Magidin

Impressed with your catch!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it's awesome that you're watching both the Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court and nerdy stuff like Harry Potter and such. I figured nobody would be watching the Horsemen, so I watched them myself.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you and I were trying to accomplish the same thing at the same time. in any case I give up, its your show now. Good Luck. Awg1010 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Replied on my talk page. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey - I just saw the improvements that you made to my edit of the Supreme Court wikipage. I like your wording of the Roe v. Wade bit, better than the way I tried to do it. Congrats and thanks. Raymondwinn (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yo.Please consider my nomination of Hugo Black as a good article. In return, I would surely review one of your own in the future. Peace. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Magidin: Could you please amend your messages on the talk page to avoid interleavings? It makes it harder to read. I agree that the article is fine the way it is. I don't think I distorted your position, because what you wrote in correction was the same as what I understood when I read it, but, if you were concerned that what I said was not right, thank you for correcting it. In any case, I still agree with you. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for clarifying, Magidin. Under my previous and mistaken belief that I had done wrong by you, I was feeling bad. There certainly are certain editors whose tone is very questionable. In this case, the suspect editor's tone is already a subject of administrative discussion. See [[1]] and [[2]]. I think he is skating on thin ice above the warm waters of hell. In any case, even though I can sit there and debunk his self-styled (and self-defeating) legal arguments on the "life tenure" issue, it's very costly to me in terms of productivity. I know how silly it is, and yet, if no one speaks up about it, wikipedia will bend to his will. I'm not sure what to do about it. I think I just have to hope that this guy grows up, or that he regresses so far he earns a perma block. (Note that in fact, he did get a perma block from a zealous admin, but Lar and I argued for his reprieve).

Thank you also for fixing up the talk page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a page on Dalet School - a private school - and was hoping you could help since you have a lot of experience in this area. I would greatly appreciate your advice. In Citer (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also I have done an article on Obadiah School which I have included references on. I would be pleased to have you as an aid for the article, thank you. In Citer (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean, ornery? Anyway, you yourself have stated that whether or not the paragraph in question was original research was disputable and that it is a basic summing up of the information in that now now horribly dull, citation ridden section. Don't let IllaZilla sway you, he's an cultural plebeian who cares more about policies than he does creativity. And don't call Verifiability Not Truth on me, that policy's a joke! See WP:IGNORE. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Frankly Maggy, you've lost me completely and it looks like I've lost you completely. Kindly refrain from insulting my creativity and superior intellect, it's patently obvious who the plebeian is in this equation and it's not me. People are making it harder and harder for me to not be insulting. I'm not actually trying to be amusing though if you find me so then I'm flattered. "Idiot" and "cultural plebeian" were actually honest observations, not attempts at creativity. Furthermore if being forthright and refusing to be bullied constitutes "making an ass" of myself then hand me the punch and let's get this party started! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sonny? Oh I'm writing that down. Yes, don't worry, you're free of me. I'll be taking my business elsewhere. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Maggy, the fact is that by insulting my intelligence, you insult your own and I feel I've rather overestimated your mental faculties already. The paragraph in question belongs in that article and I will be re-adding it. People can't erase every trace of me from every article simply because they feel like it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why would you remove a picture of a sitting President and Vice President pictured with SCOTUS members. It's pretty rare to see. While it's encouraged to remove or add content to the encyclopedia, please discuss drastic and "opinionated" changes like what you did on the talk page to gain consensus. Thank you. miranda 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I second that point, requesting SCOTUS photo portraits. Shouldn't we have some illustrations when very appropriate? and they are such in this case. Dogru144 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your friendly assistance. If I understand you correctly, does that mean that the DEFAULTSORT tags for Robert McCallum, Jr. and Brien McMahon (incidentally, not names pulled out of thin air, but, like James Clark McReynolds, former Assistant Attorneys General) are incorrect? --avocat (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I certainly appear to have stepped in it... I don't know whether there are conflicting standards, lack of consensus, or lack of awareness of the issue. From a glance at this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=MacAlmon%2C+Terry - it looks like the problem is pretty widespread!--avocat (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

