User talk:PullUpYourSocks/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 00:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Fundamentally[edit]

No harm done, we noticed your comment on the talk page and deleted the article. Cheers. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nova Scotia[edit]

That's fine. I was going on the basis of another article that said Nova Scotia's legislature used the name House of Assembly rather than Legislative Assembly, not on any particularly deep first-hand knowledge of provincial politics in NS. Bearcat 00:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Recategorizations in Law area[edit]

I would ask that you please reconsider your reversions removing the more easily found index in Category:Law that you've excised twice today from Bankruptcy.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In rming the more general category I believe you have inadvertently

  • made it more difficult for people unfamiliar with some law school classifications of material to find the information they seek, and
  • that you have improperly classified the material, in this instance Bankruptcy, that while it may be taught in some law schools in a "Business Law" curriculum is not universally taught as such, was taught in my school as an uncategorized elective, and in actual U.S. practice is not restricted to business matters. (Granted, most Cases involve at least some debts to commercial creditors, however business involvement is not essential and the distinction is therefore incorrect). (Perhaps this criticism is more properly levelled at the "Business Law" category in general? I would take it to that Talk: area if we can't resolve it here)

I would suggest reversion to the point where both categories coexisted peacefully as they are not mutually exclusive. Flawiki 04:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Understood: I appreciate your hard work and no, you didn't revert anything I had in there of substantive value, only the category and I'm inclined to agree with your take on it. Bankruptcy law touches on so many categories of Law (which I think is what makes Bankruptcy practice so interesting!) that it seems to defy pigeonholing. I wonder if that means it is time to consider a Bankruptcy category? We've many WP articles now that would fall directly into it (ex., Interim trustee, Chapter 7, Chapter 13, Chapter 11, United States Trustee, Insolvency, Insolvency Practitioner, and others). I'd never demand anyone else do the work to build this category. When things simmer down in the US regarding bankruptcy I hope we can work together to bring these more specialized areas under one more specific category. Again, thank you for your tremendous effort, and for your comments on my talk page. Flawiki 23:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And can I ask why you judge Age of consent to be a legal fiction? Smoddy (t) (e) 17:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, got you now. I was RC-patrolling, and just wanted to be certain. Keep up the good work! Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 21:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Can-courts[edit]

I like the template you created. Just be mindful that some of the articles you link to exist already, but they show up as red. You might want to check out List of Canadian courts of appeal. --Spinboy 20:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NS provincial electoral districts[edit]

Hi PullUp, please don't just slap the NS P.E.D. category on articles intended for the federal electoral districts. The convention is to use titles "Placename (provincial electoral district)" for provincial articles. In the next few days I will be creating all of these using a template similar to the ones I am currently using to create the federal articles. Some provinces have both federal and provincial on one page, but this is deprecated and will eventually be cleaned up. If you nevertheless wish to continue, at the least amend the text to indicate that it is both a federal and a provincial district. Thanks, Fawcett5 02:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

I mistakenly gave one of my friends my password, and all hell has broken loose with my account! I don't want to be blocked, what can I do?

Blackacre[edit]

I struggled with the name a bit before going with Blackacre, but it is by far the most commonly used placeholder, with Whiteacre being a distant second. Other than the four in the article, I've never seen or heard of any other color used in a property hypo (I've never actually seen Brownacre used, just heard that it is another variation), so perhaps it should be Blackacre, Whiteacre, Greenacre. -- BD2412 talk 00:52, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

  • I made it "Blackacre, Whiteacre, Greenacre, and variations thereof"... I think captures the essence of it. :-) -- BD2412 talk 02:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Delfino spam[edit]

Hi! I'm trying to put together some records of the Delfino spam at User:Kmccoy/Delfino kmccoy (talk) 19:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino[edit]

Just another unremarkable case. If you see it outside of an entry relatedto SLAPP law, neutralize it. Read more into this User:Kmccoy/Delfino

lots of issues | leave me a message 20:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thin skull rule --> Eggshell skull doctrine[edit]

Hi.I wanted to let you know that I merged and redirected your "thin skull" article to my "eggshell skull" article, as the latter term is the more commonly used (I started making it before I found that your article existed). I credited you for it on the talk page. Let me know if you'd like me to undo this change, and make everything redirect to "thin skull". Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 16:13, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Postdlf later moved the article to "Eggshell plaintiff", and we then used Google to determine that just Eggshell skull was the most common name. -- BD2412 talk 00:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Darkness at Noon[edit]

