User talk:Ironlion45

This is my talk page. Please, if you have questions or comments, I do not mind being contacted.

I suppose there's not much to say here, other than leave a note for me here if you need to.

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Ironlion45,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Black Swan Project

I saw your NPOV on the Black Swan Project. I agree that the article needs revision. It would appear that the language in the leaked documents may be somewhat inscrutable, which would not be a surprise. The accusation that the State Department's involvement in the Black Swan case is in any way improper is one of those things that simply can't be proven. The only thing that is known for certain is that the State Department filed an amicus brief in the appellate court in support of Spain's position. The opinions stated in that brief rely on the accuracy of the (disputed) facts contained in Spain's submissions to the court, as well as on the accuracy of the writer's interpretation of the provisions in the Sunken Military Crafts Act (given those facts). The facts of the case and the manner in which the law applies to the case are heavily intertwined, so the determination of the validity of the statements made by each side is crucial. Even if it were true that the State department had made a deal with Spain in exchange for filing its brief, it would be far from clear that their filing was improper. It is up to the court to determine the facts and interpret the law, not the State Department. The magistrate, not the State Department, cut off debate about the facts. The motives of the magistrate are unknown. The court is not subject to the direction of the State Department, and there is no proof whatsoever that the court has been pressured to favor Spain. Odyssey may or may not be right about their suspicions, but all they have is suspicions. I agree with you that the article could easily be read to imply otherwise. Clearly, Wikipedia should not take sides. I have made revisions to this page that I would like you to review. Do you think it still sounds biased, and if so, where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.35 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)