*sigh* All I wanted to do was put the Assistant Attorneys General in proper alphabetical order . . . ;-) --avocat (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm really glad that you're also editing Fermat's Last Theorem. I'll do my best to hold up my end, but please remember that I'm not a mathematician — you'll have to expect a few amateurish errors! Proteins (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does this person strike you as incredibly similar to our old acquaintance Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord)? The contribution history seems very similar to me, with similar patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, concern over List of fictional narcissists, etc.). Also he identifies as being from Chester, England, and all of JOM's previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). There's enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a SPI, but I thought I'd ask for second opinions first. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. Comments are welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that. I was so caught up in trying ot get the substantive info right I didn't see it. FWIW, I do know better, but it was an inadvertence. Kind of like trying to drive and talk on a cell phone at the same time -- different control centers which are mutually exclusive. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) StanReply

Mainly what I wanted to accomplish was to get a line citation to the Michael Ariens article. You moved it and that's "well and fine". I think that paper and electronic citations can coexist, and will make the article better. It is, BTW, a very well done article. I have a few additions that might deal with some areas not in the article, but I've got to leave that for another day and get back to work. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) StanReply

And actually, I was referring (at the time) to the bad grammar. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) StanReply

Magidin, Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. But paraphrasing is required here. It really is multitasking, and limited processing power (selective focus) is an issue. That's part of why everything needs to be rewritten, edited, rewritten. Louis Brandeis said, "There is no such thing as good legal writing. There is only good legal rewriting." And that is true here, too, even on this low cal stuff. I use editing as a way to do something, while I am processing 'in background' the stuff that pays the bills. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) StanReply

FYI, I fixed the broken link in James Clark McReynolds per your request. It has some good information which might be useful to paraphrase. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) StanReply

I was looking at your user page, and I think you might be able to help this article. Thanks in advance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) StanReply

Thank you for restoring all that info from the Benjamin Nathan Cardozo article! That knucklehead keeps deleting or changing the info to suit his/her own POV. I wasn't looking forward to restoring all that info as I have forgotten to copy it down elsewhere.The Original Historygeek (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the instructions. I had tried a couple of things and it didn't work.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You said, "That bit of trivia shouldn't be in the lead paragraph" when deleting the bit about the oldest of the ninth longest serving .... Isn't that claim inconsistent with the other similar superlatives or near-superlatives in the same paragraph? Cordially, Dogru144 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a neutral third party, I'm curious what you think about the disagreement over the Hunt article. I can provide the relevant articles via email if you like. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering why Magidin is attempting to remove legitimate OP-EDs about the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court page...seems like a version of censorship you are practicing--please explain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Please explain the removal of a legitimate OP-ED by a legitimate author in a legitimate publication. Thank you very much. Tibet 111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibet111 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. Appreciate it. Tibet111 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The insertion of a OP-ED from a major national publication and written by a respected author about a paticular case of the Supreme Court seems to me to be a legitimate addition to the Supreme Court page. Your deletion of such material detracts from the goals of Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Your comment that this article is spam is also not accurate.

In any case, you did give a thoughtful explanation about your reasons for your removal of the article about the case. I appreciate that you seem to be a reasonable person. Tibet111 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noted on the Supreme Court page you very quickly and efficiently converted the footnote moved to the end of the sentence into a standard format. Do you have software that gives you a template for that? I've been typing footnotes by hand, which is tedious. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your comment on a recent edit you made on the Severus Snape page. Apparently, there was someone who got his panties in a wad about the non-encyclopaedic nature of the page and asked for it to be deleted. Which, of course, screws up a lot of other HP articles. Ccrashh (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I also contacted the admin who processed the deletion and asked if someone would scour the HP articles for mention of the now-deleted article (I assume a bot would do that). Ccrashh (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've posted some goals for WikiProject Harry Potter on the improvement page for this year. Feel free to add and comment! --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your comments on my UserTalk page regarding my recent edit to the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the interest of avoiding a potentially-contentious debate on the article Talk page, I have self-reverted the edit in question. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I left you a message on the SCOTUS Talk page. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a total amateur like me seriously over at Monomorphism. I'm trying to teach myself some advanced math and physics as a hobby, and Wikipedia is an excellent starting point.