Clearly I don't agree that my comment is 'erroneous' and IMHO it's no more irrelevant than the psycho-babble which precedes it. I have opened a comment on the talk page - (let's see what others think). Linuxlad 28 June 2005 07:52 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law[edit]

Hey PullUpYourSocks, I've been preparing for the Bar exam by posting jillions of articles on common law topics (e.g. Leasehold estate, Third party beneficiary, Lesser included offense). I have, in the process, come across an unfortunate lack of consistency and connectivity in Wikipedia articles on the common law. I've therefore proposed at the heretofore largely defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that we make a major project of overhauling the whole thing, one key area at a time. Can I count you in? -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 03:20 (UTC)

New stub template[edit]

Hi. We over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting have just discovered your new stub template {{statute-stub}}. Normally, stub categories are created after a process of proposal and debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, to ensure that they meet the requirements for a new stub category—such as not cutting across the current category hierarchy, having a viable number of stub articles (a mininmum of 60), and not being covered by any current categories. As it is, there should be no problem this new stub—good split. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. In fact, the text above was adapted from the message to me a couple of months ago. (And now I'm an official stub sorter.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Strict liability offense vs. absolute liability offense[edit]

It seems to me that the latter is merely a particular species of the former - since they are both short articles, perhaps they could be merged into strict liability, with absolute liability offense redirecting to a specific section within the strict liability article. What thinkest thou? -- BD2412 talk 03:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fraser[edit]

In response to: Hello. I've noticed that you have undone my reversions for the third time and rather than continuing to doing so I would ask that you discuss your problems with the article on the talk page or at the very least contribute original material that is not taken from other webpages. Thanks.

I very much appreciate your interest in The Fraser Institute and its addition to Wikipedia. While I remain somewhat unfamilar with Wikipedia convention and am a new user, I understand that additions to the encyclopedia are to be accurate reflections of the truth and as much as possible, be absent from tone and word selection that would contribute to suggesting otherwise. In addition, you mentioned, as well as the guideline, that this encyclopedia is for original material that is conveyed in a truthful manner. Yet, many of your contributions are quoted directly from the CBC article you provided a link for. In fact, the cited articles, selected high-profile figures, as well as most of the contraversy section are in large part copy and pasted from the article. Moreover, "your" selection of publications are over ten years old, hardly reflective of the Institute's current contribution to public policy. The poor selection of publications does not truthfully convey the scope, breadth, or rigour of policy work to readers. While I am now aware that text from websites should not be used, it is likely you were aware of this policy and had no other resource with which to make your contribution. Not only is this against the Wikipedia policy, your contribution is unfortunately misinformed and lacks any original contribution. You speak of the Institute as if you know something about it.

While I appreciate your passion for policy, as I think is healthy and needed in any law student, perhaps it remains unethical and irresponsible to contribute to an article and speak on an issue with which you have no expertise. Have you worked at the Institute? No, then how can you speak of the peer review process? Are you aware that legalization of any drug does not remain the position of the Institute? Are you aware of the financial breakdown of contributions to the Institute? Do you know how many top-tier economists, including Nobel Prize winners remain on the Institute's advisory board? Are you aware that the majority of publications out of the institute are empirical and do not have any political commentary or connection? This list could go on further.

I will make every effort to make my contributions to Wikipedia as accurate as possible and will make every attempt to remove generalizations, misinformed opinions, and deceitful tone. I hope you will do the same. I will continue to change the Fraser Institute as long as I see fit. Regards. --User_talk:207.102.5.141

Category:Uniform Acts[edit]

Actually, I wouldn't categorize them as federal legislation - they are not enacted by the federal government, and although some are fairly universal (like the Uniform Commercial Code), others have only been adopted by a handful of states, and are not binding on any other states. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 14:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks - and thank you, also, for the amazing job you're doing of improving law-related articles! -- BD2412 talk 14:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

How am I doing?[edit]

I was just wondering what you think of my edits to the Charter section 1, 3, and 24 articles. Are you finding this satisfactory? Do you think I can improve somehow? CanadianCaesar 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank god[edit]

The expansion of R. v. Morgentaler was greatly needed. Nice work. CanadianCaesar 04:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oakes[edit]

Hi PUYS, I was just looking at R. v. Oakes, and noticed some of the wording is pretty close to that in the decision. Supreme Court decisions aren't copyrighted, are they? CanadianCaesar 04:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disallowance and Reservation[edit]

Great Article! Molotov (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, Molotov (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Law getting on the move![edit]

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]

Your welcome[edit]

