text:
User:Redwolf24/Archive03

Joke Vandalism
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing. -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I'm being funny too...I saw your little vandalism. Congratulations on hitting 1500!

I would have been here sooner, but I got a call from a friend (at 12:30 at night!) who has a kidney infection. She wanted my adivce on what to do; I told her my specialty is theology not peeology and that just because I have Dr. in front of my name doesn't mean I practice medicine! (Actually, I told her to go to the ER if she felt that bad.) Anywho, good work! -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * How are you a Dr. if your degree is in Theology...? Redwolf24 04:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Dr. because I have two doctorate degrees (four if you count honorary degrees), although I'm only called "Dr." in academic circles. Same reason that any professor (except med school, of course) is called "Dr." -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ph. D. Beautiful. Guess my academic achievement! Redwolf24 04:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hummm...I don't know! You tell me. I don't talk about the degrees much because I don't want people to assume things about me; for the most part, I have them listed there because they can be of some help when someone is wondering whether I know what I'm talking about or not. So, if you hadn't noticed my academic creds, what did you think about me? -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I'll try to be NPOV about it. :P I think of you as a very kind user who chases vandals. I haven't seen you contribute to articles lately, just reverting vandalism. NPOV is hard ya know >.< Anyways I'll show my education after I become an admin, though I was just wondering if anyone would vote for me really... Yes I welcome and yes I've created a lot of music related articles and I've been very active but I don't revert vandalism that much. So I'm not sure I'll win the first RfA... Ah well though, if at first you don't suceed, try and try again. Redwolf24 05:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure how mine would go, and I have 27-1-1! Granted, there's still a week to go, but some RfA's don't get 27 votes total in the whole week. TenOfAllTrades is pretty popular, and he got 58 support votes total; I've gotten half that in the first day! My point isn't to brag at all, just to say, you never know! I guarantee you you'll get at least one vote that says Overwhealming, Enthusiastic, Unequivocal Support, And I am unanimous in that! -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I knew you'd get a lot of people. You are always helping and watching help desks though. Plus you answered the questions better than I think I will... Redwolf24 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll do fine. You do a fair bit of helping, and it's obvious you're willing to help when asked. As for the desks, you can watch them too if you want, it honestly doesn't tak much time. When it comes time to answer those questions, if you're having trouble, I'll help you out. Plus, you know I'm going to give you awesome reviews in your nom!

It doesn't take a lot to get into RC patrol, and really, when you do, you'll get caught up in it. (Think of how much fun we had chasing the trolls the other day!) You're going to be an admin, and you're going to be great at it! -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * =-D I'm off to Welcome some more people! Yay

Believe it baby! I beat you to 'em! [Does a little dance] Not many of them out there right now, though, is there? -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rawr. Well I still beat you 97% of the time so I'm fine :P. No there hasn't been many newbs.... Redwolf24 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You've Got Mail. Redwolf24 05:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So do you! -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * haha, ~ doesn't work in hotmail. What a shame! Redwolf24 05:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Did I sign it ~ ? God, I do have an addiction. And I left you a link in my sandbox. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You've gotta go see the latest vote! It's #28. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha good stuff. I really better catch up. Redwolf24 06:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm proud to be a trollslayer! The trolls shall not prevail! -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Where'd you disappear to? -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was talking with some girls. They seemed to be confused. :) Redwolf24 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Randy little bugger! ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Troll
Your troll is back! Special:Contributions/Mickey654 Same time every day! -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * >.< Its alright though. Cept he was banned for 24 hours it says. He'll be back. Oh yes, he will be back. Anyways one of those girls was being harassed online by an Ephebophile. There's nothing I loathe more than men over 18 who go with girls under 16 cause they can't get any with their own age. It frustrates me to no end. I would go on but there's no point. Anywho, now I'll leave my John Hancock. Redwolf24 08:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Uncanny; I'm discussing the 24 hour block with the blocker as we speak! Don't worry, the Trollslayer is on the case!

As for your friend, I sympatize with her; I'm too old for chicken, and I stay away from it. Besides that, what do a thirty-something-year-old and a sixteen-year-old have in common? ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * They're both horny? Redwolf24 08:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dirty bugger! Cheeky monkey! : - ) Check your email. -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * K, I added a section to my user page in a dubious attempt to be profound. Ha, Redwolf24 08:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I applaud your profoundity! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * And I jokingly scowl at your sarcasm :) Back to RC Redwolf24 09:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You've been at RC? I've been having a theology discussion! Now, time for some real-time RC patrol. BTW, the list just keeps getting longer! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Red, go check User talk:Salilus; it looks like there's something wrong with your template! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and frankly I don't get it. You won't be able to fix it either I dont think >.< Redwolf24 09:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you copy/pasting or using the ? -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Edit conflict, predictable one. I was using but now I'm copying nad pasting. Redwolf24 09:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to have to copy/paste, I can fix it so you can subst: -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but please don't. Copy and paste is simpler and two buttons, subst is like 20 keystrokes. Redwolf24 09:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Didn't you tell me you use Firefox? Get this extension. It lets you set predefined signatures (no character limit), and then insert them by right clicking (it adds a signature menu to your right click). That's what I use for my welcomes as well as all my RC patrol notices. It makes it two clicks and you have your message, plus you don't have to keep it on the clipboard to use it, so you can use it when you stumble across some hot girl. : - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ha. Redwolf24 09:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ha? -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, Ha. I'll take a look at that stuff some other time. Right now I'm a bit busy. Also, take a look at User:THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR and User:THE BULLSHIT DETECTIVE. Redwolf24 10:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Calm down, dude...I just didn't quite get what you meant by "Ha." I know you've been busy; your name's gone across my RC screen quite a few times in the last few mins. ; - ) As for those users, I'm going to list them at RfC. -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoa didn't mean to come off as hostile. By the way I was just at RC and there were FOUR USERS IN A ROW without talk pages!! *click* *ctrl+v* *save* *back* *back* *Rinse, Wash, and repeat 3 more times* Redwolf24 10:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Help
Thanks for writing back.

I already entered my revisions and saved.

Does that mean I can't "sign"?

I just can't figure out what it is I'm supposed to sign, or where.

If I logged in before making revisions, does that mean that I'm already "signed" ?

-GreenFerry 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

(Taken care of) Redwolf24 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bounce Your Boobies
Thanks for sticking that category label on the Bounce Your Boobies page. When I created the article, I was afraid some wickedpedean would come along and delete it, but instead I'm getting help! Wikipedia is great... :) -asx- 05:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha, to tell you the truth I expected that to be deleted, I thought someone was vandalizing. Then I saw that it was an actual song. So I stuck a category on it :) Redwolf24 05:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Skillz
Heh Thanks for the welcome. Skillz187

Thanks again

Skillz187 10:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem. And if you ever need help, I'm your man :) Redwolf24 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Usernames
(I'm starting a new section 'cause the old one was getting really long.)

Anyhow, I listed both of those users at RfC, and I left notes on each of thier pages directing them to the username policy. Also, the one with the nasty note on his user page got a note about no personal attacks. We'll see what the admins at RfC say. -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

(I think you missed the above.)

I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were hostile; that's why I added the smiley. I just didn't want you to think I was being snippy. -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah at first I didn't comment cause of that smiley but then I decide to, minutes later albeit. Redwolf24 10:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY USER ACCOUNT?

THE BULLSHIT DETECTIVE

 * Sounds like somebody needs to lay off the coffee...

 * And it was deleted because it's an offensive username. I suggest you read Username_policy to make sure it doesn't happen again. NickBush24 11:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Further, you should know that Redwolf24 cannot delete accounts; if your account was blocked, it was by a Wikipedia administrator because it violated Wikipedia policy. Please see your talk page for an explaination. -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Neither account has been blocked as of now; however, consensus to block is developing at RfC. -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was the one who started it out. I was gonna welcome him but then I saw his name and changed it to a name warning. Redwolf24 11:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Right, then I went behind you and left a policy link and listed it at RfC. I don't know why he thinks his account was deleted, when it obviously hasn't been. Perhaps he needs to direct his crusade towards himself. -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

THATS A PERSONAL ATTACK. MY NAME DOESNT OFFEND ANYONE AND YOU KNOW IT. IF U WANNA SPLIT HAIRS LIKE THAT, Y'ALL SHOULD REPORT YOURSELVES FOR PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME. I DONT FOLLOW MINDLESS RULES. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE MY NAME IS INFRINGING ON SOMEONES RIGHTS, IT STAYS

THE BULLSHIT DETECTIVE

Your name offends... The username policy. Your Caps Lock is slightly annoying. You add "quackery" to medical articles. You will be banned within the next 3 hours. Redwolf24 16:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The irony of having a bullshit detective deal out bullshit quite tickles my funnybone... Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your standard welcome message needs fixing
Methinks you need to fix your standard welcome message by replacing all occurrences of the tilde ~ by &#126; lest the tilde-sequences get replaced when you {{subst: it. See e.g. User talk:Reynoldsrapture for the effect. Lupo 12:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes I've been addressed on this several times. Thanks for your concern and nice to see a fellow Wolf! Redwolf24 12:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome message
I also like messages :)

Martin Fasani

thanks from Buck
Thanks for the welcome. I've been visiting Wikipedia for quite a while but just started officially editing this week. You mentioned orphans. Define that for me? Also, do you know how to start a new article on a subject that shares its title with an existing article? Case in point: I wanted to add an article on guitarist Steve White but in attempting to do so, I learned that there is another musician named Steve White, a drummer. So when I started my article, I had to alter the title to Steve White (guitarist) for lack knowing a better system. Also, if someone searches for "Steve White" they will only find a reference to the drummer.