I am writing on User:YohanN7/Group Structure and the Axiom of Choice for the fun of it. I hope it will some day be good enough to become an article. Perhapce you could have a look at it if you get the time? I'm also (more seriously) working on improvements for Representation theory of the Lorentz group. I have a draft in User:YohanN7/Representation theory of the Lorentz group to replace the current section Representation theory of the Lorentz group#Properties of the (m,n) irrep.

Best regards, Johan YohanN7 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin, we worked briefly together on the John Paul Stevens article, and I like to think by working together we came up with a better result than we would have individually.

Okay, about the Sysco article:

1) There's been a scandal primarily reported by NBC Bay Area in which Sysco was caught using unrefrigerated drop sites. So, I think it's an important subject in its own right. For example, how can such a major corporation make such a clumsy mistake?

2) And a Sysco employee has briefly participated here at wikipedia by making edits. And so far, just fine. I thanked this new wiki member for jumping in and helping out. The person said they wanted to be transparent and share that they are a Sysco employee. I told them the Conflict Of Interest policy in which a paid advocate is asked to suggest changes on the Talk page. So far, no issue. Their their edits did in fact help out. But potentially for the future, I think the best solution is to invite more people into the tent.

So, if you want to help out with Sysco, please, by all means, jump in. The water is fine.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin, thanks for the comment. Perhaps "debunking" was a little stronger than what I meant to say, would you find "ridiculing" an acceptable replacement? Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I made this change moments before I saw your reply. I'd rather not weaken the statement further ... I believe that DeMorgan's intent is quite clear. I will support the current statement with an Underwood Dudley citation when I get back to my library and can look up the exact wording. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I did think "debunking" gave the wrong impression, but I'm willing to go along with your current wording. Magidin (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin, Appreciation for you good catch on the Sotomayor typo. During the last week, I have been adding the material from 3 new books on the Roberts court there and am almost done. The Sonia Sotomayor article could probably use a good top-to-bottom read through after the two or three dozen edits which I have made there during this past week. Possibly you could give it a once over when/if time allows, and only if this field is of interest to you. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin, My appreciation for your note from the other day. It would be a good target if you might be able to look at some of the citations on Sonia Sotomayor as you mention these, when and if time allows. This link checklinks report might also have some ideas for first order targets, etc. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin, Thanks for your comment and clarification on Talk at Sotomayor. I really thought your comment was on target; "I've been keeping half an eye on the changes; to be honest, I was planning to wait until they subsided before trying to wade in and do clean-up (from my lay-person point of view, at any rate)". My very brief update (now that things have returned back to a relative state of normalcy on that page), is that I am deeply immersed in the updates to the deadlinks in the footnotes, while all the items in the list of User:WastedTime on the Talk page of Sonia Sotomayor still need to be addressed (and many more that accumulated before I first looked at the page 3-4 weeks ago). It occurred to me that since I'm in the footnotes alone and not the text, that there is a chance for you to start in on the "clean-up" you referred to whenever time allows for you; it looked like all the Talk page participants there would like to see this. Many of the deadlinks there, I am finding, have not been updated since 2009! Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am working on a news feature story about the use of "comprised of" in articles. I notice that you took issue with the change early in this campaign. Are you by chance in the Bay Area? Could you please reach out to me at your earliest convenience at Keltym@CBSNews.com Thank you! NOLANY (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Magidin,

I noted your comment on my contribution to "Talk:Limit of a function".

I'm new to using the talk pages and obviously got it wrong. Part of the problem may have been that I failed to indent (I thought this would be automatic - I have corrected it), so it may not have been obvious that I was trying to comment on the previous (unsigned) suggestion to (in effect) change "Let p be a limit point ..." to "Let p be an adherent point ..." in the section "Functions on topological spaces".

The point I was trying to make was that this change would be nonstandard and unworkable (hence a bad idea).

