User talk:Law/November 2008

Halloween

Thank you for your interest in WikiProject Halloween! There is now sufficient interest to create this fledgling WikiProject. Please visit the project page and sign up. There is not much to the page as yet, and your input in helping us focus our efforts and recruit new members will be invaluable!--otherlleft (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Great - signed up! ^Law _shoot! 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up on the template - templates are NOT my forte, so I'm going to have to find someone wiser than I to figure out the details . . . --otherlleft (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever page(s) you templated should be showing up in a category by now!--otherlleft (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

. . . . and there's a userbox! I think most of the busywork is done so perhaps we can actually work on Halloween now!  ;)--otherlleft (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Featuring Halloween

I have started a discussion thread about getting the Halloween article up to FA status. Your comments and participation are most welcome.--otherlleft (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you, that was very kind. Here's to getting a nice FA in time for next Halloween!--otherlleft (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Interstate Income Act of 1959

I renamed the article for the sake of consistency, because most of Wikipedia's articles on statutes use the full final name of the act (as opposed to the name and number of the original public law). I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the search engine issue will be a problem. Both names of the law are in the first line of the article, and the redirect created by the page move will send visitors to the same article anyway. So I don't foresee anyone having any difficulties finding the article. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug, Cornell Law School's server goes on the fritz occasionally, from too much traffic. Yeah, it's annoying but the link will probably work again by tomorrow. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

I heard a song recently that asked what you are good for. The conclusion the singer reached was "absolutely nothing". I think this is harsh, quite frankly- but what are your thoughts on the matter? 58.174.228.85 (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to 'war' being good for nothing. Are you asking 'what I am good' for? I'm not quite sure. Let me call my folks and get back to you. They always know the answer to these things. ^Law _shoot! 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Child labour

I tried to move the page to "Child labour" but it would not let me, saying that the page was already taken (?!). So I tried Child Labour. To be honest, my priority was getting rid of labor, and replacing it with the spelling consistent on the rest of Wikipedia, and the English speaking world (and of course, more accurate when you consider the pronunciation).

Thanks for moving it. How did you manage? Btline (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to laugh, not at you, but you do know you have 300 million Americans who disagree about the spelling and the adding of the 'u.' Remember, we pronounce words differently by virtue of the fact that we have different accents, so the arguments about accuracy don't apply. 'Labour', in American English, would be pronounced, 'Lay - Booer.' 'Labor' is 'Lay-ber' - which is how we Yanks say it. No matter, I agreed with your page move because the article was started with that spelling. I tried to move it as well, and got the same message. There was a redirect page in its place. The warning was specific about NOT cutting and pasting, so I figured the only way we could correct the move was to request the redirect page be deleted, so I added a deletion tag on it and the rest seemed to work out fine. Cheers. ^Law _shoot! 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Well I would pronounce labor as "lab - or!" I say labour as "labe - ur." Btline (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know we don't pronounce anything right over here. The less letter in a word, the less work for us. LOL. ^Law _shoot! 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate Income Act of 1959

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interstate Income Act of 1959, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your comments on THEN WHO WAS PHONE just sent me some muc needed laughter and I thought you might like this, so here it is. It is what it says on the tin. Andy (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This edit made my quota for the week! ^Law _{s shoot!} 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you dont get much bettet than that. I was on huggle this week and had some tremendous edits that sent me off laughing afeterwards, although they are vandals, they do give some intresting and humerous times! Andy (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:My User Page

Sorry about that. I was trying to close up the white space on your page. Chris (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. I have to be anal in my job too though it is in quality control/ quality assurance. Chris (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Law, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Mate, I don't normally work in categories, which is one reason why my usual technique is to add {{uncat}} and let others do the work. The only other category I think would be appropriate is [[Category:United States Tax Court cases]]. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Law, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Significance? an AfD you may know more than me about

Hey Law, is ths SCOTUSblog notable? I thought with your name you may know a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Casliber! Judging by the afd, it clearly is :P (hindsight is great). However, I know law as it is applicable to taxation, so I really wouldn't have been able to say, off the top of my head if the blog was notable. Looks like an article with potential. Why don't we do some work on it in the near future? ^Law _shoot! 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page?

Hiya. I've never touched List of people that were on lists. More to the point, I'm not an admin and therefore have never deleted a page. //roux   editor review19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your email...

Do I, um, know you?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)