I tried to find info through reading the help pages, but so far no luck...

buck 14:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Taken care of. See Steve White now. :) Redwolf24 14:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, orphans. An orphan page is a page that isn't in any categories. Like your Steve White would be in Category:Guitarists. Redwolf24 14:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks a bunch. buck 14:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No prob, I love to help! If you need anything else, you know where to find me :) Redwolf24 14:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Peace Dove
To all participants of the WikiProject Kindness Campaign: There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kindness Campaign for the Peace Dove. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks, Sango  123  16:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * K, I'll look right at it. Redwolf24 16:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks alot!
I've been a Wiki fan for a while and I have just started editing pages with an account. Thanks for welcoming me! no problem

P.S Sabbath Rules! damn straight!

Bancroftian

 * Remember to use ~ ! Redwolf24 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I'm just reading random pages and pedantically correcting the odd spelling or link here and there. Nice to be made welcome. User:Hypercene

 * (Replied) Redwolf24 16:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Consider me chastened, and here is the requested sig:

Hypercene 21:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Way to go :D Redwolf24 21:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
I am still finding my way around, so forgive if I make mistakes. I mean well and I'll end up fixing them. I will appreciate any criticism and feedback. I also love the talk, so leave me a message every now and then! And don't worry, I'm the kind that reads the boring material, even if it takes me a while.

Thanx for your welcome!

--Doppelgängland 17:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ha, those who get the farthest in life are those who read boring material :) Redwolf24 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Another thanks for welcoming!
Thanks for the welcome... I just got done with the tutorial and hope to start with some updating of some pages related to my university! Fallstorm 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, you read the tutorials. Studies show that only 1 in every 200 wikipedians read those. Also, 47.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Anyways, Kudos for reading them. I'm sure you'll be a very valuable user!! Redwolf24 17:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Redwolf. Awesome work on making new users feel welcome! Blue talk page links with red user page links and the thank-you messages on this page are evidence enough. :)

Sango 123  17:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much!! :D Redwolf24 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You mean the picture of the London City Hall? It's nice, isn't it? :) You can get one of Wikipedia's best images delivered to your user or talk page every day by typing   where you want the Pic of the Day to appear. These are the July Pics of the Day. Regards,  Sango  123  17:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes it is quite nice. Im not sure I want the pic of the day, it looks a bit too big and cluttering. Anyways, remember to support me when I RfA. :-P *advertises* With much respect, Redwolf24 17:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course I'll vote for you! Providing I don't forget, of course. So in actuality, the chances are pretty slim. (Just kidding.) ;) Sango  123  19:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * uh oh, better remember :P. I'll leave a giant message on this page saying ESSJAY NOMINATED ME (cause, just as I nominated him, he's gonna nominate me. We made a deal to nominate eachother at 2000 edits) and then you can go and gimme a yes :D Redwolf24 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That wasn't a threat, was it? :D I just checked: You're at 1751 edits. Good luck in advance! Sango  123  19:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, good guess of me wasn't it :) If we keep using these colons we're gonna have a column with one letter per break Redwolf24 19:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder if it's possible for the text to be so indented that it'll disappear...? Sango  123  20:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah I did it before :P Redwolf24 20:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I just tried it, but I suppose I shouldn't further mutilate your talk page. XD Sango  123  20:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * >xD oh soooo many colons. Redwolf24 20:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh soooo addicting. XO Sango  123  20:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Good thing I had wiki in fullscreen this whole time. It'd be run out otherwise. Redwolf24 20:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Illinoisian thanks
Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it. Illinoisian 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem!! :D Redwolf24 22:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another thanks for the welcome
Thank you for the welcome, I appreciate it. --Algebra 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Anti-vandalism is about all I do here :P

 * Anti-vandalism is needed a lot too. See Republic of Illinois for the biggest hoax I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Redwolf24 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

re:Republic of Illinois
Speedied. When I first heard about 9/11 though (by word of mouth, not on the news,) I didn't think it was true either. Thanks for the help! Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem at all. As for 9/11, my mum woke me up and showed me it on tv. But that Illinois thing was a well written hoax. Anyway's I've see you before as an admin and despite the fact that you're a newer admin, you seem to be doing fine. By week's end I should be at RfA, I hope I can count on your vote! :) Redwolf24 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I took a quick look at your contributions, and since I believe in granting adminship very liberally, I've seen all I need to in order to support you. As it turned out, that was the first vfd I closed (I had to look up how to do it,) so it was a good start for me anyway. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha, I just read up a bit on the admin pages you're supposed to read when you become one. Anyways, look at Essjay who I nominated, his votes are like 40-1-1!!!!! Redwolf24 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I did read that bit before, but I promptly forgot it since I had no intention of closing vfd discussions at the time. I will read it again if I ever decide to do so (all I've been doing as an admin is deleting speedy candidates and blocking obvious vandals after they have been warned.) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, its quite wise to not do too much until you know what you're doing. With respect, Redwolf24 22:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting!
Thanks for the greeting. Hope my work is up to your standards. (I tend to make a lot of typos.) Re the lemming: Looks like a small groundhog, don't you think? Cheers, User:LegalBeagle, 14 JUL 2005 (Vive la France!)

 * Yeah, a fat groundhog. I love lemming <3. Anyways, Viva la Fair Use :D.  Don't worry about typos, there's always someone to clean your mess >xD Cheers, Redwolf24 22:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the hello message, very usefull!

Ravedave

 * VERY Welcome!!! Redwolf24 22:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nsaa thanks
Thanks for the welcomme and the tips and trics :-) Nsaa 22:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're as welcome as can be :) Redwolf24 23:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

you like messages
You like messages well I don't care. Communist. User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod

 * Haha. No Redbaiting <_<  >_>    Redwolf24 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Quiet Commie-nazi, I need not hear what you say. User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod I don't care about redbaiting how about that.

Commie-nazi. That makes sense. Redwolf24 23:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It was a reference to something, if you didn't have the intellegence of a 5 year old, then you understand it. You liberal meshugina.

User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod

Pffft. I'm not even liberal (or conservative for that matter). Redwolf24 23:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Then you're a communist, because you are not Zod like me, so you cannot have the same opinions on things as Zod. User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod Boo yah.

Eh this is pointless. You forgot, however, to compare me to Hitler in a 5 paragraph essay. Work on it. Redwolf24 23:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't compare people to Hitler because that is pointless, because no one is like Hitler. You are an evil nazi, but you're not a Hitler-like evil nazi. User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod

Yeah you do go with the more mature things like changing the Democratic logo with a swastika. Redwolf24 23:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I know that's not mature. And anyway, that was my cousin, I went to the bathroom, and he got on for awhile and was being an idiot. So don't talk to me like I did anything for I am Zod and I can break you, so leave it.

Eh, you went to the bathroom for... half an hour. That's the time spent trolling my page plus the Swastika thing makes it even longer. Plus you signed with Oi VI. You're the same person. Redwolf24 23:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You ignoramus! My cousin just did the hitler pictures and the swastikas and what not. I've been the one talking to you you imbecile. I can't believe that people that are stupid like you exist. It makes we want to start playing russian roulette with myself.

Greetings
I've been here for a little while, and I actually admin my own MediaWiki (which I probably shouldn't link, since it's rather dead as of late..) I just don't tend to edit much around these parts, being an empty-headed college kid. But thanks for the welcome just the same. ~ Aero Leviathan 23:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha you forgot the sig. Im surprised a playstation wiki died, you'd think there'd be enough for it. Ah well, Redwolf24 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the basket of cookies, neighbor.
I saw your post on my talk page, thanks for dropping by. I'd like to start a grandiose speech about my dreams for Wikipedia and featured articles to be, but the Simpsons is on, and a quick look-over of your page shows you like most of the same things I do: serial killers and decent music. Good luck on your administrative dreams, and thanks for welcoming me.Robludwig 23:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) After editing this 3 times, I realize it'll be a long while until I'm a decent Wikipedian. Yea, I linked that.Robludwig

 * Haha. Keep going at it, I'm not sure I'm a decent wikipedian :) Redwolf24 20:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Thanks for the welcome. I've been making additions to various video game articles, Sonic the Hedgehog especially, but never thought to bacome a member until recently. I'll try my best not to do anything stupid.

 * Haha, good mantra. Redwolf24 00:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome
Thank you for your message. I try to edit my writings so that it looks what I read here but I just can't understand how to get start it.

 * By any chance do you contribute to another wikipedia? Redwolf24 00:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Troll2
Sorry I wasn't here while you were being trolled; you know if I was, I would have been all over him. I'm glad El C blocked him for the time being; I know El C, so if the troll comes back, I'll ask El C to take him out. Hope to see you back soon! -- Essjay ·  Talk 03:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Kate's tool is back online; just checked you, and you're 111 away! I'm heading off for my sandbox to draft an RfA...