I'm not sure how I would make the point that it is unworkable without discussing the subject. I've removed the examples and the extraneous point at the end. Is this more in line with what you'ld expect and is it still clear (or as clear, at any rate)?

regards, Martin Rattigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI. Catholic liturgical rites. I think this list is incomplete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi just checking if you were aware I had at the time of the edit added an additional comment to account for 9 = 3^2 + 0 in my own Talk page since there doesn't appear to be a Talk page for that topic. I feel accounting for zero squares should require more care because if we allow for zero then we could as well say that 9 is a sum of N squares as 9 = 3^2 + (0 + 0 ... + 0)(N-1 times). It also causes confusion in other area's of the proof. As for the idea that this is a quote it is a very loose one certainly not a direct translation of Euler's letter or papers. Although Integers are mentioned in the title section it is not clear whether the domain in Euler section is Integer or Natural Numbers due to the ambiguous use of the word number. Specifying that the numbers are Integers would also resolve the issue instead of my inital suggestion of changing the word from number to prime, change all instances of the ambiguous word "number" to "Integer". Personally I still think using the Domain of Natural Numbers and word prime would be a better way to go. Rhuaidhri (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

In response to your post on my talk page I hope this clears up the issue. My objection is the to the use of the ambiguous word "number". I feel a more specific term should be used either "Integer" or "prime" as would be usual in proofs of this type (both work). Instead of changing the quoted parts you could add a qualifying statement at the top of the Euler section stating the context of the quote and that the author is refering to Integers. As to the talk page link it doesn't show as a link however having checked other pages I don't see it there for them either so it must be a problem with my browser. I see from the talk link you provided (Thanks) that I'm not the first to point out the ambiguous nature of the phrasing. Rhuaidhri (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

In response to your second and third posts to my talk page. The use of the word "number" in any mathematical proof is ambiguous as there are many different types of numbers, that is not a subjective judgement on my part. The use of ambiguous words should be avoided if possible. Perhaps you didn't understand my last post fully so let me rephrase the last part of the suggestion. Since the word number is part of a quote I suggest that before the quote you state that number in the following section means Integer or any words to that effect of your own choosing. Again let me repeat I am not saying the passage is incorrect just ambiguous. Having said that in plain use the word "number" is usually taken to mean the Natural Numbers in which case the statement would be incorrect hence the reason I feel strongly that as the ambiguity can be easily avoided it should be. Rhuaidhri (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just by way of explanation, I added the honorific "The Honorable" to all living current and former SCOTUS justices after a series of edits to SCOTUS Justice articles by Therequiembellishere, in which they removed the honorific title (see, e.g. this edit to Chief Justice John Roberts, this edit to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and this edit to Justice Anthony Kennedy). I thought it would be a good idea to add the title back to the articles for living Justices because, prior to the edits, the title existed in the infoboxes for most living Justices. However, subsequent research has revealed that sitting SCOTUS Justices do not use the title "the Honorable," while retired Justices do use the title "the Honorable" (see this guide to etiquette and this guide to United States protocol). I had been calling sitting SCOTUS Justices "the Honorable" for years! Some law schools even advise their students to address sitting SCOTUS justices as "the Honorable." I guess this just goes to show how important it is to do your research. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops. That's [somehow] a new one for me. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Magidin,
you were right and I understand why you've deleted the link. Do you see any other way in which this can be properly used?
Greetings from Munich
Petrus3743 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, did not see you undid Hewitt's change of the section title earlier. It's too long, but I agree with Trovatore that it's not worth arguing with Hewitt about (that's exactly what he wants). At least he's now no longer allowed to raise that exact same issue again. —Ruud 10:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In articles such as POTUS and ACLU, we don't parenthetically note that the initialism or acronym is colloquial. Do you think SCOTUS is exceptional? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

ACLU is very different, because they refer to the organization by their initialism themselves; don't know about POTUS. But the issue of the SCOTUS acronym on the Supreme Court page was extensively discussed in the past; please check the archives. In any case, your edit placed the references in the wrong place: by locating them at the end of the sentence, you were giving them as if they supported the claim that the Supreme Court was the highest court in the judiciary, whereas the citations are exclusively about the use of SCOTUS as a referent. (The reason it states that it is colloquial is that the abbreviation/initialism is actually rather rare in use). Magidin (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That Safire reference is questionable in general. I'm inclined to remove it entirely as unneeded or at least move it somewhere less obnoxious. In general, I think it looks tacky to include references mid-sentence and to include references with lead sentences. Many/most of our articles, including featured articles, avoid this. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given that this has been discussed previously, at some length, I would suggest using the Talk page before simply removing because your obnoxiousness and tackiness threshold get crossed. Magidin (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

