User talk:Ksmith

Hi Ksmith, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:


 * Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
 * The help centre and FAQs
 * The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~. (Just so you know, some people won't pay attention to unsigned comments).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- TPK 03:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal
Dear Ksmith:

I see that you apparently have begun an article on a court case called "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, 72 S 243 (1982)". However, "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, 72 S 243 (1982)" is not a valid citation for an American court decision.

Perhaps you meant "72 S. Ct. 243 (1982)." That could be a United States Supreme Court decision. A preliminary search I just did at www.findlaw.com reveals no U.S. Supreme Court decision with the name "Chrapliwy" in the style of the case. Right now I don't have immediate access to the official United States Reports or the West Supreme Court Reporter, so I can't fully check this myself.

There is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit called: Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983), that is cited in some U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986). There is also a case called Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 17 Fed. Rules Serv. 2d 719 (N.D. Ind. 1973).

If those are not the cases you are talking about, and you are referring to a United States Supreme Court decision, the form of the citation is usually something like "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., xxx U.S. xxx (1982) or "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., xxx S. Ct. xxx (1982).

Please go back and double check your citation. This could be a good case to discuss, but we need to have a valid citation so that people can study the case.

Yours, Famspear 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal


The article Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No explanation why this case is notable. No discussion of the court's opinion.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. THF (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Otto and Elise Hampel
A tag has been placed on Otto and Elise Hampel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PoeticVerse (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy deletion, because if it can be documented that these people were the inspiration of the book I think that is probably enough notability for an article: but all the references give the names as Otto and Anna Quangel. Can you cite a source to document that the fictional Quangels were based on real Hampels? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

_______________

What message are you seeing when you try to edit? Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC) ______________

When I try to edit I get a full screen of message that starts with this:

Editing from 70.224.32.0/21 has been disabled by MuZemike for the following reason(s): CheckUser evidence has determined that the IP address or network of your account has been used, not necessarily by you, to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block......

It goes on and on from there.

Thanks for taking a look.

_______________

Thank you all for checking it out. There was a very clunky sentence in the Steve Jobs article on the day of his death that I was going to smooth out, but it's no longer there. It looks like I can edit now, thanks.