User talk:Legalskeptic/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
- 2/0 (cont.) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

nice work!
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)

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, 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, &mdash; 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: 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!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--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 ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Amend_v._Commissioner check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Amend_v._Commissioner?client=notify 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 ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/United_States_v._Gotcher check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/United_States_v._Gotcher?client=notify 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)

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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg?client=notify 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!  Wik idea  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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/State_v._Abbott check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/State_v._Abbott?client=notify 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)