To save some time, here are the discussions on the archive. A brief mention here; a comment on removing it here; a suggestion to move it to the end of the paragraph here; some further discussion on the lede here; specific discussions here and here. I don't necessarily object to the removal, but given that it comes up many times, I think it best to discuss and establish some consensus first. Magidin (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Thank you for providing the archive links! I've been thinking on it more and I think we could maybe move the parenthetical to its own sentence later in the article, alleviating the concern about "SCOTUS" being featured so prominently, having a mid-sentence reference, and "cluttering" the lead sentence. I agree that the talk page would be a better venue for discussion. I'll head over there. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I put some thoughts on the talk page. If you're interested, I'd also like to discuss some of the other language used in the article. I can start separate talk page discussions for these items, of course. For example, where we say "The Court normally consists of...", I think it might be better to be more precise: "Since 19whatever and as proscribed by Congress in the something Act ...". The use of "normally" seems sort of subjective and too broad, particularly given that the Court's membership size has changed over time and didn't start as nine justices. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the latter, I think that the "normally" there refers not so much to the composition by statute, but rather to situations such as the one we are currently in: though the Court is supposed to have nine justices, in fact it currently consists only of eight justices (plus one vacancy). There's a more specific discussion under Size of the Court. That said: for other things it's probably okay to make a change, and only go to the talk page if there is a revert or objections (or to present a pre-emptive explanation-after-the-fact). Magidin (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The category Category:Antisemitism in the United States inclusion criteria states that no anti-Semites go into this category. I see that Category:American critics of Judaism (as lame as it sounds) and its parents and siblings are where anti-Semites are put. If all this sounds wrong, please take that up with the category creators elsewhere: I am just following the category structures as it exists here. ThanksHmains (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Magidin (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is in re: the discussion on the talk page of Demographics of the United States Supreme Court. As usually understood, religion is something that one practices in one's own life and is therefore is something which is in some sense chosen and may be changed. On the other hand, ethnicity is generally understood to be a fact about one's ancestry/background, and is thus something unchosen and unchangeable.

Jews, historically, were an ethnic group (literally, the descendants of Judah, although more generally the descendants of Jacob) who practiced a religion which was more or less limited to their own ethnic group (the Jews have never practiced proselytism). Usually when people stop practicing a religion, they stop identifying with that religion. However, since being Jewish involves both ethnic and religious senses, many people who do not practice the Jewish religion still identify as Jewish. Jews in the modern world tend to have a strong ethnic identity even when they do not actually practice the Jewish religion or hold Jewish religious beliefs. It is relatively common for someone to identify as both Jewish (in the ethnic sense) and atheist (in the religious sense). Something similar sometimes happens with Hispanic Catholics (or Italian Catholics) who may continue to identify as "Catholic" even when they no longer practice the religion (or believe it) because their ethnic identity is so closely tied to a religious culture. But notice that this almost never happens with protestants: if they stop practicing their denomination or religion altogether, they do not continue identifying as "Methodist" or "Lutheran" or whatnot.

The discussion of "Jewish" justices on the Supreme Court confuses the two different ways of being Jewish. It categorizes "Jewish" explicitly as a religious demographic and then classifies justices as Jewish based on purely ethnic evidence. The fact that someone has Jewish ancestors proves that they are ethnically Jewish, but it does not demonstrate that they should be considered to adhere to the Jewish religion. There ought to be more evidence to identify someone as Jewish in a religious sense then mere Jewish ancestry. With regard to Merrick Garland, the only information on Wikipedia (or its sources) regarding his being Jewish indicates that he is ethnically Jewish, but none of it tells us anything about his religious beliefs or practices. There might be similar problems with the identification of other justices as Jewish.

