User talk:Simon Dodd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:04, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Nice work on Contract With America.

1 3RR
2 Comments from A ghost
3 Constitution in exile
4 Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia
5 To Bork
6 SCOTUS template
7 Gonads
8 Hello from ednet
9 Kozinski - Trivia
10 Image Tagging for Image:Judgewilliams.jpg
11 Things in Common
12 RKBA
13 Just passing through
14 Supreme Court Retired Justices

[edit] 3RR

Hi Simon, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Nuclear option (filibuster) and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, I've unblocked you early as a gesture of good faith. Please look for a compromise version of the sentence you're in dispute over. If there's more reverting, I'll protect the page on the version of the person who has reverted less. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from A ghost

Simon, you seem well spoken and thoughtful, albiet from your point of view. Since I've stepped into the Nuclear option debate with both feet, you're welcome to contact me directly.--ghost 19:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, can you please agree to refrain to edit on Nuclear option again for 24hrs if, and only if, FuelWagon does? Of course you're both welcome to jump in only in the most extreme circumstances. I'm hoping if this pill is taken by choice, instead of being rammed down both your throats, it might be easier to swallow. I'm asking for this so that I have long enough to go in and do some serious work tonight. I think I can quiet the flames.--ghost 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provided that FuelWagon does not alter my revision of the 60% section at 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 and my placement of both sections into subsections at 20:07, 21 Jun 2005, I won't revert those edits. This compromise will be fully in line with the nuclear option: the democrats agreed that as long as they don't filibuster, the Republicans won't pull the nuclear trigger; likewise, if FW stops reverting my edits, I'll have no need to propose new compromise language.Simon Dodd 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. FW and I are distracted at the moment pursueing a vandal. Later this evening, I'll go thru the sections and make them as non-partisan as I can. Thanks again for being reasonable. It speaks to your character.--ghost 20:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Peer review I'm truely flattered. You're welcome to send me links. Fair warning: I have serious commitments to two others Intelligent design and Terri Schiavo that I need to catchup on, one of which is in Mediation. Let me know. :-] --ghost 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution in exile

Have you looked at this article? Is it of any value, or should it be merged into a related article? NoSeptember^{04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia

I don't think this is a very good category to have, not only since most cases have multiple opinions (which would just result in a clutter of Justice-specific categories at the bottom), but Scalia in particular is one justice who almost always wants to have his say with a separate concurrence or dissent—this will largely end up being synonymous with a category of Rehnquist Court cases. The title is also a poor classification, because it doesn't specify what is an opinion of Justice Scalia—obviously not always the whole judgment the article discusses. "Cases in which Justice Scalia submitted an opinion" would probably be a better description, but then it just becomes cumbersome. Why not make an annotated list article instead? List articles have none of these problems that categories are subject to. Postdlf 01:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this category has been nominated for cfd. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia NoSeptember^{T 9 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)}

[edit] To Bork

Per your addition to Robert Bork, I have reverted the second addition for two reasons (though they are intertwined): first, despite attempts at finding someone using some alternative form of the verb Bork, no one has shown one and the consensus seems to be exclusion on that basis; second, the addition was not entirely clear in its wording, so it is possible that there might be useful information included, but I have not understood. I would recommend reading the talk page and rewording your entry if you believe it fits into the consensus, as well as leaving a comment there. Thanks. Rkevins82 05:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response on Bork talk page. Thanks for your comments. Rkevins82 22:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTUS template

Brilliant idea - I've added links to lists of justices and related info. BD2412 T 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you copied Template:US fed civ pro, which was one of mine. ;-D BD2412 T 16:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law is indeed open for all interested in joining! BD2412 T 16:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually, the Court demographics page was created largely in response to an editor who kept posting nonsense in various other pages about how the Court was (God forbid!) going to have a Catholic majority, hinting that this was part of some anti-protestant conspiracy between Jews and Catholics to keep down the Protestants. And some of it is interesting stuff. BD2412 T 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    - HLS info would be good, but noted as part of a historical trend - some of the early Justices had no formal legal education at all. I'm particularly interested in geographic distribution, tho, as this was apparently a pretty big deal throughout the 19th century. BD2412 T 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gonads

Just for your edification--gonads exist in both sexes. The ovaries are a woman's gonads.

And, incidentally, I don't personally care, either way, how the article is written, but the "s/he" form is not universally mandated, and one is not necessarily sexist to write "he" instead of "he or she" or "s/he". It can simply be a convention without intent. As for me, I've learned my lesson on such things with the differences between American and British English. I think I have better things to do with my time than worry about changing something phrased using someone else's conventions. I think the content of Wikipedia is more important than such trivial battles. Unschool 02:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from ednet

Hi Simon, this is CN from ednet in my wiki-capacity. Saw that you had a wikipedia link, and I was wuite curious as to what you made of the revolutionary politics thread, in the end, since you didn't reply beyond the last one? best, Breadandroses 10:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kozinski - Trivia

Simon, what is "night court?" I am not getting it. Thx. Crzrussian 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Judgewilliams.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is a work of the federal government, and says as much. Controversy closed.Simon Dodd 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy not closed, as the image was deleted. Please re-upload and and include whatever source information you have so that overzealous copyright-paranoid wikipedians don't cause the image to get deleted yet again. This has gotten out of hand when public domain images aren't even safe on wikipedia unless every i has been dotted and every t has been crossed. DHowell 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things in Common

Wow, I just found out out that we share interests with the Supreme Court and with Dream Theater. I never thought I would meet someone who was at the same time a Scalia fan and a DT fan. Anyways, I am extremely interested with the topics we have covered in our little "Senior status" debate at the SCOTUS talk page. Glad to have someone in wikipedia who shares interest with the court.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RKBA

I don't have significant problems with pointing out the centuries old history of a right to bear arms in the origin of the 2A section. And I guess I don't understand your question about 'bifurcating'. But if you are asking whether the 2A creates a right to keep and bear arms, I think the consensus is that it does not actual create the right, rather that it simply protects the right from being abridged by the Federal Government. BruceHallman 14:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just passing through

Don't mind me, just cleaning up some old mess! Cheers! bd2412 T 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court Retired Justices

Please see the discussion page of Supreme Court of the United States for a response to your thoughts about "senior status." Newyorkbrad 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/m/User_talk%7ESimon_Dodd_3e88.html"