User talk:NarrowPathPilgrim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, NarrowPathPilgrim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gazpacho 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Christian Patriot legal nonsense. I wish I could phrase that more politely, but I can't. Gazpacho 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(I'm referring to all your edits so far, but the one at the Constitution talk page was the one that definitely tipped me off.) Gazpacho

I suggest that you take a look at this (I didn't come up with the title). Believe it or not, the reality of law in this country is pretty darn close to what the judges, lawyers, and politicians say it is. If you don't like the law, then you should start a campaign to change it rather than playing an expensive version of make-believe. Gazpacho 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur fully with Gazpacho's criticism. If you bothered to search Google for those actual cases which you posted quotes from to the Driver's license article, you would realize that ALL of those quotes have been taken out of context. For example, Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago is about city v. state licensing of motor coach companies, and not about whether the state had the power to require driver's licenses (it did). It is also clear from Google that you copied the quotes from a Jack McLamb article which has been thoroughly disproved (McLamb is not a lawyer). --Coolcaesar 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update to Luke 24, but Wikipedia generally doesn't approve of articles that quote extensively form source material (those source go to WikiSource instead). If you care about the article, you should consider adding meat to it, but the raw text doesn't really belong there. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia! RossPatterson 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on Washington State Constitution

The article on the Washington State Constitution in its present form does not, in my opinion, come anywhere close to qualifying for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We need sources to back up the claims in the article. I would suggest that the creator of this article go back and look for some actual legal authority -- some case law to support the material. "Case law" means verbatim re-prints of actual court decisions. In the absence of legal authority, the assertions in the article would be just some private individual's opinion. In any case, Wikipedia needs some support added. Yours, Famspear 19:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your edits to that articel per many comments above and past articels you've been involved in, including "Senate Document No. 43", an utter hoax. 68.39.174.238 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Law That Never Was

Greetings. Your article on The Law That Never Was constituted a copyright violation of the material on Mr. Benson's website. I have cleaned it up. Please be careful not to merely cut and paste material written by others... after all, Thou Shalt Not Steal! BD2412 T 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/User_talk%7ENarrowPathPilgrim_1a4a.html"