 * Oh, and by the way, my 2500th is coming up quick! -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since we have somewhat of a tradition, I just dropped by to say you're #2500! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh my, Red! I was going to go find you a (legal) lemming pic to cheer you up, but when I typed in "Lemming + public domain" on Yahoo!, what did I find? Check #9. ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I told you that lemming was in public domain :) I'm gonna lower my wikistress as soon as I reply to all of these messages!!Redwolf24 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Principles
Red, I'm looking for some counsel on a page that I created and is now up for deletion. The page is EcoDuro and it is listed in the Company listing. My thought was to list it properly in the Company listing and to write about the Company as part of a set of Companies I'm going to discuss around sustainability, which I believe is a pretty large global issue and will only grow.

The questions I have is that someone wants to delete the page for "self promotion". I read the criteria for deletion and there is no "self promotion" deletion criteria. the only thing close is the Vanity Page discussion, which I do not think this page meets. I've made comments and I'll try recruiting others to my page, but since you were kind enough to leave me a message, I thought I would reach out to get your comments/thoughts.

I have a true desire to improve the wikipedia and have already added a number of articles that I hope are valuable (American Alpine Club, Participating Preferred Stock, NAICS Entries among others). I have a thought to expand the Company section using the NAICS codes and integrating it into the Companies section of Wikipedia. It turns out that all companies or their subsidiaries will fall under the NAICS codes created by the US Census bureau.

Thanks for any thoughts or comments.

 * Ridiculous. I voted keep and left a comment. Redwolf24 21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Marc
Thanks alot for the nice welcome! Marc Zimmermann 09:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem, glad you got the signing thing down, some of my welcomed users haven't. :) Redwolf24 21:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Redwolf24/Archive03


text:
User talk:BrandonYusufToropov/Jihad page

What editors have been putting up with on this page over the past month

July 19

July 18

July 18

July 11

July 8

July 8

June 22

June 14

---

[]

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Kamitra

If I do anything, it'll prove that I just can't sit around and let things go by. Really I don't do much with Wikipedia, and I'd rather not. Hopefully I learn to work WITH the formatting set by the rules, rather than just apologizing. Things I care about enough to mess with: ~ Languages (Pidgin especially) ~ Japan ~ Anime

title: User:Kamitra


text:
Talk:Precedent

History of Precedent
I would appreciate a historical analysis of precedent from the time of it's inception onward. I assume precedent comes from Roman times, but I am woefully uninformed on this subject. What is the precedent of precedent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.172.122 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Common Law is the will of mankind issuing from the life of the people, is an engraving on the United States Department of Justice building.

Common law is not a legal system. It is a judicial system. Cases involving "a suit at the common law" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts, that makes all courts common law courts. [c.f. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), United States Reports  ].

A court of record only moves under the common law. Courts of record proceed without the use of statutes and are judicial courts and their final judgments cannot be appealed. (c.f. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM vol 25 section 344, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 426. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689].

The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this Court would be. It is as conclusive on this Court as on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it.” [Ex Parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 202-203. Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States (1801–1835)]

Courts which proceed with the use of statutes ( legal system) are legislative (inferior) courts [c.f. Article III Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..." , Article I section 8 "The Congress shall have power...To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court..."]

All federal courts are courts of record [c.f CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM vol 25 section 344] which at common law not only have the authority to apply or interpret the law, but also the authority to create law if it does not already exist by act of legislature. This is called case law precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.108.224 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * To the degree the six prior paragraphs are not pure gibberish, they're incorrect. See court of record and Talk:court of record for discussion of the errors.  The one exception is these two sentences, "[Courts] at common law not only have the authority to apply or interpret the law, but also the authority to create law if it does not already exist by act of legislature. This is called case law precedent."  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 73.38.59.62 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This article needs fixing
I've redirected Binding authority and Persuasive authority to this article, but I'm thinking twice about it. This is not a particularly enlightening piece. I'm contemplating rewriting... Mmmbeer 22:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories
Why is this included in the category "Logical fallacies"? --Eastlaw 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because an argument from precedent is a logical fallacy. mmm beer T / C / ? 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing judicial precedent is not a fallacious "appeal to authority"
Dear fellow editors: I agree, this article needs work.

I argue that the reference to reliance on "precedent" as a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) is misplaced in the context of legal precedent. In English common law systems (e.g., in England, USA, Canada, etc.), the rule of precedent (specifically, judicial precedent) basically says that if a prior court decision is on "all fours" (or very close to "all fours") with the issues and facts presented in a current case, the court in the current case should follow the holding of the prior case (assuming certain other legal points not relevant to this discussion). This is a rule of law in English common law systems, not a method of determining the "truth" or "falsity" of something. It's a part of the English system of legal rules itself. The key point is that we're not following the holding of the prior case because it's "correct" or "true." We're simply applying a rule of the legal system.

Let's compare this to the fallacy of "improper appeal to authority." If we want to determine what a particular constitutional provision, statute, reg, or court case says, we read the actual text thereof. For example, suppose someone asks, "Hey, what's your authority or rationale for saying that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States?" We respond by pulling out a copy of the U.S. Constitution and reading the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says just that. (I'm assuming that we have an actual verbatim copy of the text.) It's not a question of saying that we are making an improper, fallacious "appeal to authority" here. And it's not a question of saying that the statement is "true" merely because authority says it's true. If you want to know what the law is, you read the law.

In law, the actual text of the statute or, in the case of a court decision, the holding, etc., IS the law. When we cite a statute or court decision, we are not "appealing to authority" in the same sense that we are doing so when we say "the Earth revolves around the Sun because Copernicus says so." Whether Copernicus is right or wrong about the facts, whether Copernicus says so does not DETERMINE the ontological correctness of the statement that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

However, in the case of law, if we contend that the statute says such and such a thing, a direct, exact quotation from the statute itself IS CONCLUSIVE (again, assuming arguendo that our copy of the statute is an actual, verbatim print of the statute, etc.). Similarly, citing legal precedent (or, more specifically, judicial precedent) is "more correct" in a fundamental sense in determining "what the law is" than appealing to Copernicus for a "determination" of whether the Earth goes around the Sun.

Now, in medieval times they might have had a "rule of law" that whatever the Church said about how the universe operated was "the law" (i.e., secular law). But in medieval times, what the Church (the Authority) said about the universe -- whether correct or not -- still did not change or affect in an actual, ontological sense, the laws of physics or the nature of the universe. In this way, appealing to the Church as the ultimate authority on determining whether the Earth revolved around the Sun (or vice versa) would have been fallacious, in a way that citing precedent in the English common law system is NOT fallacious.

Of course, problems such as (1) determining what the judicial precedent really is -- how broadly or narrowly to frame the holding of the prior case, and (2) whether the facts of the prior case really are close enough to our facts, and (3) whether the prior case has been overruled, reversed, limited, etc., are separate, complex issues.

The real confusion that results in incorrectly thinking that the use of legal precedent is somehow "fallacious" actually involves a fallacy of a different sort -- the fallacy of "whole word equivocation." In talking about legal precedent (whether judicial or administrative) we are using the term "precedent" in a technical legal sense. In talking about "precedent" in the context of a fallacious appeal to authority, I argue that we are using "precedent" in a slightly different way. We are improperly trying to "make equal" two different senses of the same word ("precedent") that are not really "equal."

I think you can reasonably argue back and forth about whether the English common law system -- including the rule of judicial precedent -- is a good or bad system, or whether the underlying policy considerations that resulted in the creation of the rule of precedent and the incorporation of that rule into the English system were good or bad policies. For example, maybe we should abolish the system of precedents because .... whatever. But those are separate concepts.

Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I do not mean to imply that simply quoting from any passage of text of a court opinion establishes the holding of the case, the precedent for which that case stands. For fellow lawyers, my explanation assumes with respect to citations to precedent, that you have "correctly" distilled the holding of the cited case, etc. For the majority of readers -- who are not lawyers -- what this means is that court cases are a bit different from statutes and regulations. Most of what is written in the text of a court opinion is not necessarily the "precedent," the "rule" for which that case stands. I am simply saying that in the context of citing precedent (whatever that happens to be for a particular case), the citation to the precedent is not a "logical fallacy" -- it's the proper method of analysis in an English common law system. Yours, Famspear 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is now three and a half months later, and no one else has commented on this. I have therefore deleted the language from the article. Yours, Famspear 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Famspear is correct. The law and religion are the two areas of human activity where something true because a specific person with authority to say so said so.  When a majority of the Supreme Court says the law is such-and-so, well, that's the law.  And the only reason it is the law is because a majority of the Supreme Court said so.

That's the defintion of a "common law" system.

Now things are different in civil law systems, but I don't understand that enough to opine.

Boundlessly (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge from case law
I will shortly propose that the article case law be merged with this one because the terms have nearly identical meanings and their respective articles are almost completely redundant. Precedent refers either to the precedential effect of a single case or the aggregate of all cases with respect to a given legal question. Case law is the same thing but usually refers to all of a legal system's precedent in aggregate. Sure, case law has a nuance that focuses on the case itself whereas precedent refers to its effect. However, the difference is slight and doesn't really justify two different articles.

