User:BD2412/Archive 011
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catch 22 holes in California LawHi BD2412 You've done some amazing work, especially in the area of law. I found you through a disambiguation you did on a page I worked on, and read your user page. This may be something you are interested in examining: I was involved with a real estate lawsuit. I was the defendant, and a realtor was suing me for going around our agreement to sell to someone who had looked at my house while it was under a listing agreement. But, the buyer didn't buy, and the listing ran out. About six months later, the buyer approached me to buy the house directly, without realtors. After some price negotiation, I sold it to her. A year later, the realtor sued me saying that the buyer and me conspired to make a deal during the term of the listing agreement and he was owed the commission. The contract called for non-binding arbitration, which found decisively in my favor and ordered the realtor to pay for my legal expenses. As was his right, the realtor asked for a "trial de novo" (I think that's the right spelling), which set aside the arbitration ruling and we proceeded to trial. As the actual trial date approached, the realtor withdrew from the case. My lawyer said that the arbitration ruling would then be enforced. The realtor objected and actually won a ruling on the matter in a local court, saying that since the arbitration was dropped, the ruling could not be enforced, and the matter was settled. I had to appeal to a higher court, which ruled in my favor and ordered the lower court judge to reinstate the arbitration ruling. Even though I won, there was no law on the California books that stated that if you withdraw from a trial de novo, the arbitration ruling would then be enforced - I guess I was just lucky that the higher court relied on common sense. Is this interesting to you? I never knew how to go about bringing it to legislator's attention, but think it should be addressed. Talk:Southeast (disambiguation)So, I have come to you to talk about a contentious move request where you made a decision that was impossible to make the right choice in, where emotions ran high and the right decision to make seemed hard to find... yes, of course I am referring to your move close at Talk:Southeast (disambiguation). I don't think that there was any consensus to move at all--we didn't ever get any information from the nominator about what to do with those pages. I'm not sure it's the right call--someone looking for, say, Northeast (film) isn't just one or two clicks away, they actually can't get to the film from Northeast any more. If someone is looking for, say, Southwest Airlines, they have the same problem. I'm thinking of taking it to move review--I do so with no bitterness or discontent or criticism at all, I just don't think the request was clear enough to have any consensus at all from it. Red Slash 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Move review for SoutheastAn editor has asked for a Move review of Southeast. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Red Slash 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Chelsea ManningRegarding Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested_move, where, exactly, did this discussion take place, and who were the admins involved? I am an admin myself, but I am fully aware that I am not Arbcom, and that admins have no more authority than any other editor regarding community consensus. We don't make decisions behind closed doors. Unless the discussion is made public, the move should be reverted pending consensus from a wider community discussion. If that discussion leads to no consensus, then so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Admin's barnstarMany thanks for this. Much appreciated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Talk:Distal#RedirectHey, BD2412. Since you are still performing disambiguation cleanup regarding distal, and more recently proximal, someone probably should have told you about the Distal#Redirect discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Many thanksI was pleasantly surprised by your kind words and I accept your award with thanks. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 04:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC) BD2412, I can't believe that it has been over 7 years and half years since you nominated you me adminship. I thanked you then and I thank you again now. Very kind regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC) RevDelHi BD2412, I noticed you seemed to be online, so I wanted to ply you with a question. In days past, I disclosed much more private information on my userpage than I am comfortable with doing today. Several months ago, at my request, another admin deleted some of the posts in question. Now I'm an admin myself and would basically like to nuke the rest. I'm thinking that since almost no one else has ever edited my page (this might not even involve any such edits), I could just do this under WP:CRD 5, since this would essentially be a G7 matter if applied to pages. Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation for you? Since this is all in good faith, I'd probably be understand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be de-sysopped or otherwise sanctioned for doing so. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:ZürichHi there! I missed the RM→Zürich recently, but I was wondering if you could do the honours and help move Category:Zurich to Category:Zürich and its sub-cats too. I'm sorry if I'm dishing out too much work to an already busy admin; but many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Shimukappu name changeHi. Why was Shimukappu (unique title) changed to Shimukappu, Hokkaido? Surely this is against normal practice? Kleinzach 09:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Trayvon Martin speechYou made the right decision on Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago in what was probably a politicized environment. These are the kind of hard decisions Admins make that often are criticized but it is clear that you weighed all the factors that were evident. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC) The 100 moveAre you happy if I close the discussion on this move and do it? As I understand the rules it's ok for any editor to do this given there is full support and 10 days have elapsed. Your listing under requested moves was fine though I wasn't exactly sure why it had to be listed there as it's not complicated - there's only one archive page. But if you want to complete it that's fine. 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as partyThe drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Stump v. Sparkman and Harris v. HarveyMight you be able to help me find someone to answer a question about the law in Talk:Stump v. Sparkman#Harris v. Harvey? The latter was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Judge Harvey was denied judicial immunity for actions he took outside the courtroom. This is the opposite of Stump v. Sparkman, in which Judge Stump was found to be protected. Harris v. Harvey shows that judicial immunity has limits in fact, not just in theory. As such, I think it makes it easier for people to understand the principle. It also is interesting from the perspective of the history of race relations in the US, because Harris was an African-American police Lieutenant. Judge Harvey gave interviews to news media in which he allegedly made blatantly racist comments. For those comments and other actions outside his jurisdiction, he was found not to be protected by judicial immunity. However, I don't understand the extent to which that decision is precedential, and I'd like that clarified before inserting a brief section on Harris v. Harvey to the article on Stump v. Sparkman. I'm writing you, because you made the most recent 3 edits to that article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Talkback from Technical 13Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 19.
Message added 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Notifying all users that were involved in the same discussion a few weeks ago which involved deletion of this category. Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Maicon Sisenando RMHi there. You participated in a move-discussion for Maicon Sisenando in February 2013. I've now opened a new RM, where I propose that this footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I hope you take the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC) [STATE] lawyer categoriesI'd appreciate your input here, if you have an opinion. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC) National Jiaotong UniversityHello, BD2412, and thank you for your contributions! An article you worked on National Jiaotong University, appears to be directly copied from http://readtiger.com/wkp/en/Beijing_Jiaotong_University. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted. It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on National Jiaotong University if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Corrupted noticeI got a corrupted ping from you marked 16 hours ago, but with a link to "no page". Any idea what you might have been doing so that I can write a bug report?—Kww(talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Speedy deleteHi BD2412, regarding your decline to delete that article, I asked for it to be deleted because I created it by mistake when I tried to tag the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article to be merged into Modified Newtonian dynamics. I typed a letter capitalized (the 'd' in dynamics) and apparently that created a whole new article (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which is the one I tagged for deletion. I just removed the merge tag from this last article so now it redirects to the correct one. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm new to TW. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Now we know why we are partiesThe drafting admin is proposing that we violated BLP as a "finding of fact".—Kww(talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Greetings and... reasonable doubtGreetings BD2412. I'm in the process of preparing an AN/I regarding possible trolling, etc., and as part of my "investigation", am following up a couple of loose ends. I noticed that back in 2005 you were in contact with a user who seems to have retired. While it is, admittedly, a long shot, I'd like to know if you had any doubt as to said user's response and bona fides. Sorry to hassle you, but this stuff happens. --Technopat (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) National Jiaotong UniversityHi. I saw the note you got from MadmanBot, archived to User:BD2412/Fifteenth dated archive#National Jiaotong University. I made a dummy edit and placed {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Brevity in RM discussionsI notice here you added what you called "standard header instructions". Where did you get that text from? I note that Wikipedia:Requested moves doesn't include the word "brief" anywhere. StAnselm (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Thank youThank you for the tip about notifying Wikiprojects. I wasn't sure it wouldn't be considered canvassing, so I thought it best to ask for admin input. :b October 2013
Talk:Mike_Reid_(actor)Hi - would you mind explaining your close here, especially about there being a clear majority of the subset who wanted it moved, to move it to "(actor)"? My tally shows the following:
So it looks like "Mike Reid" was the first or only choice of 4 of the seven participants (which is also four of the six who wanted it moved). Only two had "Mike Reid (actor)" as a first choice, with two having it as a second choice. My math shows a "clear majority" in favor of "Mike Reid", don't you think? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
AndranikGood point on Andranik (given name). I missed that there was no specific information about the name at Napoleon (disambiguation), and given the number of people listed there, am surprised that we don't have anything about that name! Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Chelsea ManningThanks for the note. I do plan on participating, but I have not had the necessary time to read the arguments in sufficient detail yet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
