User talk:Legalskeptic/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Legalskeptic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

nice work!

		The Law Barnstar
		Very nice work at Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers. WP:law could use more people who show such attention to detail! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS What year of law school are you in?

Law work

Hey there! I assume you're an American law editor? Myself and a couple of Australians are planning to get Rylands v Fletcher up to Featured Article status, part of which involves explaining how it is interpreted in each jurisdiction. Would you be interested in helping out? Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Rutgers J.L.P.P.

Hey, thanks for editing the page for the Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy. I am the current Editor-in-Chief of this publication. Drop me a line on my talk page, and let me know if you're interested in working on some articles together. I'm currently doing some research and writing on red light cameras. Mayzell (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Legalskeptic/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Hi Legalskeptic,

I saw some of your contributions on a few articles (Foster care, Superfund, CERCLA - I think) that fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. We could really use someone with your expertise, so if you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply on my talk page ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

hi Legalskeptic,

If you can, we would LOVE your involvement. A new assessment round is posted. The assessment metric we are using is at WP:USPP/Assessment. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1

The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.

On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:USPP Spring Assessment 3

hi LegalSkeptic,

If you have time to assess a few articles it would be very appreciated. There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment, and both sets have a few legal cases where your input would be valuable. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, hopefully the randomly selected articles will show it to be high quality. Please, let me know if you have any comments or questions about research with the Public Policy Initiative. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Last Public Policy Initiative assessment!

hi Legalskeptic,

If you are interested, at least 5 of the articles in this round are recent legal cases. This is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, so if you get a chance check it out. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on a wikibreak while I study for the bar exam. I won't be back until August. LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration on US Supreme Court case article improvement

• Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

Hi, Legalskeptic, I noticed you had previously contributed to this article.

Wehwalt and myself will be collaborating together to improve the quality of this article. You are welcome to help out with research, writing, and copyediting. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Hey there Legalskeptic! :) Just a heads up, Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and I decided to do a Quality Improvement Drive on a different article to start out with. I just created the article on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Hill. You're welcome to contribute and/or help with research, at the new article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my FACs

My friend, User:DavidinNJ and I nominated Alcohol laws of New Jersey for Featured Article Status back in February. The nomination has been slow. As I see you're involved with NJ articles and legal topics, would it be possible for you to take a look at the article and perhaps consider offering support to its FA candidacy, located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1? I appreciate your time and attention to this cause.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2014 - Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti be renamed and moved to Unification of Hispaniola

Hello there fellow scholar/editor,

There is a talk page on this subject and since you have an interest in the discussion I would love to hear your views on it as well. I've responded with my viewpoints against the potential move as you will soon see why. I thank you for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amend v. Commissioner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene Black (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Gotcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John R. Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Legalskeptic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the US Reports!

Hi Legalskeptic, thanks for the work on the US Reports, it's great so far! Wikidea 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State v. Abbott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John J. Francis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Trouble with Templates

I’ve recently noticed that, for a while now, you’ve been adding Template:Include-FedCourts (and similar templates) to many case articles on Wikipedia. First, you’ve been misplacing it. The template is supposed to be placed separately at the very top or very end of the references section, not within a reference. Second, and most importantly, you’ve been misusing them. My understanding is that these templates are meant to indicate that certain kinds of sources have been incorporated into articles without proper attribution at the points of incorporation, but you seem to have been adding these templates to case articles providing full quotation marks and citations for the material they incorporate. The matter is particularly troubling, as serious readers and researchers will immediately hold suspect and unusable any source bearing such a template. Serious readers and researchers must know the source of all words and ideas contained within the materials they use. I request that you review all such templates you have added and remove all those that don’t belong. My admittedly cursory review suggests that will be most to all of them. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to review my contributions and make changes you feel are appropriate. I might be more inclined to make these changes myself if you could point me to an actual Wikipedia policy rather than your "understanding." LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite and mask my bewilderment at the ludicrosity of what you’ve been doing.

Have you bothered to ask yourself what the point of these templates would be if my “understanding” were incorrect? Do you really suppose there would be templates simply to indicate that an article cites certain kinds of sources? Really? Would there be any precedent for that? Have you bothered to check around to see whether your understanding is correct? Do you care?

I have only ever seen such a template to indicate that articles are incorporating the text of particular sources without otherwise indicating that they are doing so. In the real world, that is the only context in which I have seen anything like these templates. Given how serious readers will therefore be likely to interpret such templates, why would anyone here ever want to use them in any other context? Doing so undermines what Wikipedia is trying to do.

Really, now, think about it. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your uncivil attitude is not appreciated. Please leave my talk page and take this up on the talk pages of articles where you believe this is an issue. LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As you wish, but it’s unfortunate you consider honesty and thought “uncivil.” Antinoos69 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)