Alas, neither article is very good. This one is written in better English and is as a whole more accurate, but misses the point. The other one is full of awkward language and inaccuracies, and has no section headers. Neither has any citations. Combining the two can't make things any worse, and might encourage someone to actually clean things up. This is an important and worthy subject, and I think we can do better. Wikidemo 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Text from "opinion"
I gutted the discussion of case law from the opinion article and made it refer here because it too is redundant. Here is some language I removed that might be salvageable for use here:

 * Cases decided by a country's Supreme Court, for example, sometimes become well-known because they express the court's "opinion" on how law is to be interpreted, which can have very wide implications. This usage of the word opinion is different from the common usage (outside the legal field), because the court's opinion is not the opinion of any person, but the court's decision after careful deliberation of the case, and is binding on relevant future cases in lower courts. When a multi-member court is less than unanimous, the majority opinion states the outcome of the case and the reasoning behind the court's decision. Other judges or justices on the court may write opinions concurring with or dissenting from the majority opinion.

-- Wikidemo 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Latin term identifying a decision as one that should not be held as precedent?
Judges can write in a decision that they don't wish for it to be used as precedent in case law. E.g., I have read that Bush v. Gore is such a case. Whether subsequent interpreters of case law will honor that wish, and whether judges should or do have the authority to specify this, I don't know (IANAL). My question is, is there a "legal Latin" term for this? I could swear that I've seen such a term before, but I can't think of any googling terms that lead me back to it. I keep thinking ad hoc ("to this", i.e., "regarding only the current instance"). But I'm not sure if ad hoc is really used that way as a term of art in law (because IANAL). Can any lawyer answer that? — ¾-10 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Custom and case law are not precedents
I just took a quick look over here while considering suggestions for the Caselaw page and I cringed when I saw the last two listings for types of precedent. As to each:

 * Custom is a source of law recognized within states that follow the civil law tradition. Custom is not a civil law tradtion version of case law, it is a completely separate source of law.  Private custom, particularly within industries and professions, has also been considered by common law tradition courts (or at least courts in the USA, but I believe other common law states as well) for the purpose of determing what acts can be considered negligent.  That use by the common law courts is a factual determination, not a legal one.  But most important, though published cases using or recognizing custom may be precedent, the custom they recognize is not.  Or, at least, no more so than the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the USA is precedent because cases use it to rule that slavery is illegal.

 * Case law is the body of precedents that a court may rely upon. It's the entire body of applicable precedent, whether to a single jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions.

I'm removing those two subsections from the article. IMHO (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with "stare decisis?"
The article on "stare decisis" is quite good (though it could use some work).

Would it make sense to merge the good material from this "precedent" article into the "stare decisis" article, and redirect?

Boundlessly (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"rule of law" means "question of law" or "point of law"?
In the intro paragraph, when referring to a "rule of law", does that mean a "question of law" or "point of law"? This is an important facet of this whole thing, isn't it? That stare decisis is a legal precedent that binds a lower court to rulings on points of law, i.e. interpretations of law, by superior courts (not just any superior court, either, but a directly superior court)? If so, it should be wikilinked to that article whenever possible. Int21h (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * "Question of law" is something different -- is it decided by a judge (question of law0 or decided by a jury (question of fact). I agree with your latter observation, that "linked whenever possible" is a good practice, when the term is not an everyday one known to everyone.  Boundlessly (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

When there is no precedent, what is there, really?
So I was editing some articles related to the Judiciary of Russia, and I was wondering what actually happens in those judicial systems that do not use precedent as we WASPs know it, like Russia, Germany, France, etc. There are other factors to be considered, facts that I am not sure, before Wikipedia (hell, even before I edited those articles, really), people really knew about. Like the fact that unlike the US Supreme Court, these European courts are not the same people from day-to-day or case-to-case; that is, a "court" does not decide a case, a "chamber" does. (And, of course, the thing everyone neglects to mention is that a chamber is a small subset of the court, and no one on Wikipedia knows how the subset is chosen.) So, given:

 * 1) each case may be decided by completely different people, even within the same session ("chambers")
 * 2) they don't have to follow previous decisions (no precedent)
 * 3) its well known different people make different decisions in systems with precedent (eg the different US Supreme Courts, which are not bound by their own precedent)

what makes this "jurisprudence constante" in practice? I mean, especially if theres a chance you could appeal and get a completely different Supreme Court than yesterday -- or tomorrow? Are we English, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, and Irish Wikipedians the only ones who know how our laws are interpreted and will be interpreted? I mean, hell, we have precedent and there are still thousands upon thousands of academic literature bodies debating what the law is -- after the Supreme Court just said what it was! Int21h (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove the section: Rules of Statutory Interpretation?
The section, Rules of Statutory Interpretation, seems out of place in this article. Should it be removed?  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  09:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, perhaps remove section but add a "See also" Statutory interpretation? Qexigator (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed section.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  01:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I disagree with this action, and restored the status quo ante, until there's some genuine discussion. Resolution of questions of statutory interpretation is one of the most important purposes of precedent.  The right way to handle Sparkle82's question is to add a tie in for relevance.

 * Also, I am very puzzled at the edit of correct material explained by "remove unsourced content." The rule in MOS is that material must be capable of being supported by citation to reliable sources, not that the citation be there on the day that Sparkie82 happens by.  Unless you have an informed basis to believe that something is in error, is not the correct approach to add a "citation needed" tag, not to remove?  The latter smacks of vandalism.

 * 50.169.56.27 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a textbook. See WP:NOT. If you want to write a legal textbook on legal analysis in general, please go write for the Wikibooks project. Statutory interpretation is not intrinsically part and parcel of precedent or vice versa; civil law systems do it all the time, even though the way they perform it is not guided by a system of precedents or stare decisis as in common law jurisdictions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Precedent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704095246/http://www.law.gmu.edu/gmulawreview/issues/14-2/documents/SINCLAIR.pdf to http://www.law.gmu.edu/gmulawreview/issues/14-2/documents/SINCLAIR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113032452/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statutory interpretation in the U.K. : Golden Rule
According to this page, the Narrow Method application of Golden Rule is exemplified in Adler v George. But the wikipedia page to Golden rule (law) reads:"The leading case on the wider approach is Adler v George" ! There is a contradiction here. 03:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naytz (talk • contribs)
 * Ha! Well, now that golden rule page says that the rule can be applied with either the narrow approach OR the wide approach XD. problem fixed? Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Way too many excessively long blockquotes
Whomever put in that many huge blockquotes wasn't trained properly in English composition. I figured out that writing consisting almost entirely of giant blockquotes is bad by the time I was 10 years old.

Good writing keeps the quotes short and seamlessly interweaves them into a coherent narrative or argument. Bad writing relies too much on excessive quotation (without adequate text to lead in or out of each quote) because the writer has no idea how to properly weave quotes together in his or her own voice. Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Statutory Interpretation in the UK - Purposive Approach
The article says that the Purposive Approach won't be used after the UK leaves the European Union. I'd think this would need a source, considering the purposive approach was defined in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 which is quite clearly English law. 2A02:C7D:C532:BE00:3820:EBC4:F342:1A4C (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is a total mess
This article is a total mess. I propose to clean up the following issues in three or four months or whenever I get around to it:

 * Wikipedia is not a textbook. There are too many examples of particular instances of one subtopic or another in the article.  The correct approach is to discuss a subject at a high level of generality, with minimal digressions to examples, and cite to sources to enable readers to look up such detail if they really need it. The laundry list of quotations from U.S. Supreme Court cases is wholly inappropriate for WP (or for that matter, any kind of formal English writing for either lawyers or laypersons); it looks like someone copied and pasted part of a law student's outline into WP.  There are also many too many lengthy digressions into tangents of minimal relevance to the core topics of precedent and stare decisis, such as statutory interpretation, res judicata, and law of the case (which are all already the proper subjects of their own articles and do not require lengthy discussion here).
 * Wikipedia must be verifiable. There are too many unsourced assertions, which is improper for a topic so heavily discussed and debated.
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are too many discussions in body text of cases of questionable notability, such as McIntyre v. Balentine. In such cases, the relevant principle should be summarized (with the case merely cited in a footnote) and notable cases should be used whenever possible to illustrate such principles.
 * Excessively long blockquotes. There are too many long quotes, which should be omitted, reduced, or paraphrased.

Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I only briefly skimmed the article but I agree with everything you noted. This is an absurdly long article with very few inline citations. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be of much help here, but I think a clean-up by yourself or anyone else interested would be valuable. Rovenrat (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this also. Statutory interpretation and res judicata content should me merged into the existing articles for those subjects. National laws should be organized into sections and details should be in linked articles. Comparative comments should be sourced. The cases cited should be notable ones. There are a lot of problems. We don't need to delete verifiable content but it doesn't all need to be in one article. Eunomia libri (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Third Kind of Law?
The intro to the article makes mention that “Common-law precedent is a third kind of law” but nothing before explains what the other two might be. It looks like it was cut from somewhere else and the reference ignored or not noticed. I would fix it, but absent deleting it, it’s not clear how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct attribution for stare decisis disliking science (and mathematics?)
The article quotes Michael McHugh of the High Court of Australia saying judges navigate stare decisis from case to case, like the ancient Mediterranean mariners, hugging the coast from point to point and avoiding the dangers of the open sea of system and science. According to others including the UK Supreme Court this was Lord Wright, The Study of Law (1938) LQR 185, 186.

Anyone know how to find this old book online?

I see on this Talk page that other people object to too many quotations, however, I think this is one that should be kept (but correctly sourced.) Stare decisis really does not like science, and I suspect it does not like mathematics either.