I hope that at least helps clarify the distinction between "religiously Jewish" and "ethnically Jewish" for you. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

While talking about "lapsed Catholics" is quite common, the closest parallel among Jews is "non-observant Jew" or "non-practicing Jew". Which includes them among the ranks of Jews. Common parlance does not generally distinguish between them, and the distinction that was attempted with Garland seemed to be that unless he goes to Temple on a regular basis, he should not be identified as jewish. Under that standard, you should remove Brandeis and Cardozo from the list, as well. I would also challenge your assertion about Protestants, since it is in fact quite common in my experience for people who do not practice their particular denomination to still claim to be a part of it. Thank you for the history lesson about judaism and how Jews fit in the modern world, though; it's not like I went to Jewish private School for 15 years as a kid... oh, wait, I did. (Okay, that was perhaps unwarrantedly sarcastic for what seems to be an honest attempt from you at providing context; it's just that you are assuming a level of ignorance on my part that is actually incredibly inaccurate; it comes pretty close to mansplaining.) Magidin (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I offended you, but if you went to Jewish private school, surely you were already aware of the ways in which Jewish identity has both ethnic and religious components. Personally, I don't care if Merrick Garland goes to Temple or not; I think the relevant point is whether he thinks of himself as an adherent of Judaism the religion in any sense at all (observant, non-observant, whatever), as opposed to only a member of the Jewish people in an ethnic sense. My point was that the only evidence Wikipedia seems to have for his being Jewish deals with his ancestry and his childhood. This would be like claiming that someone is still a resident of the state they were born and raised in quite apart from any evidence of where they've lived since they turned 18 (and even that, like outward religious practice or lack thereof, would not be definitive since one may legally be a resident of a state other than the state that one seems to live in). He may consider himself Jewish (practicing or not), but he might also consider himself an atheist or as adhering to some other religion. I have no idea, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any idea either. And surely a hypothetical justice who was born to a Jewish family and raised Jewish but converted to and practiced some other religion as an adult would not be counted as an adherent of Judaism the religion. I just think it would be helpful for the article to confront more directly the relatively unique ethno-religious hybrid nature of Jewishness. By contrast, this concern does not seem to arise with its discussion of Catholic justices (obviously Clarence Thomas is not being counted as Catholic because of his ethnic background, and whatever complaints conservatives might have about her, Sonia Sotomayor does actually seem to identify herself as a (lapsed) Catholic). But I guess if nobody else thinks it's an issue, I can leave it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

My main irritation here was that, since you took it to my talk page, you were addressing me and only me, perhaps asking what I found confusing, or trying to gauge my level of knowledge first would have been a bit more appropriate than simply assuming that I was wholly and completely ignorant and thus providing me with a lecture. A "confrontation" about the rather difficult and subtle issues of who is or is not "Jewish", religiously Jewish vs. ethnically Jewish, etc., is certainly not appropriate for the page on the Demographics of the Supreme Court. If anything is to be there, it would have to be at most a pointer to some source on the issue that is directly relevant to the Supreme Court and not to the general argument: think the paragraph on Cardozo in the Hispanic heading; there isn't a discussion of why sephardic jews should or should not be considered "hispanic", there is just an indication of disagreement among historians, and three citations to evidence this. Is there any citation indicating disagreement among historians or demographers of the Supreme Court on whether any of the typically-identified-as-Jewish justices (Brandeis, Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg, Fortas, Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan) should really be described as Jewish in the religious sense or not? I am not aware of any. I was also not aware of any such disagreement regarding Garland, and most sources described him simply as Jewish; so trying to argue that he should not (or that we should question whether he should) be considered Jewish because we don't have any information demonstrating that he considers himself a "religious jew" as opposed to an "ethnic jew" one seem like OR or PoV-pushing. Compare with Gorsuch, where the discussion of whether he considers himself Catholic or Episcopalian was actually in the news and there were articles about it. Of course, whether Garland describes himself as "religiously Jewish" (a self-description that in my experience is, at best, exceedingly rare; people say "Jewish", or "Jewish background", etc) is moot. And your arguments about Garland apply just as well to Cardozo, who identified himself in later life as an agnostic who was proud of his "Jewish heritage". So, are you advocating for removing Cardozo from the discussion of Jewish justices? You are trying to engage in an ethnographic argument about just what the word "jew" should or should not mean, and neither my talk page nor the Demographics of the Supreme Court page are the appropriate location for that discussion. Magidin (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You make a lot of good points. I'm sorry for having bothered you, but I do appreciate the thoroughness of your replies and the time you took to write them. I'm pretty new to the Wikipedia editing community, so this has been a learning experience for me. Thanks for giving me some guidance. You've definitely helped me understand better both how the editing community works and how Wikipedia understands and practices its own mission. I think I've learned some lessons here I can apply in the future. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:LEADCITE says that it is not necessary per se to have citations in the lead for non-controversial things unlikely to be challenged, if said information shows up in the body of the article. That Washington Post review is repeated in the reception part of the article, with a citation. If you'd like, I'll go ahead and just put a citation on it. I was being lazy because I generally don't use citations in leads. --haha169 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

