Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States

message: question to DD2K why edit was deleted.  How can POV be made more neutral?
Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article
Shortcuts:
WP:NNC
WP:N#NCONTENT
WP:NLISTITEM
The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
Broncofan12 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is not notable at all. This is a local zoning dispute that went on and on. Neighbors fight with neighbors all the time. This article is based on Pro se legal representation, and the subject you are trying to insert has no notability, and are at the same time inserting BLP violations against the persons the non-notable subject took to court. In other words, there is no reason to add this here. It does not improve this article and you seem to be trying to insert some local trivia for your own WP:POV/WP:COI reasons. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Those instances are not sufficiently notable for that section. Also it's been readded by new accounts three times now. Please do not add it again. There is no consensus for it to be added in. Shadowjams (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it appears that many of the other items in the list should not be there either without better supporting third party sources indicting their notability/significance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd have no objection if you whittled it down, in number and in length of each issue. Shadowjams (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It appears you are continuously creating new accounts. Please stop doing that and stick to one account. You should probably look at WP:N for a detailed discussion of our notability criteria as well as WP:Consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

text: (e/c) @Betablocker5, you are incorrect, on multiple levels. While the minimal hurdle is that content is verifiable (what you may be considering as "fact"), other policies also control content, including WP:CONSENSUS and WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not impressed. This is some of the lamest, most obvious socking  have ever seen. Article semi protected since they seem to be too obsessive to edit any other article, all recent socks blocked. Didn't bother with tags but if anyone wants to add them so they are added to :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kay Sieverding be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Kay, we've already been through this over and over. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: notable pro se litigants

message: As a note, there is quite an extensive sock farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding/Archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not impressed. This is some of the lamest, most obvious socking  have ever seen. Article semi protected since they seem to be too obsessive to edit any other article, all recent socks blocked. Didn't bother with tags but if anyone wants to add them so they are added to :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kay Sieverding be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 
impressive
 lame obvious sock farm

message: There is no legitimate reason to block the information that the Department of Justice imprisoned a pro se litigant, Kay Sieverding, with no statutory basis, no criminal charge, and no bail hearing, for the sole reason that she engaged in pro se litigation.  This article is not useful to pro se litigants if they are not told that they risk imprisonment if they file documents in federal court even if the documents are 100% truthful and the suit is under 42 USC section 1983. Reader567 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kay, we've already been through this over and over. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of reputable and relevant article by Denver Post 

message: Does Competency Does Not Always Mean Competency, According to the Supreme Court  provide additional verification for the  Faretta v. California information? Articles in the Perspectives series are written primarily by faculty and L.L.M. candidates in health law at the University of Houston’s Health Law and Policy Institute. 67.175.6.19 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Does Darrell Brooks (on trial for 6 counts of intentional homicide and dozens of other felonies) not qualify as a notable pro se party? 74.192.166.2 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waukesha Christmas Parade defendant 

message: In the "Rules" section of the article this following claim is presented:
>>"In addition the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgments notes that pro se litigants may need additional advice with regard to necessity of responding to a summary judgment motion."
I've just read the entirety of FRCP rule 56 and cannot seem to find this requirement of additional advice for pro se litigants anywhere contained in it. The citation linked for this does not actually link to any specific subsection or explanation why this would be the case, it's just a link to the entire text of rule 56. It also does not cite which subsection or subrule this would be a part of. As I said I read through rule 56 in my own copy of the FRCP and don't seem to see anything remotely suggesting that this is true.
As such I'm removing that claim, if anyone can give the actual citation in rule 56, (Ex. Rule 56(c)(1)) or a citation to any rule in general which supports this claim I'd be happy to look at the rule and re-add the claim. Until then I'm taking it out. BabbleOnto (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about rule 56 not actually supported in citation