User talk:Legalskeptic

Re Special:Diff/854799265 and similar edits
Hi Legalskeptic, I see you recently edited Townsend v. Sain changing (in part) to 372 U.S. 293 (1963) with the edit summary (in part) "removed link from lead citation per WP:SCOTUS/SG". WP:SCOTUS/SG is an essay and expects deviations where appropriate ("All of this may be varied as appropriate; use your judgment."). I see you are also mass-changing other articles to this format. I prefer the former format – it provides links to the US Reports volume article and the US Reports article, and follows the external link guideline. It's also more semantically useful than 372 U.S. 293 (1963). Would you consider temporarily stopping this and similar edits while we discuss here? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where you're coming from and I personally agree with you about the leads. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. I am personally not opposed to using the Template:Ussc format with the  code, but the consensus of WikiProject:SCOTUS was in favor of plain leads without links. There is even a report that organizes articles by whether they are compliant with this. LegalSkeptic (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that discussion now. I'll definitely make sure to weigh in there, and I'll personally abide by the results of any WikiProject SCOTUS consensus, but it's worth noting that other editors don't have to since it's quite a local consensus and nothing binding can happen at WikiProjects, so there's a chance you'll run into some resistance with other editors on this. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points - my take is that it's enough of a consensus to make changes, but since it's local I will not get bogged down in any edit wars on particular pages. If someone wants a certain page to have the template it's not the end of the world, but right now I am trying to make a dent in the report. P.S., some other changes I tend to make along the way are adding links to lower court opinions for prior history, and replacing dead external links (especially Findlaw, which changed its URL format a couple times over the years). LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm wondering why you're adding parallel cites to U.S. LEXIS, for example? I personally don't understand why that citation would be useful at all. This isn't a case that was just released as a slip opinion and that nothing else is available for – we have citations to the U.S. Reports (even the Supreme Court Reporter is kinda overkill). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to have a larger discussion about this at the WikiProject:SCOTUS talk page if you'd like. If you want to get rid of parallel citations in Supreme Court articles systemwide, it could probably be done by deleting the  and   code from Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. I support their inclusion. For one, they are useful for newer cases that do not yet have U.S. Reports citations. Specialty publication citations like U.S.P.Q. indicate that a case is important in a particular field of law.  LegalSkeptic (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't a binary yes/no all-or-nothing parallel cites thing – often, they can be useful, as you note. You're right that I should consider the details of any changes more carefully; I do think that the times parallel cites will be useful for old cases with U.S. Reports citations will be rare. I'll start a discussion about this at WikiProject SCOTUS or something soon. Thanks! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, some parallel citations may be more useful than others. I think that at a minimum, SCOTUS cases should always have the S. Ct. citations (Supreme Court Reporter) since those are often used as stand-ins before the U.S. Reports citations are available - although this does not apply to cases decided before West introduced its reporter system. I can see how the Lexis ones can be less useful. I'll keep an eye out for any discussions on this. LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to follow up here and say this hasn't fallen off my to-do list but it might be a few more days before I get to opening a discussion on the topic Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI – discussion opened here Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Califano v. Goldfarb
Hi! I moved over an expansion to the article for Califano v. Goldfarb and wanted to let you know, as you were the last person to edit. I also wanted to ask if you could look over everything to make sure that it looks OK. It was expanded by a student I oversaw via WikiEdu and while it looks OK to me for the most part (definitely needs more sourcing as a whole), I don't have the expertise that you would so you may catch something that I didn't.

On a side note, a law librarian! How cool! ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you think of this one: User:Yingpun/sandbox? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi ReaderofthePack, thanks for reaching out. I've made minor edits to a large number of Supreme Court case articles, so I am not really attached to any of them. But the Califano v. Goldfarb edits and the sandbox version of Wong Wing v. United States both look pretty good.