THANKS BD !Many thanks for helping out in the editing of the Luis González Bravo page. Cheers. SpanishChapters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Discussion notificationThank you for notifying me of the current discussion on the renaming issue for the Bradly Manning article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC) DisambI agree, but I didn't want to split too many hairs over the page format. Star Trek is far more than a set index in appearance and function. I do not want to pose a risk to these pages that have long standing consensus and adequate coverage of the topic in the undecided arena of PTOPIC and DISAMB. Star Wars does two in the same scope and its much more confusing as a result. Though interesting with Indiana Jones and such, I did not realize that the current usage varies so widely. A very good point you made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Re: ThanksWhat a pleasant surprise; I'm truly honoured. I thought it was a bit of a leap from ancient China to the Cold War. There may be more to come if I get time - both Germany and the Soviet Union used multiple launchers in WWII. Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Doctor ZhivagoHi - would you please restore the Doctor Zhivago special redirects? They're there for a reason. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move requestSince you seem to have fully protected this page, you may wish to remove the template at the very top, the "not a vote" template, which begins "If you came here because someone asked you too..." This template goes on to invite the reader to participate in the discussion. However, with the discussion "closed", the reader is no longer invited to participate. Therefore, this template should be removed, and I can't do it. I guess any admin can, but since you protected the page, you should probably be the one to make this edit. Neutron (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Can I also suggest that instead of __NOTOC__, you put __TOC__ in an appropriate location so that we still have the TOC to help us navigate such a huge page? – Smyth\talk 21:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC) The Animals of Farthing Wood (book series)Can you merge this article into The Animals of Farthing Wood? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Carlos-Smith.jpgYou were mentioned at WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg Trackinfo (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Closed discussionsPlease do not edit closed discussions. They are boxed and have a statement in boldface saying not to do so, because they need to remain as a record of what was there when the discussion was closed. If you have mistakenly edited any others than Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Powell, please go back and revert yourself. If you feel disambiguating after the fact is that important, create a talk-page for the closed template and note the correction there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Economics discussionIf I recall, you have a good economics background. I'm wondering if you or perhaps other editors that you know from this field would add additional discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Progressiveness_versus_amount_of_tax. The insertion of the material in several articles has been a point of contention for the past year and it's becoming disruptive. We're starting to go in circles and I think we probably need some fresh voices / eyes on the matter to form a proper consensus as to the best way to address it. Thanks Morphh (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closedThis arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Ban Appeal of AKonanykhinHi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC) A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)Ladies and gents! The disambiguation page is now undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. Therefore, I invite you to particapte in the move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Fast and FuriousPardon me, but would you like to re-merge the page into The Fast and the Furious, or are both still grammatically apart? --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Doctor Zhivago dabpageCan you convert this page to a set index? I would love to see you try without changing the title. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Jurassic ParkI know I can easily convert this into set index, but I can't do the way you have done without knowing the right tables and the right colors. --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC) greetingsFrom Perth (sic) Perhaps you can talk me around this one. There is no such thing as Perth, Australia -= it does not exist in any sens of the word regardless if wikipedia tells you so, and it has nothing to do with primacy, just common sense. There is Perth, Western Australia which a bunch of editors came a cropper/resulted inblood on the floor, and as result we have the terrible misnomer of Perth, which makes wikipedia look very very dumb. So we have Perth, Australia - so why do you so feel so comfortable doing the revert? It would be appreciated if you can show me the error of my ways, as long as you do not come from Perth, Scotland... cheers. satusuro 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I accept your explanation, of your revert, even if I disagree with it, on behalf of the reader on the terms of an existing policy. No further comment at this stage. satusuro 14:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Dr. Seuss.Design death gave his reasoning about Dr. Seuss here. You might need to respond there if you disagree. Jhenderson 777 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Requested RM closesCan you close these four requested moved? Talk:Onda (disambiguation), Talk:Pinet, Talk:Arce, Talk:Castejón. Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk · contributions} 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |