User talk:GregJackP/Archive 11

Edits to Desautels Faculty of Management
The self-published source tags are really unnecessary, since they're all from the University itself, not some random guy's blog. Literally every article on a university from Wikipedia cites numerous publications from the University itself (e.g. Texas A&M University).

I have also helped cleanup some of the language and cited everything that needs to be cited, so I think it would be appropriate to remove the majority of the tags on the page now. Feel free to discuss anything else that needs to be changed on the talk page142.157.194.131 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not remove the tags. Just FYI, your IP has been reported as vandalizing the page by two different editors and with an IP address from the school, you have a clear conflict of interest in editing the article. BTW, some refs from the organization would be fine, but almost all of your refs are self-published, which is a problem. TAMU has most of the refs from outside, reliable sources.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am a undergraduate student of the school, but have no affiliation with the staff, faculty, or anything published by the university. If you look at what the sources are citing, they're simply facts about the program (e.g. student enrollment figures, programs offered, date something was founded, etc.) I would consider anything published by a major and respected research university to be reliable, and any secondary sources that has the same info almost certainly would have gotten it from the university itself. Anything subjective (e.g. rankings) are cited from the secondary sources themselves. You'll have to excuse me since I'm a little new to editing Wikipedia and wasn't aware of some of the rules, but I think the article is pretty cleaned up at this point, and everything is up to standard. Do you have any particular issue with anything specific on the page?142.157.194.131 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is nowhere near up to standard. It is overly promotional, and once your IP is blocked by an admin, we'll clean up the article. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for any misunderstandings in the past, but I've done my best to correct them. Do you have any specific examples of things that you think needs correcting? I've tried looking at other university pages as a template, and I don't see any major discrepancies between them (content and style-wise) and the Desautels page. Like I said, I'm only a student, not a promoter or anything, and I was simply trying to update the page with more info. And just choosing a random university page (e.g. University of Connecticut), you can see that pretty much every source is from publications from the university itself).142.157.194.131 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

San Fruttuoso abbey
Sir, I've seen you marked an article I've written for speedy deletion. This, without even taking the time to read the information I've previously inserted (as requested in the template, previous to its removal) in the talk section of the page, where I was explaining that the article was a translation of the Italian wikipedia page, and that the content of that page had been copied (and not the opposite) by the external website the bot had found.

I see you're claiming on your page that "This user assumes good faith"; then, I wonder whether you should have paid more attention to what it was written before writing to me about removal of the copyvio template: it seems to me I complied with the requests of that template, and I was entitled to remove it. Could you please explain me your point of view on that? Joliejoker (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Joliejoker, read the directions on the tag about how to appropriately contest deletion. Taking it to the tagger's talk page is not the way to handle this.   Montanabw (talk)  04:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay!
Glad to see you back! Montanabw (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ping: I think you need to check my fixes at the Bazy FAC and !vote support if it's good to go.   Montanabw (talk)  05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to list the refs without periods (got distracted, working on United States v. Washington). GregJackP   Boomer!   06:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, once I saw the pattern you pointed out, it was an easy fix.  Montanabw (talk)  04:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you need to make the magic support !vote now... if you think the article truly is good enough. Thanks!   Montanabw (talk)  22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought I already did, at . Let me know if I need to do something else. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh! You are right! Thanks!   Montanabw (talk)  02:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

PONY!
  Pony!

Congratulations! For your review of Bazy Tankersley at FAC, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC) To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

No original research/Noticeboard
Please see No original research/Noticeboard -- PBS (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject United States Constitution!
We have lots of work to do!  CookieMonster755   (talk)   00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
HazelAB (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Matthew email
HazelAB (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert H. Richards IV for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert H. Richards IV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Robert H. Richards IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

MOSLAW
I've decided not to go forward with proposing this edit, mainly because after looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=Wikipedia%3AManual+of+Style%2FLegal&namespace=1 What links here? for article talk pages] to MOSLAW I see that it's almost never cited for the proposition I was trying to clarify. In fact, I could only find one instance of that and, well, you did it. (And as such was an error only an Aggie would make — to which let me add, as a further friendly jab by yer' friendly neighborhood Tea Sip: "Hook 'em.") As such, I've come to think that my proposal is a solution looking for a problem and was to some extent, rule creep. All collegiate posturing aside, it would appear that you and I have a lot in common and I look forward to working with you in the future. (Have you ever considered doing content dispute resolution? I work at 3O, DRN, and am a member of the Mediation Committee and you have the kind of background which might suit you for that kind of work.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, but I am really not the guy you want at 3O or DRM. I've been Arbcom sitebanned and topic banned, plus I've retired in a snit a couple of times. I can be, at times, rather blunt and well, less than tactful. I do look forward to working with you though, and agree that we have a lot in common. (PS, the collegiate posturing may be worse than you think, I'm also a Sooner in addition to being a grad of Aggie Law, :) ).  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have friends who are Aggies and others who are Sooners, but you may be my first who is both. Sheesh. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing you around the Wiki. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, I have degrees from both Montana State University and the University of Montana - which is probably why I never attend ballgames for the cross state rivalry!  Montanabw (talk)  05:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see  and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

GAR
Bad Elk v. United States, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

 * You don't get to unilaterally remove content and dictate terms. It is WP:BRD. You boldly removed content. I reverted. Now we discuss it on both talk pages. Please stop acting like a wiki-dictator and understand that you have to obtain consensus to make a change. Especially when the article has passed a GA review and was promoted. Until you get consensus, the material stays in, per wiki policies. Your arrogant approach may work in MedRS articles, but it won't work here. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I await your response at Talk:Bad Elk v. United States. You have added unsourced content to the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The material was sourced. Do you need me to explain it to you in simple terms, or is this just your way of being obtuse? GregJackP   Boomer!   02:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * really, I am looking for an answer there. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stay off my talkpage. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, GregJackP, myself, and several other editors have been working together for a while to improve Plummer v. State‎ and Bad Elk v. United States‎. We don't always agree at first, but we work collaboratively and within Wikipedia's policies and pretty much always arrive at a consensus. The incident above was simply GregJackP properly following WP:BRD in the face of a new editor with a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards
Now that this discussion is under RfC and the procedural question is resolved, I'd appreciate if you could re-evaluate your position, in light of the actual merits of the proposal. Thanks! —Swpbtalk 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA
Menominee Tribe v. United States, - thank you, precious  again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Hello: I have been copy editing your article Lone Wolf v. Hitchcok and before I sign off as having completed it, I have a few questions for you to clarify.

In the first paragraph you write: "the Kiowa also formed an alliance with the Comanche and formed a barrier to European-American incursions into their territories.[5] This alliance made travel on the Santa Fe Trail hazardous, with attacks on wagon trains beginning in 1828 and continuing thereafter."[6] By "barrier" do you mean they responded by attacking intruders? If so, then the attacks actually began in 1790 when the alliance was formed?

In the second paragraph of the lead you write: "The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,, and Worcester v. Georgia, , which had greater respect  the autonomy of Native American tribes." I have changed this to read: " which had shown greater respect for the autonomy of Native American tribes." Is this accurate?

In the Treaties section: is Fort Ackinson actually Fort Atkinson, WI? If so there can be a WP link to the article on Fort Atkinson.

In the section Opinions of the Court you write that the decision was unanimous but at the end of the section say: “Justice John Marshall Harlan concurred in the judgment, but did not author a separate opinion.” If the decision was unanimous why would he write a separate opinion? This seems to be irrelevant.

In the final section you mention that land was transferred in two ways – first by allotment. You don’t specifically mention a second way but imply that land was simply seized by settlers which would be another form of “transfer”. Can you clarify.

Please read the article over and let me know if you have any concerns. I enjoyed this one as I did another article of yours I edited a few days ago.

RegardsTwofingered Typist (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copyedit. To answer your questions:


 * By "barrier" do you mean they responded by attacking intruders? Yes. The barrier also prevented the Osage tribe from moving east. Ecueracapa (Comanche, "Iron Shirt") unified the tribe, made agreements with the Spanish governor of New Mexico, and generally resisted all encroachment into Comanche-Kiowa-Wichita lands. Attacks and battles occurred both before and after the alliance.


 * I have changed this to read: " which had shown greater respect for the autonomy of Native American tribes." Is this accurate? Yes.


 * In the Treaties section: is Fort Ackinson actually Fort Atkinson, WI No, it is not. It may be Fort Ackinson, Nebraska, but I could not further distinguish it other than Fort Ackinson, Indian Territory, so I left it alone.


 * If the decision was unanimous why would he write a separate opinion? He did not write a separate opinion, but made a point to have it noted in the opinion that he concurred in the judgment.


 * In the final section you mention that land was transferred in two ways – first by allotment. You don’t specifically mention a second way but imply that land was simply seized by settlers which would be another form of “transfer”. Can you clarify. The land remaining after allotment was seized by the United States as federal property, with a payment of $2 million to the tribes.


 * As before, you've done a great job on the copyedit, and I appreciate it very much. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: June 2015
You have to be kidding me. An editor of an article that is in AFD, who supports its deletion on account that it's not notable, who is actively editing the lede of the article to ensure it's not notable? If that's not an act of bad faith, per WP:SPADE, I don't know what is. I'm not the only editor who has called this out. -- Kendrick7talk 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Glaxo - griseofulvin
Thank you for your comment. I responded to his last post on my talk page. He is an imperious fellow isn't he? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I can't believe that he would even question your edits, nor your expertise. If, for some reason he escalates this, let me know, I'll be more than happy to help. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's more on the GSK Talk page and my Talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: See the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for review and edit
You answered my question already. Delete this whole section?

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we can leave it. It'll archive in a couple of days anyway. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bowman
Took a look. Didn't see any mistakes in your edits. Saw another one. Bad citation; I assume that wasn't your mistake. Mentioned it on talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, fixed the bad cite. I appreciate your help and expertise on these issues, I'm more of a GP type (criminal defense/family/probate). I can get in over my head very quickly on patent and copyright law. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Others who can help you on IP edits are bd2214 (one of my former students) and Edcollins. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Bowman v. Monsanto Co. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I post these primarily as a good faith reminder for editors that they have reached three reverts in case they just weren't aware. You are currently at four reverts in the approximate 24 hour period, so please be wary of edit warring in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not place bogus and untrue warnings on my talkpage. See comments on your talkpage. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're being prickly about this, but that was about as civil as one could be. It's not good to lash out an uninvolved editors.


 * To respond to your comments at my talk page (I prefer to keep discussions in one place), I didn't warn Jytdog because they indicated they were no longer going to be involved in the discussion, plus they technically would be at three reverts though (I don't consider such minor editors like correcting reference pages reverts).


 * You didn't give any such indication though, so you would be the one where a reminder about edit warring would have the most potential use. As I stated before, I intend the warnings as a reminder to stop or prevent behavior issues, not as some kind of punishment. In this case, you have made four distinct sets of changes to the article over a 24 hour period. Keep in mind that hitting the undo button is not the only way to revert. Adding new content is also considered a revert as well when one starts counting everything up. Each of your uninterrupted series of edits can be considered a single revert, so even if you wanted to ignore Jytdog's edits at this point and consider your edits after that part of your previous ones, you'd still be at three reverts by my count. Even ignoring that, you have been engaging in edit warring (three reverts aren't needed for that), so the warning was only intended to remind you to be wary of edit warring regardless, utilize dispute resolution when it's apparent edits are contested, and to slow down when disputes come up. I don't intend to jump into any personal dispute you have with Jytdog but rather focus on editing articles in a good-faith manner. In the end, this was only intended to let you know that you could run into issues if you end up flirting with the 3RR bright line in the future and nothing more. Since that's done, there's nothing more to discuss in this conversation at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.. That's what the policy states, which means there were only two (apparently you are counting some that did not undo other editor actions). I noticed that you did not bother to provide diffs - don't bother at this point. Just stay off my talkpage from now on. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake this is what I was referencing from WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I won't comment here any further per WP:NOBAN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for editorial review
GJP, would you do me the favor of reviewing the top article in my Sandbox for NPOV and other WP requisites, before I put it up. Your pal is bound to take exception (if not hysteria) to it as a matter of principle. I would like it to be as sound as possible beforehand. Feel free to tear it up (constructively). PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be honored to do so. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at User:PraeceptorIP/JEM Case. I took the liberty of creating a subpage in your user space, copying the text of your article to it, and then working on it. It is clearly NPOV, and I fixed most of the WP formatting issues, added some wikilinks, etc. The main thing I noted was in the referencing. WP does not allow the use of id., infra., or supra., so I changed all the ids. to shortform cites. Another issue will be the use of the cases. For some reason, WP considers them to be primary sources and prefers secondary sources. I will look for some and add them. You can keep the cases in there, but there will be argument about it (or at least that has been my experience). WP:MOSLAW allows it, so you should be OK. I also added a couple of photos.