Dan Shearer (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Interesting quote. Rather reminds me of Linear interpolation. I couldn't find the journal, but guessed that it might be included in a "collected works" of Wright, which it is: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Legal-Essays-Addresses-Wright-Durley/dp/1107452708. Some of the pages of the book are available here: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Legal_Essays_and_Addresses/mzM9AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Legal+Essays+and+Addresses&pg=PA417&printsec=frontcover

Talpedia (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * @Talpedia:
 * I couldn't find the journal, but guessed that it might be included in a "collected works" of Wright...
 * Good find, but no. The search function says there is no match for the word 'mariners' in this book.
 * Dan Shearer (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Odd, the essay is listed in the table of contents. I wonder if it's not searching the missing pages. Talpedia (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It may also be contained in Legal Essays and Addresses. By the Right Hon. Lord Wright of Durley. 1939. Cambridge University Press. I might just have access to some of this come to think of it via the Wikipedia Editors's journal access scheme. I'll check.
 * Dan Shearer (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The Cambridge University Press paywall article from 2009 was hiding... a 2 page review written in the 1940s of a book published by Wright in 1939, which may (or may not) have contained his essay from 1928.
 * Dan Shearer (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction should be clearer
I have made the introduction less wooly, but there is much room for improvement.

For example, the generic e-law resources uk gives the following insufficient but much more direct explanation: ''The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on stare decisis. That is the standing by of previous decisions. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case, that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts.''

I propose moving stare decisis to the very first sentence, with an explanation of the term.

Dan Shearer (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * "that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts." Not in criminal law in the UK I believe? Also the troll / legal realist in me thinks "unless they don't like them, can think of a way of trying to distinguish the facts of a case, and are happy enough with the policy implications that they are willing to accept them... or if they can magically "fail to find" the particular precedent. Talpedia (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that explanation is totally insufficient. But it is a useful model of clarity, while the current article is a model of woolosity (tweediness?)
 * Dan Shearer (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we can accept a little inaccuracy in the lead in exchange for brevity. Talpedia (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Precedent


text:
Sporveien

Sporveien Oslo AS is a municipally owned public transport operator in Oslo, Norway. It operates the trackage and maintains the stock of the Oslo Metro and Oslo Tramway. In 2022, its 3,306 employees transported 217 million passengers. Since 2008 it has operated on contract with the public transport authority Ruter.

Operation
Sporveien is itself responsible for the rail infrastructure in Oslo. The Oslo Metro is operated by the subsidiary Sporveien T-banen while the Oslo Tramway is operated by the subsidiary Sporveien Trikken. Some of the city buses are operated by Unibuss, though these are subject to public service obligation contracts with Ruter.

The responsibility for maintenance and infrastructure is in the hands of the parent company. In addition to the operational subsidiaries of the company, Sporveien also owns three other subsidiaries. AS Sporveien Media is responsible for sale of advertisement on the buses and rails. This company cooperates with JCDecaux..

History
The first tramways in Oslo were created by Kristiania Sporveisselskab (the Green trams) in 1875 when it opened a horsecar line between Stortorvet and Homansbyen. In 1894 the company Kristiania Elektriske Sporvei (the Blue trams) opened a line between Jernbanetorget via Briskeby to Majorstuen with a branch line to Skarpsno. This was Scandinavias first electric tram company. A/S Holmenkollbanen was created in 1898 and operated the first suburban line between Majorstuen and Holmenkollen. In 1899 the city established its own tram company that expanded the routes of the Green trams after they transferred to electrical propulsion. This company was taken over by the Green trams in 1905. Holmenkollbanen opened the first subway in Scandinavia in 1928 between Majorstuen and Nationaltheatret.

The municipal A/S Kristiania Sporveier was created in 1924 when the concession for the Blue and Green trams expired. The company changed its name to A/S Oslo Sporveier a year later when the city changed its name from Kristiania to Oslo. In 1940 Oslo Sporveier set up the Oslo trolleybus network, a network of four trolleybus routes, but it was abandoned in 1967. In 1966 Lokaltrafikkhistorisk Forening was created to take care of defunct material from Oslo Sporveier.

Oslo T-bane, the Oslo Metro, opened in 1966, at the time making Oslo the smallest city in the world with a rapid transit. But it was not until 1993 that the western and eastern networks in the city were connected, and in 2006 the T-bane circle route opened. The company ordered 99 new metro cars from Siemens in 2003. Since the late 1990s the company has been under a constant reorganization, including the creation of a corporate structure and the separation of production and ordering into two separate companies, as well as privatization of operations.

On 1 July 2006, Oslo Sporveier changed their name to Kollektivtransportproduksjon. The name Oslo Sporveier was taken over by a new administrative company for public transportation in Oslo, the Oslo Public Transport Administration, which later merged with Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk to form Ruter from 2008.

The organization structure was largely the brainchild of Peter N. Myhre, former Councilor for Transport of the Progress Party. Kollektivtransportproduksjon is organized as a concern, with six subsidiaries four business units as well as sister companies. A report published by Rokade in January 2011, claimed that the company wasted NOK 55 million per year on unnecessary administration because of the structure. In particular, the consulting group found that the judicial independence of the various companies made it necessary for the group to employ a considerable number of specialists in each of the companies—some of which are very small—with the sole purpose of checking the other companies. The report concluded that this also made for unclear lines of responsibility, which could be a safety risk, and that the company could be able to remove 60 administrative positions if it were better organized.

On 7 May 2013, Kollektivtransportproduksjon changed their name again to Sporveien Oslo, not to be confused with what is now Ruter. In December 2013, the subsididiaries Oslotrikken and Oslo T-banedrift changed their names and brands to reflect that of Sporveien, with the two new names being Sporveien Trikken and Sporveien T-banen.

title: Sporveien


text:
My Name Is Not Susan

"My Name Is Not Susan" is a song by American singer and actress Whitney Houston, released as the fourth single from her third album, I'm Your Baby Tonight (1990). The song was released on June 24, 1991, by Arista Records. It was produced by L.A. Reid and Babyface, and written by Eric Foster White. The song is an uptempo new jack swing number in which Houston harshly tells off a lover who has mistakenly called her by his ex-girlfriend's name "Susan". She lets him know that if he cannot get over Susan, then their relationship is over. The music video for the song was directed by Lionel C. Martin and inspired by the 1958 film Vertigo. A remix featuring British rapper Monie Love was also released, becoming one of the first times a pop/R&B artist had included a rapper in a remix, following Janet Jackson's "Alright", which remix featured Heavy D the year previous.

Critical reception
In a retrospective review, Matthew Hocter from Albumism noted the "fresh vibe", describing the song as "thumping". Upon the release, J.D. Considine of The Baltimore Sun felt it was "emotionless", adding, "(Whitney) has no trouble navigating a state-of-the-art funk groove (as with the new jack "My Name Is Not Susan"), she's mainly going through the motions; there's absolutely nothing in her performance to suggest that she was even the slightest bit moved by these songs." Larry Flick from Billboard commented, "After several ballads, Houston jacks it up on a percolating jam that features one of her more assertive vocals." Henderson and DeVaney from Cashbox stated, "This high-tech, funky, L.A. & Babyface-produced cut isn't nearly as pop as some of Houston's material."

Entertainment Weekly editor David Browne panned it, writing that "in what could be seen as an audition for her pending movie career, Houston gets to act angry on My Name Is Not Susan, in which she scolds a bedmate for calling out the name of an ex-flame in his sleep." Pan-European magazine Music & Media described it as a "pacey pop/dance track boasting a snappy chorus." Rolling Stone's James Hunter noted that Houston "stipulates in no uncertain terms" in this song vocally. Caroline Sullivan from Smash Hits commented, "And not only are her lyrics more adult, the music is the toughest she's come up with yet. Of course, being Whitney, that means it's still fairly sugar-sweet, but this is a most enjoyable record."

Chart performance
"My Name Is Not Susan" debuted on the US Billboard Hot 100 at number 67, peaking at number 20. It remained in the Top 40 for six weeks, Houston's shortest showing at the time. It peaked at number eight on the Billboard R&B Singles Chart. "My Name Is Not Susan" was modestly received internationally, where it peaked at number 29 on the UK Singles Chart and a modest number 57 in Germany. In 1998, a remixed version of the song (remixed by Snap! in 1991 as the Logic remix) charted in Germany and reached number 52, five places higher than the original did in 1991.

Live performances
Houston performed the song on her 1991 I'm Your Baby Tonight World Tour. Three different performances of the song were taped; in Yokohama, Japan on March 15, 1991; Oakland, California on May 11, 1991; and A Coruña, Spain on September 29, 1991. The Yokohama concert was broadcast on a Japanese TV channel and the show in Oakland was aired during The Simple Truth: A Concert for Kurdish Refugees, a telethon held to aid the Kurds on May 12, 1991. She also performed the song on Welcome Home Heroes, broadcast live on HBO, March 31, 1991. This performance can be found on the video: Welcome Home Heroes with Whitney Houston ― Live in Concert. At the 19th American Music Awards of 1992, Houston performed the remixed version of the song as a part of "I'm Your Baby Tonight Medley," along with "I'm Your Baby Tonight" and "Who Do You Love." In addition, she performed the song on The Concert for a New South Africa, the first of three concerts was aired live on HBO in November 1994, and on a private gig to celebrate for the wedding of Princess Rashidah, the eldest daughter of the Sultan of Brunei on August 24, 1996.

