version and am hoping to expand it with additional sources. Please help if you can - you clearly know more about this field than I do. Walton monarchist89 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

somebody's awesomeness[edit]

Hey pal. Hope you don't mind the informalities. You are doing a terrific job and you are awesome :) Hope you have a good one. Ben 07:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your username[edit]

Even though you are a sensible contributor to wikipedia, I have to inform you; that using the word sock, in your username may bring to the attention of admins that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked, or banned user. Just to notify you. Retiono Virginian 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be silliness. PUYS is not just a good contributor, he's a longtime contributor and much time has passed without any trouble over his username or, to the best of my knowledge, anything else. Besides, socks are not prohibited. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I'm willing to take the risk. --PullUpYourSocks 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

Hm, not sure if I agree with their removal. Lists can have red links as a sort of a to-do list; plus if those articles are written the editor would have to re-add them, or they may not know where to add them and the article may be orphaned. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCC in the news[edit]

This article [2] will make a handy reference, depending on which one of us beats the other at writing the page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start: R. v. Bryan. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with RFC[edit]

Hello there, sorry for the form-letter post.... I am writing you because your interest in the past around the collection of articles around HRM and Halifax.

I have recently lodged a Request for Comments on the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia page. I and several other editors have had a running dispute with user Lonewolf BC. The RFC is This is a dispute about whether it is accurate to continue to refer to the area of or approximately coinciding with the boundaries of the City of Halifax, which became a part of the rural/urban Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, as a city.

Basically, as I say on the RFC, we all agree that this is no longer a City, but to use former City's boundaries when describing the current urban area as a "city" (note the lower case) is at best arbitrary and at worst a fabrication. The city is now a continuous area that wraps the harbour, from Portuguese Cove (outside of the city of Halifax to the west and south) to Cole Harbour (outside of the former City of Dartmouth to the east). People now refer to the entire urban area of Halifax Regional Municipality as 'the city' and 'Halifax'.

Anyway, the bottom line is at least five people have tried to change the wording of the intro since January, and every time this one user changes it back. I have tried to come up with compromise wording, and he won't dialog. Right now wikipedia says HRM and Halifax are the capital of Nova Scotia. This article is now factually incorrect, in my opinion, and I need your help, please chime in. WayeMason 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bertha_Wilson.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yves_Pratte.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Yves_Pratte.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Intervener[edit]

Dear PullUpYourSocks:

I would like to improve the article you started entitled intervener. I would like to include some information on U.S. legal practice. I know that the article as it stands now is based mostly on Canadian practice, (which is obviously your field of expertise), but I think there are a few errors in this article as it stands now. First of all, intervention in a civil case in the United States is governed by a separate rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24. Secondly, American lawyers do not consider intervention the same thing as an amicus curiae brief; in fact, the two concepts are altogether different. Intervention in U.S. practice is when a new party comes into the case to protect her interests or because she has a common question of law or fact with the ongoing litigation. Amici curiae are considered "advisory" briefs and are governed by a totally different submission procedure.

This article could really use an overhaul or at least some clarification, but I did not want to begin doing so without your advice and input. Personally, I think the article should be completely rewritten and most of the current content be moved to the amicus curiae article, but I wanted to hear your opinion on the matter first. Please respond on my talk page when you have time.

Thanking you in advance, --Eastlaw 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English case names[edit]

I'm sure you are aware of this by now, but English, Australian, New Zealand (not sure about Canada) etc. cases do not have a full stop after the v in their name. --Matthew Proctor 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian practice is to include the period after the ‘v’ even when referring to the names of British or Australian cases. --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice LeBel[edit]

Quite by accident I happened upon the RHoRotSCoCbJL site that you built. I am not a legal scholar, and will probably never need the information on that page... but that has got to be one of the most beautifully designed pages I have ever seen. That page is everything the Wikipedia could be and should become. I just really wanted to say thank you for sharing your time and knowledge in making that page. Saudade7 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Ontario[edit]

Have a look at Talk:Court of Ontario, discussion of whether the "Court of Ontario" should have its own article. I'd be interested in your thoughts. It's kind of a weird thing, a court that exists on paper only. --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jean Beetz.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean Beetz.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Robert Cartwright.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Robert Cartwright.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Sopinka.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Sopinka.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gerald Fauteux.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gerald Fauteux.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Roland Almon Ritchie.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Roland Almon Ritchie.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Robert Taschereau.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Taschereau.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Lake case[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are largely responsible for most of the articles in Category:Canadian aboriginal case law. Your work is great, and I really appreciate it. In my readings, I recently stumbled on some references to the Baker Lake case about Inuit title. I can't seem to find anything about it on wikipedia? Maybe I just can't find it or maybe no article exists. If it's the latter, do you think you might have time to write it? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:John C. Major.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John C. Major.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rhinestone Cowboy[edit]

I have nominated Rhinestone Cowboy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhinestone Cowboy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:1602 in law[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1602 in law, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1602 in law has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1602 in law, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:William Mcintyre.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:William Mcintyre.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. YUL89YYZ (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:William Mcintyre.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum[edit]

Hi PullUpYourSocks,

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 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Willard Estey.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Willard Estey.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Wilfred Judson.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Wilfred Judson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello PullUpYourSocks! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 972 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

John Ibbitson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jimmy Scott - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Msg to PUYS[edit]

Hi, are you still active on this site? Please respond if you are. I would appreciate the opportunity to ask you some questions. Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurislaw (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd[edit]

A tag has been placed on Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of MTS Allstream[edit]

Hello PullUpYourSocks, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, MTS Allstream, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:70.49.129.10. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:70.49.129.10. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 70.49.129.10 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of FindLaw[edit]

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

The only source given is an interview, arguably for PR purposes, and most other coverage I could find was insignificant or not at reliable, independent sources. There is insufficient evidence to show that the company meets the notability guidelines for companies or the general notability guidelines

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of FindLaw for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article FindLaw, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the integrity to fix the mess you created?[edit]

Great, you made a terrible mess of Law school and Law school in the United States in 2006. (See Talk:Law school.) Way to go. Do you have the integrity to fix the mess you created? (I mean that as a genuine challenge to action and NOT a personal attack, by the way.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Canadian provincial Acts[edit]

The article List of Canadian provincial Acts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Terribly incomplete; doesn't even list NB, NT, YT or NU, and shows nothing for SK, NL and PE.

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. PK T(alk) 02:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the proposed deletion was contested by another editor, so the List has been entered to the AfD process, and the discussion is here. PK T(alk) 00:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CourtSeal-400.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CourtSeal-400.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CanLII for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CanLII 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/CanLII 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. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

Hello PUYS! Today I patrolled R. v. Cook, a new article you created on 2 August. I noticed the article was completely unreferenced. On Wikipedia, any information that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Please do not create new articles and leave them without in-line citations to show the source of your information. Please see WP:REFBEGIN and WP:Verifiability for information about how, and why, we show the sources of information in Wikipedia articles. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 12:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canlii-scc[edit]

Template:Canlii-scc has been nominated for deletion as it is now redundant to {{cite CanLII}}, which combines the functionality of Template:Canlii-scc, Template:Canlii-fc and Template:Canlii-fca. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work on Canadian legal articles! Thanks so much. NikolaiHo^☎️ 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of McCarthy Tétrault for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article McCarthy Tétrault 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/McCarthy Tétrault until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Trade and commerce" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trade and commerce. Since you had some involvement with the Trade and commerce redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Antonio Lamer.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Antonio Lamer.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) 17:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bertha Wilson.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bertha Wilson.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) 17:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wishart Spence.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wishart Spence.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) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada 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/Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]