No worries, thanks for being thorough! I was just being lazy, it probably should have just been cited in any case. --haha169 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I checked into your edits on McReynolds. You are correct that McReynolds did not clerk for Justice Jackson when Jackson was on the Supreme Court. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You ring please. I should have written about it. I would correct the changes. Best regards, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry for the bad english. I'm not going to fix anything. All the way around. I wanted to say that I could have corrected my mistakes if you had told me about it. It is a pity that Wikipedia uses very poor possibilities in depicting mathematical formulas. With the best, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• This option is better?

${\displaystyle \left\{{\begin{aligned}x&\equiv a_{1}{\pmod {n_{1}}}\\&\vdots \\x&\equiv a_{k}{\pmod {n_{k}}},\end{aligned}}\right.}$ 

With the best, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for explanations. I didn't know. I so didn't think earlier. Is over what to think. With the best, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I'm sorry for taking up your time. That's my last question. I want to still achieve beauty. Following the source [3], don't you think it would be better?

${\displaystyle {\begin{array}{rcl}x&\equiv &a_{1}{\pmod {n_{1}}}\\&\vdots &\\x&\equiv &a_{k}{\pmod {n_{k}}},\end{array}}}$ 

The disadvantage of this option is that there are spaces around the congruence symbol. System congruency better to not imagine it. Again, sorry for my persistence. With the best, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, that option is not better because it has way too much space surrounding the symbols. You could use eqnarray instead, which does not include anywhere near as much space, but there is no point. The align environment is specifically designed for aligning equations. So that's what should be used. Look, I've been using TeX and LaTeX for over 30 years. Trust me. Magidin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the answer. I got it. With "eqnarray" at me it hasn't turned out as it is necessary. As well as I promised you any more I won't disturb. Thanks, good-bye, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Well excuse please. I slept badly now, wanted to solve a problem. I have tried the last option? How about you?

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x&\equiv a_{1}{\pmod {n_{1}}}\\&\ \ \vdots \\x&\equiv a_{k}{\pmod {n_{k}}},\end{aligned}}}$ 

I before it was mistakenly have sent the letter of D.Lazard. He has told that it isn't really good, but is tolerant. Therefore I have slightly improved this primitive option:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x&\equiv a_{1}{\pmod {n_{1}}}\\&~~\vdots \\x&\equiv a_{k}{\pmod {n_{k}}},\end{aligned}}}$ 

Sorry. Alpha-Gamma (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

So that's two times you said you were done but came back with minor tweaks on something that is really minor. Just to try to align the vertical dots. Really? Don't you have something better to do with your time? Magidin (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• You — are absolutely right. Farewell. Alpha-Gamma (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Magidin I added a section to the Supreme Court of the United States talk page that you will most likely want to comment on. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14Reply

Magidin Interestingly, the same editor (Snooghanssnoogans) who removed my mention of the "wise Latina" remarks from the lede of the Sotomayor article is making the opposite argument to include mention of sexual allegations in the lede of the Kavanaugh article. We can't have it both ways. GlassBones (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GlassBones: I tried to make my argument neutral and non-partisan; in fact, I'm a liberal. My comments and points were summarily ignored. It is patently clear to me that both you and other users involved in this particular kerfuffle are not doing so out of a desire to improve the articles in question, but simply as a proxy for partisan fights. Both your comments and those of that user are steeped in partisan, one-sided justifications. I have no interest in participating under those conditions. Magidin (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Magidin -I appreciate your position. I am basically a libertarian who leans conservative on some issues. I guess I tend to argue more conservatively, since so many editors here argue with a very liberal bias. GlassBones (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have never contacted anyone on Wikipedia before, so appologies in advance if I do anything wrong. I was just reading the page on SCOTUS and I think the paragraph about justices who previously clerked for other justices is incomplete - it does not include Barrett's clerkship for Scalia. I can't edit the page but it says you were the last editor, so I was wondering if you could address it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:80:1960:8101:A1BF:1DB3:8D1D (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