Music video
In the song's accompanying music video directed by American music video director, film director and VJ Lionel C. Martin, Houston is featured playing both herself and a character named "Susan". The video is inspired by several elements in the 1958 Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo, both containing a man involved with an obsessive love for both a glamorous blonde and down-to-earth brunette played by the same actress. Several specific scenes that are parallel include a visit to a park, dining in a restaurant, and the photographer's buying clothes for the girl, having her hair also dyed blonde, and the way she emerges from the bathroom. The boyfriend, who is a photographer may have been suggested by another Hitchcock film, Rear Window. There is also a version of the video with a remix with British rapper Monie Love. Outtakes from the video and alternate footage were reused for the video to the follow-up single "I Belong to You".

Track listings and formats

 * UK, CD maxi-single
 * 1) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell 7") — 4:08
 * 2) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Breakthrough Mix) — 7:45
 * 3) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Album Edit) —	4:37

 * Germany, CD maxi-single (The Remixes)
 * 1) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell Alternate Mix) — 7:40
 * 2) "My Name Is Not Susan" (L.A. Reid & Babyface Remix) — 5:56
 * 3) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell Straight Mix) — 6:17

 * US, CD maxi-single promo
 * 1) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Album Edit) — 4:37
 * 2) "My Name Is Not Susan" (U.K. Mix) — 4:10
 * 3) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Power Radio Mix w/ Rap) — 4:39
 * 4) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Power Radio Mix w/o Rap) — 4:04

 * UK, Germany, CD maxi-single
 * 1) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell 7") — 4:08
 * 2) "My Name Is Not Susan" ('70's Flange Mix) — 5:34
 * 3) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Logic Remix Extended) — 5:39
 * 4) "My Name Is Not Susan" (Ambiente Mix) — 5:08

 * US, 12" vinyl
 * A1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Extended Mix) — 5:56
 * A2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Dub) — 4:28
 * B1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Extended U.K. Mix) — 6:16
 * B2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Alternate U.K. Mix) — 7:40

 * Germany, 12" vinyl maxi-single
 * A1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell Straight Mix) — 6:17
 * A2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell Alternate Mix) — 7:40
 * B1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (L.A. Reid & Babyface Remix) — 5:56
 * B2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Instrumental Edit) — 5:19
 * B3: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Dub) — 4:28

 * UK, 12" vinyl
 * A: "My Name Is Not Susan" (The Breakthrough Mix)
 * B1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (The Upbeat Cut Mix)
 * B2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Waddell 7" Mix)

 * Australia, 12" vinyl maxi-single
 * A1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Logic Remix Extended)
 * A2: "My Name Is Not Susan" ('70's Flange Mix)
 * B1: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Album Edit)
 * B2: "My Name Is Not Susan" (Ambiente Mix)

"Logic Remix" is named the "Bellydance Mix" on some vinyl releases. "Waddell Straight Mix", "Extended U.K. Mix" and "The Upbeat Cut Mix" are the same mix with alternate names. "Waddell Alternate Mix", "Breakthrough Mix" and "Alternate U.K. Mix" are the same mix.
 * Notes

Credits and personnel

 * Vocal Arrangement: L.A. Reid, Babyface and Whitney Houston
 * Background Vocals: Whitney Houston
 * Donald Parks: Keyboard Programming
 * Kayo: Bass
 * Rhythm Arrangement: L.A. Reid and Babyface
 * Additional Production and Remix: John Waddell
 * Babyface: Keyboards
 * L.A. Reid: Drums and Percussion

 * Recording and mixing
 * Recorded at Elumba Recording, Los Angeles, CA
 * Mixed at Studio LaCoCo, Atlanta, GA

title: My Name Is Not Susan


text:
Sundowner

Sundowner or Sundowners may refer to:

Books

 * The Sundowners (novel), by Jon Cleary, 1952
 * Sundowners, a novel by Lesley Lokko
 * Sundowners, a comic book by Tim Seeley

Film and television

 * The Sundowner (1911 film), an Australian lost film
 * The Sundowners (1950 film), American Western film directed by George Templeton
 * The Sundowners (1960 film), an adventure drama film and adaptation of the Cleary novel
 * The Sundowner (2010 film), an American documentary short
 * Sundowners (2017 film), a Canadian comedy film directed by Pavan Moondi
 * "Sundowner" (Preacher), a 2016 television series episode

Music

 * The Sundowners (band), a 1960s American rock and roll band
 * Sundowner (band), the solo acoustic project of Chris McCaughan
 * The Sundowners (Australian band), an Australian "bush band"
 * Sundowner (album), a 2020 album by Kevin Morby

Vehicles

 * Sundowner (yacht), a 1912 yacht once owned by Charles Lightoller
 * Beechcraft Sundowner, a single-engined, low-wing, light aircraft
 * Ultra-Fab Sundowner, an ultralight aircraft
 * Sundowner, a model of the AMC Pacer compact automobile
 * Sundowner, the B2000 model of the Mazda B-Series pickup truck
 * Ford Sundowner, a famous late 70s Australian-market Ford Falcon or Ford Escort panel van trim package
 * Sundowner, an Australian railway carriage converted into the Silver Star Cafe in Port Hedland, Western Australia

Other uses

 * Sundowner (hotel and casino), a former property in Reno, Nevada
 * Sundowner winds, a local wind condition in Southern California
 * A person suffering from sundowning, a neurological phenomenon
 * A moniker for three United States Navy fighter squadrons, all officially designated as VF-111
 * An obsolete Australian and New Zealand variant term for a swagman
 * A trademark of the Cripps Red apple
 * Sundowner, an antagonist the 2013 video game Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
 * Sundowner town, in the United States, an alternative term for sundown town, where non-white residents are not allowed
 * Neoregelia Sundowner, a cultivar of the Neoregelia carolinae plant species
 * Sphingomorpha chlorea, a moth called the sundowner

title: Sundowner


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ho

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 01:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

David Ho
Not notable scientist SquirrelKabob 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Huh? Being Man of the Year in Time Magazine ought to classify as notable in the first place. Apparently well-known researcher. If anything, it should be expanded... Sam Vimes 22:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Time Magazine is garbage, but the only other thing related to Mr. Ho that is is this VFD! UncleFloyd 22:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is most likely a bad-faith nomination. Hall Monitor 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep WTF? Well above the bar of notability. --  Etacar11   00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Time Man of the Year for 1996 for AIDS research contribution. I think there is a clear case for an admin to close this vote early. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination.  Nominator's 12th edit was adding the VFD tag to the article.  Kaibabsquirrel 01:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, speedy keep this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator was obviously taking some stupid pills. FunkyChicken! 23:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not notable? He was a Time Person of the Year. If that's not notable... Lordwow 05:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy is actually well known and has contributed a lot to medical science.
 * Strong Keep Man of the Year in Time Magazine ought to classify as notable by it self. --Tony Hecht 22:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Kishi (folklore)

The kishi is a two-faced demon in Angola. According to legend, a kishi has an attractive human man's face on the front of its body and a hyena's face on the back. Kishi are said to use their human face as well as smooth talk and other charms to attract young women, who they then eat with the hyena face. The hyena face is said to have long sharp teeth and jaws so strong they cannot be pulled off anything it bites.

The word kishi, nkishi, or mukisi means "spirit" in several Bantu languages spoken in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, northern Zambia, and Angola.

title: Kishi (folklore)


text:
MagiCan

MagiCans were special, mechanical cans used by The Coca-Cola Company in the United States of America as a part of their $100-million "Magic Summer '90" promotion. The MagiCan promotion began on May 7, 1990, and ended on May 31.

In this promotion, some Coca-Cola cans had cash prizes or gift certificates inside instead of Coca-Cola. The prizes were spring-loaded to pop out of the opening once the can was opened. The prize would either be money, from $1 to $500, or coupons redeemable for trips or merchandise. The total giveaway of cash and prize coupons was $4 million. The original plan was to randomly distribute about 750,000 MagiCans among the 200 million cans of Coca-Cola Classic in circulation at any one time. To make the cans feel and weigh normal, and prevent people from easily finding the prize cans, a sealed area within the cans was filled with a mixture of chlorinated water and a foul-smelling substance to discourage drinking. Though initially a great success—that led to a rise in sales—technical difficulties led to the promotion's early termination.

History
Coca-Cola first announced the "Magic Summer '90" campaign in March 1990 by sending MagiCans containing money to journalists. Some journalists wrote that it was questionable for a big corporation to mail cash to reporters. The campaign continued without the MagiCans, giving away tickets to the Coca-Cola–sponsored New Kids on The Block's Magic Summer Tour and distributing "MagiCups", which were paper cups with peel-off prizes on the exterior used for fountain drinks at fast-food chains and other fountain outlets.

