User talk:143.165.201.47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 15 December 2005

Regarding your repeated deletions on New Dorp, Staten Island and Time travel and others: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hu 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove economists from the list of economists. Martin 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy about how bankruptcy law puts the PBGC at the back of the line: Request for clarification on article on PBGC

Dear editor at 143.165.201.47: I am curious about the following passages that you apparently inserted in the article on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation:

Because of the operation of the automatic stay and the power of the United States trustee [sic] to avoid transfers and other transactions within a certain period under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy judges (regular federal judges are Article III Judges, while Article I judges like "Administrative Law Judges" and "Bankruptcy Judges" are not as the US Supreme so held in 1982 in the case of Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 US 50) have interpreted liens placed by the PBGC as "preferences" and other transantuions [sic] subject to the trustee's avoiding powers, the PBGC has been placed behind the eight ball.
This is due to the definition of a "transfer" to include things like obtaining a security interest or lien or even the perfecting of such security interest.
See also the Deprizio case.

First, the correct title for the trustee is simply "trustee" or "bankruptcy trustee" "panel trustee" or "chapter 7 trustee" or "chapter 11 trustee" (as applicable), not the "United States Trustee." The United States Trustee is an officer in the U.S. Department of Justice who does not normally serve as a bankruptcy trustee.

Second, please explain why and how Northern Pipeline relates to the trustee's power to avoid a lien (if that's what you were trying to say)? How would you describe the problem that the Court saw in Northern Pipeline? How did the amendments to the Code in 1984 "fix" the Northern Pipeline problem (if indeed they did fix the problem)? Or, if you believe the problem wasn't fixed, can you point to a court decision to that effect?

Also, how does Deprizio, i.e., Levit v. Ingersoll Rand Financial Corp. (In re Deprizio), 874 F.2d 1186 (7th Cir. 1989), specifically relate to all this? Regards, Famspear 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor at 143.165.201.47: Another question is: What is the specific "controversy"? Do you mean that the pensioners are upset? Or are you saying that there is some sort of error in the way the law is being applied in all this? In other words, exactly what is the "disagreement" and who are the parties that are doing the disagreeing? What is each side saying? Thanks, Famspear 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Thanks for experimenting with the page Appalachia on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)