...for the barnstar. I've been away myself, I had to move to another city. My time here has been severely limited now that I'm away from the university computers (one hour a day! Damn!), but if you ever want me to take a look at something, please drop me a note on my talk page! CanadianCaesar 02:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

"For dedicated and diligent service to Wikipedia" Molotov (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference cases[edit]

  • I agree with you on the names of the reference cases and besides, Spinboy mass moving them created a lot of double redirects. Now that User:Spinboy has quit, I propose we move them back and edit the WikiProject accordingly. (An interesting development, since I have considered leaving myself, lately.) CanadianCaesar 21:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civil law - dab[edit]

I was doing disambiguation for "civil law" and I was using (private law) instead of (common law)--I should have clicked through the dab page link to see that it redirects. However, it occurs to me that "common law" isn't entirely descriptive. Do civil law(legal system) jurisdictions not have private causes of action? That seems wrong to me, but what do I know.

I'm really confused as to what to do now. I've come to you since you created the dab page. What do you think? mmmbeerT / C / ? 15:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps what we mean, then, is "Civil law (action)" as compared to "Civil law (system)". I'm not sure what the term is in civil legal systems, but we shouldn't stray too far from "civil" because most on en.wikipedia will probably understand civil action to refer to private enforcement. Just thinking out loud. mmmbeerT / C / ? 17:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

I just expanded section 3 today, and Haig v. Canada was a red link. I come back a little later and you had written it. Stunning coincidence? CanadianCaesar 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Canada[edit]

I see that you are a Canadian Wikipedian (I am a US citizen). I have a question about Canada, if you can spare the time for an answer: I recall from my youth (a long time ago!) that the world maps labeled Canada as the “Dominion of Canada.” Now one does not see that on a map anymore. What did that title mean, and is it no longer used? If it is no longer used, when did it change? Thanks. •DanMS 01:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! That’s a good article and a good reference. •DanMS 21:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge v. he Queen[edit]

I notice you moved Hodge v. The Queen to Hodge v. he Queen. Typo? Reyk 03:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't move it back either- I tried already. What I've done is cut & paste the content from "he Queen" into "the Queen" and then mark "he Queen" for deletion. Reyk 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to vote here[edit]

Re: British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia[edit]

Hi Jord and PullUpYourSocks, I noticed that both articles are essentially on the same Supreme Court case. Hence, I hope that we can merge the two articles. Please share your thought in Talk:Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia. Thank you for your attention. Regards, --Hurricane111 06:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone ahead with the merger, FYI, please see my comment on Talk:Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia. - Jord 16:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal[edit]

It seems to me that thus far we've been working on killing red links and fixing/expanding existing articles/stubs. But have you ever considered joining forces and working especially hard to make one article really great? I'm thinking, Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could use a rewrite- right now it's just a clone from Wikibooks- and expansion. Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also has a potential for enormous growth. Or if you have in mind a Supreme Court case, that could be interesting. We could decide how to split the work.

PS You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BD2412, although another support vote wouldn't seem necessary... CanadianCaesar 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm... CanadianCaesar, are you hedging bets on the over/under being bandied about in the comments section there? BD2412 T 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful, section 2 is my first pick as well. I've given some thought as to how the work should be split, and I don't think it's fair to split it 2-2 since it's not proportional- there's been much more work done, for example, on freedom of expression than freedom of peaceful assembly. Therefore, I propose I'll handle religion, conscience, assembly and association, and I'll leave expression and freedom of the press for you. That would strike me as interesting; I like learning about the lesser-known stuff, and assembly and conscience in particular haven't been explored in great detail. When do we start, then? CanadianCaesar 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking some time out[edit]

I'm sorry PUYS, but the thing above may be delayed, or called off. This has nothing to do with anything that's happened in the project; but at this time I couldn't be of much use to the project. I hope to return, hopefully soon.

