User talk:PullUpYourSocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please place new conversations below.

Contents

[edit] Strict liability

I think strict liability and absolute liability need to be moved off of regulatory offence. The former indicates the presence of a regulatory agency, and generally is not something i have ever heard in US law. Strict liability, on the other hand, is something used a lot, and absolute liability appears to be the same thing. Since you are Canadian, this might just be a jurisdictional difference. Do you have any interest in the articles? Manney 13:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCRF

Is this page on your watchlist? It'll be on the main page on August 2, so expect some vandalism and bad edits- I hope you can help out with that. How's your summer going? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • How do you think that passage can be stated better? Please fix it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks though. However, I must say I've been noticing that with this article those who have a problem with it isn't so much because of whether it's unreferenced but because the references offend their own little version of events. They like to think of Quebec being betrayed by fascists, the United States towering over a Canada in the Dark Ages, and they don't like the idea that we should neglect the fact that some extremist right wing theocratic pro-life property rights enthusiasts support the Charter. *Sigh* CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial Judges

I hope you don't mind this wikification [1] on one of your subpages since I just wrote the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCC cases

Do you have any opinion on whether some Supreme Court cases should be considered notable or non notable? Are they all notable? I'd personally say they're mostly all notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial Judges Reference

Since you started this article, I was wondering if you have anything to say about its expansion. Note that while there are some criticisms, these were added throughout the article in an attempt to make it understandable, and hopefully, interesting. Is there anything else that should be added? Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Canadian trial court cases

Hey PUYS, I just created an article on R. v. Jim; it was not a trial case, yet not heard in the British Columbia Court of Appeal; it was an appeal to the British Columbia Supreme Court. How should this be categorized? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What about provincial court cases? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there would be few, unless you count things that were later appealed (the Remuneration Reference pointed to Big M as an important provincial court case, even though it was later appealed to no less than the Supreme Court). Why not "inferior and superior" leaving out the description "federal"? All superior courts are federal anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Or we can be a little less scientific and say "lower court cases". After all, the law schools aren't grading us :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases

You should write some articles regarding this,including compiling some lists such as List of Dominion of Canada Privy Council Cases,List of Nova Scotian Privy Council Cases,etc. When a case had been to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,& one of the parties represented the Dominion,& the other party represented a province,then this case's article should be listed in both the Dominion's list,& the list of the relevant province. - (202.180.98.82 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Article that will interest you

Here's an article that will be of interest to you; - List of Canadian Privy Council cases - (Paisleyite1976 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] New RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Please feel free to participate in what I hope will be a fruitful discussion. - Mcasey666 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cdn govt images

Just a point of clarification: those arguing for deletion are not necessarily basing their argument on U.S. fair use law, they are arguing that even if these images DO qualify as fair use, they should be deleted anyway. The concept of "replaceability" has no basis in U.S. fair use law, and is, frankly, a little dubious. - Mcasey666 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Louis-Philippe de Grandpre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis-Philippe de Grandpre.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Abu Badali 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: List of publications in law

I've nominated the article List of publications in law for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of publications in law satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in law. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of List of publications in law during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. WJBscribe 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada

Hey, I'm trying to get List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to be a featured list. I noticed that you've done some work on that page, so I was wondering if you wanted to help out or give it a vote so it can meet the required 4 supports. --Arctic Gnome 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oakes test and Bakan

Its well known at UBC, the school that I go to, that Bakan wrote the Oakes test, he has told the story in class and other professors have mentioned that he did.

How do you want it verified?

Exceptional? Keep your socks on, I asked because this is not the kind of thing that gets well documented, officially Dickson wrote it so short of him explicitly saying Bakan is the author this isn't the kind of thing that lends itself to documentation from an independently forthcoming source.

That you think he is making it up is interesting. [personal attack removed]

[edit] I HAVE RETURNED

Wikipedia belongs to our evil alliance again. MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA >:D CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legal systems map

Hello PullUpYourSocks, I posted the following on the Talk:Legal systems of the world page, about taking out the customary law classifications - then I noticed that excellent coloured map, which I think is yours. I don't know how to change these things, but if you'd agree, I wanted to ask for your help. Here's what I posted: Wikidea 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the sections about 'customary law' be removed. The reason is that I just don't think it's an actual legal system in its own right. Custom is certainly a source of law, and an important one, but it doesn't constitute a legal system. The only two examples given are Andorra and Mongolia. This is a link to law in Mongolia, which I googled in about 2 seconds, showing a distinct lack of 'custom' - it's a civil code based jurisdiction. As for Andorra, it's a European country, and I bet it's got a civil law system much like the places around it. If you wanted you could call the common law customary law under the definition given on the customary law page, and you could call England a mixed system with custom and common law: think of all the Parliamentary procedures, or the custom that the monarch doesn't sack the elected government (since 1707 I think). I'm sure that you can easily remove it from the page, and it'd make the page far simpler, neater and more accurate. Would it be okay for me to go ahead on this? Wikidea 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Since you created this article, it's been expanded into a long-winded POV essay by another contributor, and since tagged for cleanup. I think the present version is unsalvageable, so I'm going to revert back to your original version and am hoping to expand it with additional sources. Please help if you can - you clearly know more about this field than I do. Walton monarchist89 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] somebody's awesomeness