 * There are several quotations without citations, I have marked those with "citation needed" templates.


 * You are free to change anything back of course. I think it is a very good article. GregJackP   Boomer!   06:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thx, Big help. Coupla Qs:

PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a section on the remand. Could you check it.
 * Is there a place where you click and get ? I will use it from now on for LJs.
 * Really no id.s? And what's that odd citation form you used for F3d? Are there other WP deviations from normal Bluebook that I ought to know about? And why not just use the normal F.3d with a [www.etc casename] _ F.3d __ (xx) if it's in Justia or Leagle or some other free source?
 * How did you set up a subpage on my user page?
 * What's the best way to post JEM article now that it has been pretty thoroughly edited?
 * There probably should be full name title for page (but it's pretty long) plus short title J.E.M. v. Pioneer or J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer with redirect(s). ??
 * Who filled in the s?
 * Thx again for big help.


 * It was my pleasure. On the questions:
 * Remand section. It looks fine. I changed a reference to a template, but the rest looked good.
 * Is there a place where you click and get Smallcaps? No, I've always just typed it in manually.
 * Really no id.s? Yeah, they get real bent out of shape over it, and they really get upset over "supra, at n.12" and the like.
 * And what's that odd citation form you used for F3d? It's just a template, at West, where you fill in the various slots and it outputs the cite. Some like it, some don't.
 * Are there other WP deviations from normal Bluebook that I ought to know about? Not really. Just be aware that most editors do not have a clue about Bluebook and will argue with you about it. Tell 'em to look at WP:CITEVAR and to pound sand. Of course, you are far more diplomatic than I am. :)
 * And why not just use the normal F.3d with a [www.etc casename] _ F.3d __ (xx) if it's in Justia or Leagle or some other free source? You can if you want to. I use a template because sometimes it shuts up the rabble.
 * How did you set up a subpage on my user page? Go to your search box, then type in "User:PraeceptorIP/nameofsubpage" and it will bring up a new page which you can then edit and save.
 * What's the best way to post JEM article now that it has been pretty thoroughly edited? A page move, from the top bar on your page. Make sure that you check the box to move the associated talkpage.
 * There probably should be full name title for page (but it's pretty long) plus short title J.E.M. v. Pioneer or J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer with redirect(s). ?? The title should be "J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc." per WP:MOSLAW.
 * Who filled in the s?, you can always look at the page history to see who made what edits and the edit summary.
 * Thx again for big help. You are very welcome, again, it was my pleasure. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What GregJackP said :P Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Future project?
Any interest in collaborating on Kleppe v. New Mexico to go to GA or FA? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. Any problem with using Bluebook as cite style? At present it does not appear to have a reference style. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I loathe the smallcaps because they are a pain in the ass to format here (and I never use them in the real world, either, maybe if I ever did a brief to SCOTUS or the 9th I would, but I don't even for the Montana SC...), but other than that, I'm OK with it. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a prob with doing all of the formatting for that. Just stick it in there, and I'll come back and do all of that later. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb case

 * I know this situation has raised some hackles, but there is widespread consensus that this was not a wheel war, if anything at worst an administrative shortcut or procedural bend.
 * If you want to file a case you need to have some modicum of support for the viewpoint that it WAS a wheel war. I would not say that opinion will never be widely held, but it hasn't been so far, and I think you need to start with discussion and persuading people that that's the correct interpretation before you file.
 * I predict the arbs will see it this way and reject it without deep consideration, and that them having to do so will poison trying to have that wider policy discussion to support the viewpoint that it was akin to a wheel war. So I think it's counterproductive even for you.  You might consider that...
 * My two cents. Nobody can tell you not to file.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you George, I appreciate the fact that you would drop by and give me your advice. It could very well be that the Arbs will reject it out of hand, and that would not surprise me at all. I do think that it needs to be addressed and goes to the issue of accountability of both administrators and ArbCom members. I'll take my chances on it as I really believe that her actions were inappropriate. If it is not wheel-warring, some good will come from it, by having that issue defined too. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for an initiative for justice, but see also, year 1510. - When a blocked editor is called to comment, should perhaps an invitation be added to comment on the talk? (Knowing Eric a bit, not that he would use it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I asked Eric if he would like me to post something for him. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Imagine a Wikipedia where Eric makes a slightly critical comment and a person taking offense talks to him, instead of running to AE. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed!  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that all three of us (four if you include Eric) are well aware of the place that content creators have in the WP scheme of things. Discussing something? Heavens no! GregJackP   Boomer!   23:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing our conversation from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence
I don't think I can be loaned words from other editors' sections, so I'm not responding there. I explained in my section the reasoning behind why I took the actions that I did, without reopening the AE discussion, etc. Although I did vote for the siteban against Eric, I disagree that arbitrator actions should be considered to be WP:INVOLVED. This is obviously up for discussion, and perhaps will be clarified through this case. Anyhow, I suppose there's not a whole lot I can do for the perception of whether I'm involved when it comes to Eric. For what it's worth, I will be recusing on anything regarding him in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the discussion or vote in ArbCom matters makes you WP:INVOLVED, I stand by what I posted in re Sandstein's evidence towards BK. In my mind there is a difference between involved per the policy and having a bias. All I'm saying is that it gives the appearance of bias. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider it noted
BMK (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , consider what noted? GregJackP   Boomer!   06:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He's referring to your (now stricken) neutral vote at Rich Farmbrough's ongoing RfA, specifically the part about leaning support because "BMK is in opposition". Kurtis (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, and he can't answer himself after he leaves a cryptic and somewhat threatening message? I couldn't tell if it were that or his call for sanctions against me at the Arb AE case. Anyway, thanks for the info. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the "consider it noted" comment was in response to a perceived slight against him (intentional or otherwise). I've not read the ArbCom case in full detail, so I'm not sure if that's what he was actually referring to. Kurtis (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

tmbox...
Is there an abbreviation for the tmbox template?

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is just a text message box for talk pages. It was adapted to let people know that the Bluebook cite style is being used. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to request (or institute) a template named "Bluebook" that automatically inserted the text or code needed to cause the display? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've asked about it, but most everyone here uses Chicago citations (CS1 templates). I don't know how to program a template, and none of the template editors I talked to a couple of years ago seemed interested. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GJP, see Template:Bluebook

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! this is outstanding. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this correct?
 * (diff | hist) . . Talk:In re Bilski‎; 14:21 . . (-14)‎ . . ‎Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 669661519 by PraeceptorIP (talk) article is not in Bluebook style and you cannot proclaim it as such per WP:CITEVAR)
 * PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You were correct and I reverted him. I also put a comment on the talkpage. I don't know what his issue is, that article was clearly using Bluebook style. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal
Do you want to give me an eml address so that I can send you offwiki personal comments? You can get me at rstern(at)law.gwu.edu. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Your GA nomination of United States v. Washington
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. Washington you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad for jumping the gun with citations
I just went back to my Bluebook to double check the rule for citing slip opinions -- turns out you are absolutely correct! My bad for jumping the gun making that edit to Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.. Thanks so much for your help with the article! Best -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob, I hate bluebook so I had to really cram on the crap. I had a picky legal writing prof (IP lawyer), lol. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sometimes WP is like herding cats. Thanks for all you do, even though at times it may seem futile.

<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Plummer v. State
Hey greg. I just got your message. There are several other pages that cite the right to resist false arrest that predate the website that says it's not true. When I get back home in a few weeks I'll update you with the pages so it will show it. Including the trial and final reading. Chrisw 2003 (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , you need to be careful with getting legal advice on resisting arrest off of the internet, many of the sites are not reliable sources. For example, www.constitution.org is edited by Jon Roland, a non-lawyer who has no real understanding of the law or case law. So be careful, if the material is incorrect or not reliably sourced, it will be reverted. You also need to be aware that the current language is the result of consensus after an in-depth discussion of the issues. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot problem
GJP, I am having trouble with a bot that keeps changing the citation style in INS v. AP away from Bluebook style to abcdef... style. E.g., 248 U.S. at xxx to abcdef... How can I get it to stop doing this? I am getting into multiple reverts. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can contact the bot owner,, but I wouldn't count on much help there (see User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 42 for a problem I had with the same bot). The bot is set up to correct things that it believes are wrong, even though under Bluebook they are not. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the bot subject to the triple revert rule? PraeceptorIP (talk)


 * I wouldn't think so, but I would ask BD to make sure. I don't keep up with some of the BS rules, I focus mainly on writing (or I try to). BTW, did you get my email the other day? GregJackP   Boomer!   18:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Bot has only arrived at the page once, not "keeps changing".
 * 2) Bot arrived there due to stated reason in the edit summary. Fix the problem and the bot won't arrive again unless another problem is detected.
 * 3) As explained to GregJackP (see User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 42)  Bot only changes the ref style to abcdef IF AND ONLY IF the style is already in place.  In the version just before the bot arrived, there was  .  It is still in the article. Remove that and the bot won't change ref style.  Bgwhite (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) As explained to GregJackP (see User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 42)  Bot only changes the ref style to abcdef IF AND ONLY IF the style is already in place.  In the version just before the bot arrived, there was  .  It is still in the article. Remove that and the bot won't change ref style.  Bgwhite (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if anyone puts that <ref name="NYT"> in an article that has Bluebook cites, the bot screws up the referencing completely. And the named ref can be from just a drive-by editor, who is not competent to work on Bluebook cites. The bot needs to learn to leave those articles alone, IMO. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur in GJP's above comment. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <ref name="NYT"> was in the article before PraeceptorIP started editing the article. PraeceptorIP changed the referencing style.
 * How is a bot or 99% of the editors supposed to tell the difference in an article that has Bluebook and <ref name ? 99% of the editors don't know what bluebook style is.  Bluebook is an "obscure" style on Wikipedia.  If you want to use a "non-common" format, expect issues.
 * As stated before, named refs is the style if you want an article to become a featured article. See law cases at Featured articles. Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, I guess the three featured articles I wrote using Bluebook that didn't use named refs don't count. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And they (United States v. Lara, Ex parte Crow Dog and Menominee Tribe v. United States) use named refs. Standards do change at FAC.  I had to use Harvb, now sfn is in vogue.  Bgwhite (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of which were added after the FA nom process. I've fixed one (since when it was changed, it screwed up the cite style, i.e. the page ranges used all the digits instead of just the last two; eliminated string cites, put it in the wrong order, etc.) GregJackP   Boomer!   07:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Washington
The article United States v. Washington you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United States v. Washington for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Washington
The article United States v. Washington you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. Washington for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/David Larson
Hi, please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Still don't know how to check that. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westfield Plaza Bonita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page May Company. 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) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick style question
Is the correct WP form for article case titles (Jones v. Smith) the BB style with abbreviations? Is it optional to (1) use full words such as Services for Servs.? (2) to use old BB style and not abbreviate the first word of a party, such as keep American when it's first word rather than Am.? Likewise, for criminal cases do Unites Staes v. Rascal rather than U.S. v. Rascal? -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the correct form for articles about cases is the citation style used by that jurisdiction, so for most of the United States is is the Bluebook style. The Law Manual of Style is at MOS:LAW. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Miss you, sense of fairness and Wurst! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like some fairness and wurst return? Great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Miss you
I appreciate all that you've done to stand up for editors who are harassed.
 * Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Plummer v. State shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If I have not told you before, stay off of my talk page. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice 2
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Any chance you could look in here? No doubt you remember the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, be happy to do so. LOL, reminds me of an ATL Law Revue video (here)... GregJackP   Boomer!   14:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The furniture in the lounge at the beginning is apparently unchanged from when I was a law student there, lo these many years. Very funny, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Triple Crown Nomination
Hi there. Thanks for adding your nomination for the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown to Triple Crown/Nominations. Just letting you know, your nomination is likely to be processed much sooner if you add links to at least support your DYKs, as searching for this information manually can be quite time consuming. Here's an example of someone else who has done this, in case you don't understand what I mean:. It's also helpful to add links to support your GAs and Featured content as well, though its much less time consuming to search for evidence that you contributed to this type of content than it is for DYKs. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll get on that. It may take a bit to get all of the links. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)



Wikipedia-integrated academic journal
Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Humanities (www.WikiJHum.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise in the Humanities, arts and social sciences.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics,experts and professionals with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:
 * Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
 * Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
 * Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
 * Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 12:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

12 years of editing
Join the wishes, with flowers and music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Terry stop and friends
Hi, if you are interested, why not help me on a couple of articles: Terry stop, Consent search, Traffic stop, Warrantless searches in the United States, Stop and frisk in New York City, Terry v. Ohio, Whren v. United States plus a bunch of other related Supreme Court decisions. Looking over your user page, I think you would most like working on the decisions. As far as all the pages go, most work so far has been put into Terry stop. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...
Thank you for improving articles in April, and RfA support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law
Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html. Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. Nemo 11:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)