 * One thing I would say could use improvement in both cases is that specific propositions (or especially quotations) from the cases should be supported by references containing pinpoint citation to the page number of the case - e.g., Califano, 430 U.S. at 200, for something on page 200 of that opinion. I find that Google Scholar is the most user-friendly free tool to do this, as it clearly shows the page numbers on the left side of the page. The Roe v. Wade article is a good example of this. But I don't have time to do this to every article I edit, so I think using a "ref name" that cites to the case generally is fine as a placeholder.


 * You can also check out WP:SCOTUS/SG for guidance - one thing I would change about the Wong Wing sandbox draft is to remove Template:Ussc from the lead (see my conversation immediately above this one). LegalSkeptic (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cannon v. University of Chicago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCH ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cannon_v._University_of_Chicago check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cannon_v._University_of_Chicago?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Unmerge the Hatian invasion article!
you have merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. You are making light to massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title you placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there people unwillingly. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

unmerge the hatian invasion article that you linked with another article that was anti dominican of you!
someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time and the two articles were made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC! the eprson who merged these two articles was anti DOMINICAN and ruining historical facts that were already placed on the original article! which was THE HATIAN INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC NOT THE UNIFICATION OF HISPANOLA that was never a historical fact please unmerge the articles and place the hatian invasion back where it was in the main article of the country190.166.157.141 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, see my response on the article's talk page. I certainly meant no disrespect, and I encourage you to continue the discussion over there. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Merging pending cases with decided cases
I noticed that the pending case is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser_Co._v._United_States_Fish_and_Wildlife_Services" and the 2018 Terms case is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser_Co._v._United_States_Fish_and_Wildlife_Serv."

All the detail is in the former. I don't know how to fix this, so I thought I would draw it to the attention of a regular contributor who was active on this entry. Mattsag (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both links you supplied did not link to existing articles or redirects though. I did find and fix Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so that it redirects to the article about the case instead of a section of the Mississippi gopher frog article. Let me know if I'm missing something. LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woollard v. Gallagher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Diaz ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Woollard_v._Gallagher check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Woollard_v._Gallagher?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Plea and Pleading
Hi, what is the difference between these two subjects? one seems to be a civil law concept and the other a criminal or common law concept, but I don't fully get it. Can you explain why there are two separate pages?. Regardless, Pleading needs some fixing up, which seems right in line with your interests. Hoping you can help. thanks, Hydromania (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, these are two different concepts that come from the same root word:
 * A plea is a criminal defendant's response to a criminal charge: a guilty plea, innocent plea, nolo contendere, etc.
 * A pleading is a document containing the allegations (or denials) in a civil case: the plaintiff files a complaint (sometimes called a petition) and a defendant files an answer in response - those are both pleadings. LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Strauder v. West Virginia
I have beefed up the article quite a bit. Might I ask you give it a look over for errors or other missed details? Thanks. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for cleaning the citations on the SCOTUS case articles I created. I have no legal training or experience and I've never picked up a Bluebook, so I'm happy to see someone with the relevant knowledge is taking care of it. Telos (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing the content! I'm more of a tinkerer. LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Same point of thanks as well. Also as a general question, is there any authorative source for things like prior or parallel citations? I do try to fill these in from the case documents but sometimes the details are not always listed there and even though I can get my way around CourtListener or other similar engines, I can't always find the full appropriate cites (printed record + case #). --M asem (t) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The most authoritative sources for parallel citations are the publishers (West for the Supreme Court Reporter (S. Ct.) and Lexis for the Lawyer's Edition), but Courtlistener usually has them. For the prior history, Westlaw (Keycite) or Lexis (Shepherd's) is most authoritative, but if the prior history contains any published opinions, they're usually cited in the Supreme Court opinion. You might also be able to use the citator in Casetext, although I think you need to create an account. If you're having trouble finding the prior history for a particular article you're working on, feel free to drop me a line and I'll try to take a look. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees reassessment
Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees 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. Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)