Hey pal. Hope you don't mind the informalities. You are doing a terrific job and you are awesome :) Hope you have a good one. Ben 07:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on your username

Even though you are a sensible contributor to wikipedia, I have to inform you; that using the word sock, in your username may bring to the attention of admins that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked, or banned user. Just to notify you. Retiono Virginian 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be silliness. PUYS is not just a good contributor, he's a longtime contributor and much time has passed without any trouble over his username or, to the best of my knowledge, anything else. Besides, socks are not prohibited. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
In any event, I'm willing to take the risk. --PullUpYourSocks 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Hm, not sure if I agree with their removal. Lists can have red links as a sort of a to-do list; plus if those articles are written the editor would have to re-add them, or they may not know where to add them and the article may be orphaned. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCC in the news

This article [2] will make a handy reference, depending on which one of us beats the other at writing the page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start: R. v. Bryan. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with RFC

Hello there, sorry for the form-letter post.... I am writing you because your interest in the past around the collection of articles around HRM and Halifax.

I have recently lodged a Request for Comments on the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia page. I and several other editors have had a running dispute with user Lonewolf BC. The RFC is This is a dispute about whether it is accurate to continue to refer to the area of or approximately coinciding with the boundaries of the City of Halifax, which became a part of the rural/urban Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, as a city.

Basically, as I say on the RFC, we all agree that this is no longer a City, but to use former City's boundaries when describing the current urban area as a "city" (note the lower case) is at best arbitrary and at worst a fabrication. The city is now a continuous area that wraps the harbour, from Portuguese Cove (outside of the city of Halifax to the west and south) to Cole Harbour (outside of the former City of Dartmouth to the east). People now refer to the entire urban area of Halifax Regional Municipality as 'the city' and 'Halifax'.

Anyway, the bottom line is at least five people have tried to change the wording of the intro since January, and every time this one user changes it back. I have tried to come up with compromise wording, and he won't dialog. Right now wikipedia says HRM and Halifax are the capital of Nova Scotia. This article is now factually incorrect, in my opinion, and I need your help, please chime in. WayeMason 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bertha_Wilson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bertha_Wilson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Yves_Pratte.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yves_Pratte.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Intervener

Dear PullUpYourSocks:

I would like to improve the article you started entitled intervener. I would like to include some information on U.S. legal practice. I know that the article as it stands now is based mostly on Canadian practice, (which is obviously your field of expertise), but I think there are a few errors in this article as it stands now. First of all, intervention in a civil case in the United States is governed by a separate rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24. Secondly, American lawyers do not consider intervention the same thing as an amicus curiae brief; in fact, the two concepts are altogether different. Intervention in U.S. practice is when a new party comes into the case to protect her interests or because she has a common question of law or fact with the ongoing litigation. Amici curiae are considered "advisory" briefs and are governed by a totally different submission procedure.

This article could really use an overhaul or at least some clarification, but I did not want to begin doing so without your advice and input. Personally, I think the article should be completely rewritten and most of the current content be moved to the amicus curiae article, but I wanted to hear your opinion on the matter first. Please respond on my talk page when you have time.

Thanking you in advance, --Eastlaw 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English case names

I'm sure you are aware of this by now, but English, Australian, New Zealand (not sure about Canada) etc. cases do not have a full stop after the v in their name. --Matthew Proctor 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian practice is to include the period after the ‘v’ even when referring to the names of British or Australian cases. --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision history of Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice LeBel

Quite by accident I happened upon the RHoRotSCoCbJL site that you built. I am not a legal scholar, and will probably never need the information on that page... but that has got to be one of the most beautifully designed pages I have ever seen. That page is everything the Wikipedia could be and should become. I just really wanted to say thank you for sharing your time and knowledge in making that page. Saudade7 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court of Ontario

Have a look at Talk:Court of Ontario, discussion of whether the "Court of Ontario" should have its own article. I'd be interested in your thoughts. It's kind of a weird thing, a court that exists on paper only. --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jean Beetz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean Beetz.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Robert Cartwright.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Robert Cartwright.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Sopinka.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Sopinka.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gerald Fauteux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gerald Fauteux.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Roland Almon Ritchie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Roland Almon Ritchie.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Robert Taschereau.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Taschereau.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baker Lake case

Hi, I noticed that you are largely responsible for most of the articles in Category:Canadian aboriginal case law. Your work is great, and I really appreciate it. In my readings, I recently stumbled on some references to the Baker Lake case about Inuit title. I can't seem to find anything about it on wikipedia? Maybe I just can't find it or maybe no article exists. If it's the latter, do you think you might have time to write it? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)