Technical issues and early termination
A number of cans had problems: the pop-up mechanism malfunctioned, jamming, or a faulty seal released some of the chlorinated water mixture into the can itself. A widely reported incident involved an 11-year-old boy in Massachusetts drinking the foul-tasting liquid used to replace actual cola. Despite initial fears, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health determined that the water was not harmful, containing a lower concentration of chlorine than the water in a typical swimming pool. Worried about the bad publicity and potential product liability lawsuits, Coke immediately placed television and newspaper advertisements in 50 large United States markets. The full-page ads, run only once, warned consumers that a "very small number" of cans contain a foul-smelling but harmless water that should not be ingested. The ads were headlined "Take A Good Look" and in smaller type, read "You could have a MagiCan." The print ads pointed out that the MagiCans might be defective, which actually proved a key point in any potential plaintiff's lawsuit under the doctrine of strict liability. Moreover, the problem with the chlorinated mixture was not concern of being drunk by accident, but that it spilled over into the prize. Multiple winners complained about receiving soggy money after activating a MagiCan.

When Coca-Cola began receiving complaints about the faulty cans, it temporarily halted distribution of the MagiCans to local bottlers. The plan was to test MagiCans before distribution by shaking them to detect faulty mechanisms. Coca-Cola's own initial estimate was that 120,000 MagiCans were on store shelves or in bottler inventories at the initial release, of which less than 1 percent, or fewer than 1,200 cans, were faulty. Ultimately, Coke ended the campaign after only three weeks due to the negative publicity regarding faulty cans. This negative publicity included an editorial cartoon showing a man in sunglasses opening a soda can while standing near a billboard hyping MagiCans, then removing his sunglasses in surprise when a small sign emerges from his can reading "Buy Pepsi". The ads also drew fire from a 1990 issue of Zillions, the juvenile version of Consumer Reports magazine, in their annual "ZAP Awards" segments detailing the worst ads of 1990. Zillions' complaint was that the ads deceptively showed people opening cans that turned out to be MagiCans every time, making the contest look easier to win than it actually was (the magazine also made the same complaint about Burger King's "Whopper & Wheels" promotion, which received far less publicity).

The decision to end the campaign came one week after the "Take A Good Look" advertisements were released. Coca-Cola then released ads telling consumers that only a few prize cans were left on the market and that they would be "going, going, gone by mid-June", the time when the company estimated the existing cans would be purchased and off the shelves. At the time of termination, 200,000 of the 750,000 planned promotional cans had been distributed. Although largely confident there were no safety issues, Coca-Cola's final advertising spot showed New Kids on the Block with an added voiceover from Jordan Knight warning, "If you have a winning can, don't drink the liquid!"

Meanwhile, rival Pepsi also did a prize giveaway in 1990 under the Cool Cans promotion. Instead of a complicated push-up device in cans, each can was filled with normal, drinkable cola and at the bottom of the inside of the can there was a number printed that could correspond with a prize, from $25 to $20,000. The consumer called a toll-free number to find out if they had won. Pepsi's promotion also suffered from negative publicity when it was discovered that if two specific Cool Cans were stacked in a certain way, the designs appeared to spell out the word SEX. Coca-Cola would attempt a similar promotion three years later with "Monsters of the Gridiron", a Halloween-themed promotion where people could call a toll-free number and enter a code, to which a recording from an NFL star would tell them whether or not they won a prize.

Coca-Cola's quick damage-control initiative was reminiscent of the fiasco over New Coke several years earlier.

Urban legend
There was an urban legend in the 1990s and 2000s that a child had died drinking the liquid in one of the MagiCans. This has been reported as false according to Snopes.com, and its origins were traced back to media coverage of a boy who was taken to the hospital as a precaution after his mother suspected product tampering.

title: MagiCan


text:
Christine M. Durham

Christine Meaders Durham (born August 3, 1945) is an American lawyer and judge, who served as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court from 1982 to 2017, including service as chief justice from 2002 to 2012.

Early life and education
Durham is the oldest child of three, and she grew up in Southern California. When she was young, she aspired to be a novelist. Durham's father initially worked for the IRS in Washington, D. C., and in 1960 he became a US Department of the Treasury attaché at the Paris Embassy and the family went to French schools and learned French.

In the early 1960s, Durham moved to New England to attend Wellesley College, a women's college, where she met her husband, George Durham. It was also at this time that she received her patriarchal blessing from the Boston Stake patriarch (she was and is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), that said things that had a role in her decision to study law. She graduated in 1967 with an A.B. with Honors. She then went to Boston College for law to be near her husband while he finished his undergraduate studies at Harvard. When he was accepted to Duke Medical School, Durham transferred to Duke Law School. She graduated from Duke Law School in 1971.

She is now on the Board of Trustees of Duke University, where she is on the Executive Committee and chairs the Faculty, Graduate and Professional Schools Affairs and Honorary Degree Committees. For a personal account of her early life, see Mormon Women: Portraits and Conversations by James N. Kimball and Kent Miles.

Legal career
Durham was an Instructor of Legal Medicine at Duke University Medical School immediately after she graduated from law school in 1971 until 1973. She was admitted to the North Carolina State Bar in 1971. She had a general law practice while in North Carolina, representing private clients in domestic law, employment law, and personal injury law work. She also did title law work and criminal defense work off of the county indigency list. While in North Carolina, she was a legal consultant for the Duke University Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development. She and her husband moved to Utah in 1973, where she became an adjunct professor of law at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School until 1978. At this time she formed a partnership with two other lawyers and founded the law firm of Johnson, Durham, & Moxley. In 1980, the firm merged with a larger firm in Salt Lake City. She also occasionally teaches constitutional law at the University of Utah’s S. J. Quinney College of Law.

Durham is on the Council of the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association’s Council of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. She is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and serves on the Board of Directors of both the American Judicature Society and the National Center for State Courts.

Judicial career
In 1978, Durham became a trial judge in the 3rd Judicial District Court for the state of Utah. She served for four years, one of them as the presiding judge. She was appointed as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court by Governor Scott M. Matheson in 1982 and became the Chief Justice in April 2002. She resigned as chief justice in March 2012. She was the first female Chief Justice of a state to swear into office a female governor, when Olene Walker became Utah’s 15th governor.

Durham was retained by Utah voters in retention elections in 1984, 1994, 2004, and 2014.

In May 2017, Durham announced that she would retire from the Utah Supreme Court in November 2017. She was succeeded on the bench by Paige Petersen.

Justice Durham wrote majority opinions and dissenting opinions in many cases. For a full list of Justice Durham's Utah Supreme Court decisions, go to http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/#scoral

Polygamy
In the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of W. A. T., et al., 808 P.2d 1083, 1085 State v. Holm (Utah 1991), Justice Durham protected the civil rights of polygamists. The decision held that the Utah Constitution does not per se preclude a polygamist family from adopting children. Justice Durham, writing for the 3-2 court, noted, "The fact that our constitution requires the state to prohibit polygamy does not necessarily mean that the state must deny any or all civil rights and privileges to polygamists." She noted that many things are crimes like polygamy, but we extend civil rights to perpetrators of those crimes. She stated, "It is not the role of the courts to make threshold exclusions dismissing without consideration, for example, the adoption petitions of all convicted felons, all persons engaging in fornication or adultery, or other persons engaged in illegal activities." The decision also upheld the constitutionality of the bigamy statute in the Utah Constitution.

Fetal Rights
In the case of State v. MacGuire, 84 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2004) in 2004 the Utah Supreme Court ruled that all fetuses are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. Though she agreed with that premise, Justice Durham dissented based on the definition of the capital murder and aggravated murder charges as well as based on the US Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. "Declaring a fetus to be a 'person' entitled to equal protection would require not only overturning Roe v. Wade but also making abortion, as a matter of constitutional law, illegal in all circumstances, even to save the life of the mother."

Primacy
Durham is a proponent of first looking to the Utah Constitution before the Federal Constitution for protection of an individual's rights. In her concurrence to State v. Daniels, 40 P.3d 611, 626 (Utah 2002), she stated, “I continue to be a proponent of independent state constitutional analysis on federalism grounds, believing we should use a primacy approach or dual analysis approach whenever possible.” In State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990), however, Justice Durham recognized the duality of the American system. Justice Durham, in her majority opinion, explained that states may rest their analysis on state constitution first because it “may prove to be an appropriate method for insulating citizens from the vagaries of inconsistent interpretations given. . . by the federal courts.”

Gun Rights
In the case of University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah 2006)., the Utah Supreme Court ruled in a 4-1 decision that the University of Utah has no right to ban guns on campus, rejecting the argument that prohibiting firearms is part of the school's power to control academic affairs. In her dissent, Chief Justice Durham said policies that are reasonably connected to the school's academic mission are within its autonomous authority over academic affairs. Under the majority analysis, she said, "the university may not subject a student to academic discipline for flashing his pistol to a professor in class."

Publications and Speeches
Justice Durham has published numerous articles and is a frequent lecturer on the judiciary, women's issues, and civic education. She helped draft a manual on legal rights of the elderly. Also, as a former head of the Judiciary Branch of Utah, she gave annual State of the Judiciary addresses to the legislative branch of the state. She has spoken at various conventions, including the 2010 Spring Convention of the Utah State Bar, the 2010 National Conference of the American Bar Association, and the 123rd Jackson Lecture in 2009.

Community service
Durham served on the Governor's Task Force that recommended legislation to implement the 1985 amendments to the Judicial Article of the Utah Constitution. She served on the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission for 12 years. As Chief Justice, she chaired the Utah Judicial Council, which is the administrative governing body of the state court system. She served as the first chair of the Utah Judicial Council's Education Committee. She was the Founder of the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education. She was part of the Commission on Justice in the 21st Century and the Co-chair of the Committee on Improving Jury Service. She was the first Chair of the Utah State Court's Public Outreach Committee. From 1986 to 1997 she was the president of the National Association of Women Judges, which organization she founded. She was on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She is the immediate past President of the Conference of Chief Justices, and is the first Utahn to be elected to this position.