Be well, I know our Constitution of Canada is safe in your hands. CanadianCaesar 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belated barnstar[edit]

  • You're welcome. Very good work!AndyJones 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in law and the Science pearls project[edit]

Hi PullUpYourSocks,

I was very happy to see that you created List of publications in law. Take a look at Science pearls project. You can see there ideas and othe types of list that might help you. APH 12:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the list a bit. Since I do not have a proper knowledge in law I added only publications that I'm sure of their importance (e.g., United States Constitution, Napoleonic code, The Ten Commandments). Please check that I added them to the right entries. Can you add a short description of the publications? APH 14:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling discrepancy[edit]

Hi - I noticed you reverted most of one of my edits on the Law article. I had no idea that was acceptable spelling. I haven't been touching things like "colour" or "honour" since I couldn't find the Wikipedia policy on that, but as for the words you reverted I didn't know that was the proper spelling of such words even in the UK. Any chance you could link me to the Wikipedia policy on UK/American spelling discrepancies? VegaDark 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed, I'm back[edit]

Sorry about leaving abruptly. I've had to move, among other things, so as for the section 2 project above, my Hogg text book is in a box in another city, so I'd have to wait until the new year to get it back. But, I do plan to help out around here. I wrote 2 articles for the Canadian law project yesterday; I'm thinking about writing on one of those group sex decisions that came down yesterday, and maybe United States v. Burns. Hope you're having a merry Christmas. Long live Rudolf. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if we can take a break from our rivalry on the s. 1 talk page :), I've started a User:CanadianCaesar/Works in progress on the preamble of the Charter, if you have any ideas for sources or material please let me know. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Law...[edit]

...does not make any sense in the common law tradition, which Canada acquiesces in; but think about it. True law is reason, because the language of law implies purpose. It must be right in order to serve its purpose; and natural because nature presupposes law.


MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO

From The Republic at III, XXII (Loeb Classical Library, 1950)

True law is right(,) reason(and,) in agreement with nature;

it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.


The US has perverted your common law tradition with unprincipled partisan politics(UPP).

UPP, a derivative of the common law tradition supports the old school paridigm politic of acquisition, control, and protection of government authority.

The body of concepts evolved over many centuries by judges in English courts describes the common law tradition. Whats common about its derivitive, UPP, is tyranny imposed upon common people.

A power structure supported by class distinction, favourtism, nepotism, and dollar driven dementia required the King of England to raise taxes and fatigue colonial legislatures. --He needed money for war-- FDR used it to pack the supreme court; but history shows how the New Deal did nothing to end the Great Depresion.

UPP is the thorn in the backside of American jurisprudence; cultural ties with the common law tradition have never been severed because, the oldest and most prestigious schools in the United States were around before the American Revolution.

There standard has been mimicked, poorly mimicked, and faked through out the United States in the form of publlic education. What trickles down from Harvard and Yale are sincere 18th century beleifs in UPP; but this sincerity is no garrontee for True Law, or the Rule of Law, or the principles enshrined in the US Constitution.

Gary Slapper and David Kelly define common law as "...case centered and hence judge centered...alowing scope...for judicial discretion;" but UPP digresses from this concept by saying nothing of the justness of law but simply how the legal system upholds the law, which derrogates the preamble of the US Constitution from what it is: a preliminary introduction to explain purpose.

This purpose must be used to determine legislative intent and limit judicial discretion in accordance with the body of principles it enshrines.

These unbiased cultural ties of authority supported by, what I refer to as the Adams/Van Dicey axiom: "Those who make and enforce the law are bound to adhere to them to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men," are comensurate to ends prescribed in the US preamble: to perfectively form a union.

As long as those who claim victory have to rob, rip off, scam, cheat, tax and/or lie to do so, triumph belongs to those who succors truth; because without this valor, loose loose is all thats gained.


Hey i saw you edited my Detroit Sleeper Cell page, how dare you!!, jk. I was planning on expanding the article to include more information about the trial and the pending trial of the prosecution for their 'obstruction of justice'?, when I do that i was thinking about putting the article back in the law category, would that meet what you believe are the requirements for putting it under the law category? --M4bwav 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good thanks --M4bwav 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should feel flattered[edit]

I don't know if you've noticed (it's all on my watchlist, anyway), but anons have been editing the main constitutional articles, primarily to add links to the French versions. And although I don't speak a word of French, it looks like they've essentially translated our stuff (a lot of your stuff, because you do so much, but some of my stuff as well). They also created a template that resembles the one you created, with edits from me. Wow, eh? I always knew we were on the frontlines; this is probably an early age for Wikipedia and we're still developing an Encyclopedia of the Constitution of Canada, and it's something to think that future Wikipedians will have to build on what we've done- but who knew we'd be a little inspiration for the French Wikipedia too? Congratulations, anyway. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CourtroomOldSupremeCourt.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you please specify the URL where you found this image on its image description page? Thanks! JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valente[edit]

Hey PUYS, what's up? Hope you don't mind but I moved the article to Valente v. The Queen, which I think is right. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop[edit]

By the way, as of today I'm an administrator! If you ever need help with anything please let me know. I also dropped your name in my RfA, along with 3 other editors. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clare (electoral district)[edit]

Your article Clare (electoral district) has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some other articles that are on the Dead End Pages:

Thanks again! James084 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

...about the hasty moves. That's boredom on my part. Yes, problem is too strong a word, so I apologize for that too. I was just trained not to exaggerate the Charter's importance. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tags for Canadian Government Images[edit]

From your edit history, you're familiar with Canadian law. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and create some appropriate image tags for images produced by the Canadian government? My impression is that so form of Crown copyright exists, but I'm clueless on the details.

Thanks Dethomas 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digby-Annapolis[edit]

Your article Digby-Annapolis has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Once the summer rolls around (late April for me, I think), do you want to revive our old plot to expand Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? We should probably get the other project members involved, too. I also have plans to expand Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- I'd love to get it to a point where I can nominate it for featured status. They're picky though. Cheers, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to do that before the summer, but Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is expanded. Could you please have a look, maybe a copyedit? I plan to add page numbers to the footnotes and then nominate it for featured status. Thanks! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there's a lot missing from the article? Because it's currently at 38K; a good featured article like United States Bill of Rights or the one today, or Xenu, would be 40. Sun is much larger, but that is of course a much more important topic than the Bill, Charter, Xenu or the Jacksons. Unless of course you have an idea of what can be trimmed or forked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PUYS, can you think of any specific cases where section 1 has been used in a way that banned something allowed in the US? It's requested info at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, something allowed in the US that section 1 bans. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, that is poor language. When section 1 would uphold a rights infringement of the kind that wouldn't be allowed in the US. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Canada[edit]

I have nominated it for peer review. Ardenn 07:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of movement[edit]

Good morning, Socks! I'm aiming to get Freedom of movement (a fascinating and important topic, yes?) up to FA status by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy anniversary[edit]

...of the Charter. I'd say all articles in that category are really coming along, wouldn't you? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School's out[edit]

School's out for me, I'm home for the summer. Any plans, ideas on what we should work on? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what... only two red links left on Template:Canadian Charter. I'd be happy to split them, section 9 for you and 14 for me... and we can kill those red links dead before the weekend. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I thought that would be the best way to split them; section 9 seems more up your alley. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freedom of religion category[edit]

Just writing to let you know I've nominated the category for renaming- see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Law selections[edit]

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 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at this?[edit]

Hello! I found you through WikiProject Law. First - awesome username. Second - I was wondering if you'd lend a hand?

See, I've been working a lot recently on the fan fiction article. Fan fiction is usually defined as an unauthorized derivitive work, usually written by a fan and nowadays usually released to the internet for free and for no profit.

Naturally, though, copyright and even trademark law factor in hugely into what can even be used as a source for a derivitive work, and how. Unfortunately, though, the "legal issues" section of the article is almost entirely uncited, and it's also (almost as bad, here...) very U.S-centric, with references to only two other countries' copyright laws (Japan and Russia), with one of them (Russia) getting such a vague reference that it's almost completely useless.

Since you've listed/mentioned yourself as both a law student and a Canadian, I was hoping you'd be interested in beefing up the section with some bits of Canadian copyright and trademark law (sometimes things can be trademarked as well as copyrighted), and/or helping us get some good cites in there, since I'm apparently not all that good at digging up cites for legal issues, though I did liberally sprinkle [citation needed] throughout it.

The Talk page of the article has a section where I went through and detailed my concerns regarding areas that need citation, which may provide an easy jumping-off point. :)

Thank you ahead of time for any help that you wish to give! Any help at all will be much-appreciated. Regards, Runa27 06:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canlii[edit]

Wow, I saw you add the link to Morgentaler v. The Queen. Have they extended their database back that far? Cool... CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Canada Day[edit]

Happy Canada Day. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Canada/Government of Canada[edit]

Nice one! Thanks for sorting these articles out. This makes a lot more sense than lumping everything into one article. Ground Zero | t 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Thanks for your initiative and good work there. -Joshuapaquin 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please email me[edit]

Do you agree with the major change in the Wikipedia rape article? Please email me at [email protected], if you think the article was better before the major deletions and being split-up into many articles. Thank you.

Michael D. Wolok 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogopogo[edit]

Do you have any idea why, according to List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court) the case Horsley v. MacLaren is nicknamed the Ogopogo? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I see, there was a ship involved called the Ogopogo. Anyway, now might be a good idea to archive your talk page :) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PullUpYourSocks/Archive1&oldid=1080773966"