For the record, this is not how you do it. You should go to the talk page of the page in question and raise the issue. Also, if you are adding material to a talk page, add it at the bottom (use the "New Section" button on top), not at the top. Magidin (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per your comments at [[4]], now that the new picture is on the SCOTUS website at [[5]] are you able to upload the new photo to [[6]]. Thanks. Nerguy (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The new photo has been put up by another editor. It was put up 18 hour before you wrote the above. Magidin (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

My apologies I had not noticed.Nerguy (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you're in the mood for a massive data-entry kind of task, I am filling in lines for these individuals and moving them to the lists at the top by chronological order of date of death. BD2412 T 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not right now... sorry. Magidin (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries, and no deadline. The project has survived for 20 years without such a list. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

By the way, this is now done - List of United States federal judges who died in active service, and three subpages. Of course, immediately nominated for deletion by non-judge people, but it doesn't look like that will yield a consensus. BD2412 T 22:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Magidin! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Supreme Court of the United States that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Just a quick question. Why did you revert this edit and say I removed access to archives? All 8 archives are listed in the talk header, so the archive box is redundant. If I'm mistaken about this, please let me know! Wafflewombat (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Magidin: thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed, that you reverted my aforementioned edit. Could I ask you a few questions about it:

1) Would you agree with me that the current practice of the writ of certiorari is so different from the practices of Supreme and Constitutional Courts of other countries, that it should be mentioned in the very first paragraph. Keep in mind, most Americans have no idea, that in most countries parties have a RIGHT to appeal to the highest national court(s)?

2) if yes to 1, then do you think correcting my writing rather than deleting is more appropriate?

3) we can discuss further, whether the legislative act 1988 , or an actual earlier date, or both should be mentioned there.

Look forward to having a civilized discussion. Walter Tau (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Walter Tau: Generally speaking, discussion about improvements and changes to a particular page should be done at the talk page for that article, not in user's talk pages. If you would like to discuss additions/corrections to the page, please do so there.

(1) I do not know enough about other practices to claim it is "so different" from practices in other countries. Even if it were, I do not think it belongs on "the very first paragraph" (you did not place it there anyway), nor even in the lede. There are too many differences between courts to list all of them in the lede. If the change in appellate jurisdiction is to be mentioned, it would be in the Jurisdiction section. If there are reliable sources that criticize this in comparison to practices in other countries, then they belong in the Criticism and Controversies sections. In any case, the assertions need to be appropriately cited to secondary sources. In my opinion, an extensive mention or list of differences with other Constitutional or Highest Courts should not be in the article, unless they are in the context of reliable, notable, cited, specific criticism or commentary.

(2) I deleted your addition because it was unsourced, as far as I know, with some recent knowledge based on the citation I provided in my revert summary, factually incorrect, and out of place in the lede even if it were accurate. This is the appropriate action for unsourced factually incorrect additions.

(3) It is a fact that the changes in mandatory appellate jurisdiction come mostly from the Judge's Bill from of 1925, not from 1988. I just finished reading Vladek's book, to which I directed you, which has an entire chapter discussing these changes, made mostly at the behest of Chief Justice Taft. You can also see the following quote in the page for the Judiciary Act of 1925: Congress chose to pass the act in 1925. This action rendered the majority of the Supreme Court's workload discretionary by removing the possibility of direct appeal to the court in most circumstances. Henceforth, pursuant to §237(b) of the act, appellants would file petitions for writs of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which would be accepted at the discretion of four of the nine Justices. You seem to believe otherwise but provide no citations; the page for the 1998 Act quotes Section 1257 before the changes as providing that the Supreme Court may review certain judgements, not that it must review them.

Please take discussions about improvement or changes to the article to the talk page of the article. Magidin (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your suggestions. I whole-heartedly support them. I started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#when_did_the_SCOTUS_become_discretionary_in_appelate_cases?

but I am not sure you get automatically pinged about it. Walter Tau (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply