My experiences came up on the talk page but once I understood Wikipedia I didn t post anything on the article related to my personal experiences That was like the 2nd day almost two months ago All of my references are verifiable There s nothing in the article about my law suit or my being put in jail for engaging in pro se litigation I didn t put my experiences in the Judge Edward Nottingham article either although he was my judge I went out of my way to search for references expressing all the various sides of the issue For instance I wrote to the ABA and asked for their input and in fact asked them to work on the article I also posted about issues involved with mediation and settlement with pro ses citing references from a lawyers point of view Those references were deleted by someone I can t remember who and don t know why At this point the only reference that I posted that is soft at all is a blog quoting a transcript quoting a former federal judge and I know for sure that is a valid transcript The guy who runs the blog is a 3rd year law student and has a business selling data services exclusively to lawyers Even the stuff that was deleted about pro se frustration I had references for I read in the Wikipedia discussion of sources that blogs can be used in some contexts I don t believe that I did any original research All I did is search the Internet for references for the article I really didn t know about unbundled attorney services or the amount of pro se litigation before I started working on this article I had already been thinking about forms based filing but I started thinking about that anyway because of my experiences with ECF which date back to 2004 Also when I was younger I worked as a systems analyst I did get the info on the Laws and Liberties of MA years ago but Wikipedia already had an article on that and it probably would have come up anyway Same as the U N covenantcan t really hide that I didn t add a and b together to prove a point at least not consciously Like today I was reviewing appellate procedures and it seemed that the 5th Circuit had a more pro se friendly tone which I think is because of Judge Learned Hand who was in the fifth circuit And the only reason I know about that is that one time I went in every federal circuit and searched on the words pro se in the 40s because I was trying to see if there was a history of putting pro ses in jail for being pro se No there was not What I found in the 40s was that some circuits denied all the pro se appeals without even saying why but Judge Learned Hand seemed pro se friendly I believe that your posting things about pro se litigants getting an unfair advantage is soap boxing I do understand your wanting to win thru competition though and about law as a business I ve been an entrepreneur I didn t know about the Federal Judicial Center until I started working on this article That book on appellate procedure I found looking for references for this article The manual on complex litigation I found looking for references for this article Arguing with you helps me to clarify the issues for myself One thing I started thinking about a lot in the past few weeks is slavery and how that affected the history of pro se litigation I ordered the book Slave Nation at the library but I haven t got it yet But now when I look at pro se law in the different states I think free state slave state border state Also there were issues related to Indians in some of the western states The labor union movement had a lot to do with it too I think So did the history of workmen s comp which is of course related to unions