Awards
In 2007, Durham received the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence She has received honorary an degree from Utah Valley University.

Academic Board and Advisory Positions
University of the People (Member of Board of Trustees)

Personal life
Durham is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

title: Christine M. Durham


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net (2nd VfD)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, despite a considerable number of votes by new users and anons. Defaults to keep. --Allen3 talk 22:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote
NN, D. ComCat 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge the useful content with Star Wars v. Star Trekand provide a redirect..
 * First VFD can be seen at Votes_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Guys, this forum's information is great, it has more than 2000 members, and is worthy of Wikipedia.
 * Keep DXM just kicked in yo
 * Weak delete As the original VfD noted that it would be good to re-run the VfD later, I'll treat this on its own merits. Google shows 832 hits for this Star Wars vs Star Trek fan site. That's not a lot and not enough to make me want to see it go away badly. If someone else knows of some reason that this sit is notable, it woudl sway my vote. -Harmil 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote for now, since it does have over 2000 members, a benchmark that meets some notability requirements on here. But, if the dicussions are primarialy about other topics other than ST vs SW, then it is just another forum. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is just another vanity article. Dump it. No need for every two-bit forum to have an article on Wikipedia.
 * Captain! There's a quantum infundibulum in the deletium crystals! --FOo 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable forumcruft. Xoloz 06:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's delete this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per FOO. Radiant_ >|< 12:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the second time someone tried to delete it, the fact that this article is creating such a grand fuss, twice in a row, no less, is reason alone for it to be kept. This vote was placed by, his 17th edit.
 * After it was removed from VFD the first time, there were only a few edits before it was placed on VFD again. But I am glad we are not seeing the same mess as we did last time around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable forum per Google and Alexa (#230,975), Star Trek versus Star Wars already gives them a namecheck. Dcarrano 16:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The page survived the first VFD and its content has improved since then to include far more then just information about the forums. A second VFD is merely people trying to be vindictive. Alyeska 17:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment For those calling this a vanity website. I guess you missed the points that SD.net is directly related to the STvsSW discussion (which has a Wiki entry) and SD.net has related sections ranging on other topics.  It is not a vanity forum entry because it includes information on more then just the forums.  Try researching the subject before condeming it.  It makes you look immature and selfcentered to judge something from afar without bothering to learn the subject material. Alyeska 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Frivolous VfD. Suggested by ComCat, who appears to be delete-happy. RDalton 17:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note:This vote was RDalton's 19th edit (first edit in September 2004).--Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Seems the VFDer has been nominating alot of articles for deletion.--Kross 18:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article proved itself last time that it should stay. It is informational and is not advertising. The forums have over 2400 members and is worthy of recognition.--Elfwood 19:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Elfwood has had 5 edits, all to this VfD --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep. Delete ComCat and the 'vanity-site' accusers instead, for A> failing to do proper research on the article before opening their big giant bazoo or reaching for the delete button, and B> frivolous VfDs. They are not there to be abused. --E. Sn0
 * Vote signed by E. Sn0 made by 68.11.114.209 --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * STRONG Delete. Why give this site a page in the wiki when there are dozens of sites that have the same content, if a slightly (internet wise) smaller fanbase? As for some of the people who've posted on here to keep it, several of them also post on the forums that are hosted by said site (i.e. Alyeska), (re: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=73907 and http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=69983&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=wikipedia+deletion&start=25) biasing their opinions. Why waste the bandwidth? Mike_Castaldo 9:42, 25 July 2005
 * Vote was made by Mike castaldo, all users edits have been to this VfD or to the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Keep the site!--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep The whole internet subculture of "Star Trek versus Star Wars" has its own article.  Many of the major players on the scene are already linked from the article.  If the versus debate merits its own article, than so do the sites that best epitomize the debate (since discussing the sites on the versus article directly would only muddy it up,) such as Spacebattles.com and Stardestroyer.net.  I also feel compelled to point out that Spacebattles.com only turns up 73 more hits on Google   than Stardestroyer.net does, has its own equally sparse article (Spacebattles.com) which suffers nowhere near the unfavorable attention that this one does.  GMT 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * GMT has 3 edits, all either to this VfD or the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep If we have articles for spacebattles.com and trekbbs, I don't see how we can justify blocking another very similar site. Plus, its already been up for deletion once. SpringheelJack
 * This vote is SpringheelJack's first of two edits --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep VFDer didn't post anything on discussion page to even attempt improvements before putting up for deletion.  Neocapitalist 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (this signature was placed at the top of the debate, for no apparent reason. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC))

 * Weak Delete I smell vote garnering... Balancer 20:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment If you want to see vote garnering, check out those two threads I mentioned. User:Mike_Castaldo 00:12, 27 July 2005 (EST)

 * Comment Since you can't actualy make a legitmate case against the wiki entry you try and marginalize the votes that disagree with yours. You claim innoncent on the issue of attacking others, but its false.  You quite openly attack those you disagree with and try to marginalize them. Alyeska 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep It is of note in its area of speciality. --Fearghul 21:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep I am a former member of Stardestroyer.net, having been banned recently here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=72553. As a long time member, I am intimately familiar with the website and its forums, and this puts me in a unique position to judge the merit of this website wielding familiarity and no positive bias. I can honestly say that stardestroyer.net is unequalled in its technical commentaries and as a forum for discussing Startrek versus Starwars, and the various other topics it deals with are also noteworthy. Secondly, there is the matter of consistency. Others have already listed examples such as somethingawful.com, spacebattles.com and so forth - either these must also come up for deletion, or stardestroyer must stay. I do recommend an expanded entry however. PredatorX 10:26, 28 July 2005 (GMT+12)
 * This vote is PredatorX's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. It's still a non-notable fansite. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Youre kidding Man in Black.... To say that the LynchPin for the Entire SWvsST debate on the internet is a "non-notable" fansite would be like saying "george lucas had nothing to do with starwars" TTMSHU 12:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a fansite of little importance. If someone writes an article about the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate, Stardestroyer.net should probably be mentioned and linked, but the site itself is not significant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep If we can keep SomethingAwful and Spacebattles on this site, then SDN can stay.  SAMAS 9:10 July 28

 * Keep A) It survived the first one  B) Its fairly notable C) It has some basis from some other pages - it does need to be expanded on a bit more, however --RN 21:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong keep. Previous VFD was only two months ago, and the site is notable as a message board with a variety of topics. Academic Challenger 04:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Delete The site's simply a retread of the SW-v-ST article, which actually does mention SD.net. No need to be redundant, delete it.

 * Comment Oh really. Since when does the STvsSW article have mentions of Creationism vs Evolution?  The entry is more then just the STvsSW content. Alyeska 17:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a reason to retread your comments when they and the rebuttals to them are right below? Mike_Castaldo 15:46, 30 July 2005 (EST)

 * Strong Delete This site doesn't have anything special about it, and certaintly doesn't need a wiki open on it. Toren122 Aug. 1st, 2005.
 * Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep Informative, objective and entertaining. Chardok Aug. 1st, 2005.
 * Vote is user's 6th edit. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Delete Provincinal page with little unique info. S_Brown Aug. 2nd, 2005.
 * Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Deletede'sucka! Anon-Mudcat 8-2-05, 3:17 pm.
 * Vote was made by 147.133.30.233. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong delete They aren't interested in discussing ST vs SW. Anyone that goes to the site to discuss it in support of the ST side is banned for being a 'troll'.

Argumen -- er, Discussion
Moved mudslinging to discussion page. Have at it!

68.51.80.209 00:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
William Jennings Capell

William Jennings "Bill" Capell (born 9 August 1952), an American retired grocery clerk from Yuba City, California, is the heir presumptive to the Earldom of Essex. He will become the 12th earl if the current earl, Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex (currently 80 and unmarried), predeceases him without in-wedlock male issue.

Claim
Capell had considered renouncing the earldom if it would require him to give up his United States citizenship (under the United Kingdom's Peerage Act 1963, a person may disclaim a hereditary peerage). U.S. law requires only government officeholders without congressional authorization and persons wishing to become naturalized citizens, however, to renounce titles of nobility. As Capell is in neither category, there would be no legal impediment to his use of the title as a U.S. citizen; indeed there is precedent in the case of the Earl of Wharncliffe, currently a Maine construction worker.

Like the sixth and later earls, Capell is descended from the younger son of the fourth Earl. His father, Bladen Horace Capell, claimed the title after the ninth earl died in 1981, but Robert de Vere Capell (1920–2005) eventually proved that his ancestor, Algernon, was older than Bladen's ancestor Adolphus and thus took his seat in the House of Lords in 1989.

Personal life
Capell has two children:
 * Jennifer Elaine Capell (b. 1974), married Alfred Cabrera in 2004
 * Kevin Devereux Capell (b. 1982)

If Capell succeeds to the earldom, his son will acquire the courtesy title Viscount Malden, and his daughter will become Lady Jennifer Cabrera.

In 2005, Capell made his first visit to England with his wife, daughter, and son-in-law. The visit was televised on the tabloid show Inside Edition.

title: William Jennings Capell