Jump to content

User talk:Sctechlaw/Archive 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stroopwafels of copyediting

Thanks for the fine copyediting you're doing over at Aung San Suu Kyi. It's too early where I am for a beer, so about some stroopwafels? Khazar2 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this — I left a note on your own talk page. Sctechlaw (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigation

Couldn't sleep, so I took a first glance at this tonight. The amount of research you've done on this is clearly amazing, and it's a great topic for an article. Reading through the first few sections I had two immediate concerns that I wanted to share with you, though, as they appear significant enough that I wanted to address them before getting down to line-by-line prose. The first is that some of the opening sections appear to rely heavily or entirely on primary sources (court documents). You might take a look at WP:PRIMARY. This is a bit of a gray area, but my experience has been that editors are strongly discouraged from using court documents as direct sources in articles, save for the occasional quotation. The problems are twofold: first, demonstrating that your summary of the primary source is straightforward and does not constitute WP:OR; second, showing that one of these cases has notability enough to be worth mentioning despite a lack of secondary sources. (This would be an issue for "iPod battery life class action" and "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action", for example). I could be wrong, and I'm no expert in this area, but this is something you'll probably want to get another opinion on before going any further with the article in this format.

The second, and related issue, is that the article strikes me as very legalistic in tone. I understand, of course, that it's about law. =) But I feel we don't have many moments where we step back and look at the significance of a case per a commentator, see a quotation that one of the lawyers or Steve Jobs told reporters, etc.

I hope this helps. I think you definitely have the potential material for a Good Article here; honestly, it may just be a question of cutting the less notable cases. I suspect that's pretty painful advice to hear after the work you've obviously put into this, but sadly, Wikipedia's all about seeing your babies get cut up. =) Good luck with the rest of this one! Khazar2 (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thought before I crash for the night--have you asked for another pair of eyes at WikiProject:Law? They'd know how heavily an article can rely on court documents, I imagine. Khazar2 (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-----------
Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article. You are right that more cites are needed for those areas of the article which have solely a cite to a court decision, so I'll be adding those.
  1. The issue of primary sources is a tricky one in legal subjects in the encyclopedia, since Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY policy is directly inopposite of legal research fundamentals and publishing rules: i.e., in acceptable legal research, primary sources are always considered The Word of God, while secondary sources are only used to buttress arguments or clarify a point. In this way legal research is similar to scientific research, but it is the reasoning behind it that is important. When one writes a summary of a proceeding or official opinion in law, it is incumbent upon the lawyer doing the writing to represent accurately and faithfully what actually was said or occurred without coloring the summary with one's own interpretation of it — to so color it would be to mislead a reading tribunal or one's colleagues (a major no-no). Secondary and tertiary sources in legal research, as in scientific research, are subject to (gross) error exactly because they are interpretive — and that quality is to be avoided in relating the facts of a legal proceeding or decision.
    • Thus, to maintain adherence to Wikipedia policy is to do both defective and insufficient research in legal writing, and to not do so is a violation of WP:PRIMARY in Wikipedia writing — a quandary indeed if there is only a case as filed with no legal community take on it because of the youth of a matter.
    • The WP legal community and Law Project really needs further policy-making to help those editors who are non-lawyers, but as for myself, being a lawyer, I consider it sufficiently in keeping with WP general WP:PRIMARY policy AND legal writing principles if both a case cite and a secondary cite are used.
    • Demonstrating that one's summary of the primary source in an official court opinion does not constitute WP:OR is straightforward, because when one cites the actual language of an official court opinion in context, one cites actual law (assuming one relates the holding and not the dicta). Also, demonstrating non-OR in citing complaint/answers/other legal documents filed with a court (an active or past case that is/was before a court) is also straightforward because it is a factual situation: the document said "X" is either true or not true, and similarly cannot be open to interpretation if one cites the actual language of the document in context. So to sum up: the article needs some secondary cites in the areas of it where there are now only court opinion cites, and that is in progress.
  2. The article is indeed legalistic in tone, but I have tried to humanize it and make it accessible in plain English to the extent that I can without leaving out language which is important to the reader who may be a lawyer, judge, law librarian, or other legal community member. If you see areas of the article that are incomprehensible to the lay-person, please point these out as it is possible I've missed some areas.
  3. There are two areas of the article in the Patent litigation section that I have yet to split out into separate articles: the Apple v. Motorola and the Apple v. Samsung cases, which are ongoing. I need to fork these to articles and summarize them for the this article and haven't yet done this. Please let me know if you see other areas that are problematic.
Thanks so much, again, Sctechlaw (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure! And I should add that I thought some parts of this article did an admirable job of blending the social and legal, such as the discussion of the Carl Sagan case (which, incidentally, was hilarious). I think the key will be to find sources that approach these cases from POVs beyond the strictly legalistic, if that makes sense, such as the Sagan biography you drew on there. And by the way, I wouldn't wait for peer review before going to GA, which is itself a kind of peer review. Your article is thorough and professional, and though I've made these suggestions above, it's probably better than anything I myself have contributed here; I rarely have the patience to assimilate so much information. Clearly ready for GA scrutiny. Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apples

Hey Sctechlaw, sorry for the delay in responding to you, but yes, I think you have a very decent candidate for GA nomination. Of course, feel free to nudge me if you'd like any additional assistance... My best (neutral-gender!) wishes to you, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Victor,
I've emailed you. I'm in your time zone. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Shadow banking system

Would you care to take part in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shadow_banking_system#.22bn.22_vs_.22trillion.22 Coinmanj (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I posted a reply a couple of days ago. — Sctechlaw (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Astrology

If I revert it then I would be stating that was the version I prefer and I couldn't protect it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Will Cotton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milk and Honey (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) 15:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigation

Hi, I have reviewed Apple Inc. litigation and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Apple Inc. litigation/GA1. Canadian Paul 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to be able to address the concerns listed in the review any time soon? I can't keep the article on hold if changes aren't being made actively on the page after a week. If you're unable to make the changes in the (very) near future, I'll have to fail the article for now. Once the points in the review have been addressed at any time in the future, however, the article could be renominated and, because I've already reviewed the article, you could just drop a note on my page and I would re-review it right away; since I've already read over it once, it would be quick. In other words, you wouldn't have to wait for months again. Canadian Paul 15:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I left a note on your talk page; thanks for your patience. — Sctechlaw (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I left an additional note on your talk page, CP; still making corrections as per your review. — Sctechlaw (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've listed some additional concerns on the review page. Once these have been addressed, the article should be ready to go for GA status! Canadian Paul 17:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I've been busy with these today and left you a note on your talk page as well as updating the GA review page. — Sctechlaw (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Regarding the image, it's a free image that is relevant to article topic, so whether or not it's "editorial commentary" there's no reason to remove it. Regarding the title header, I don't know much about it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion and the result was to have it replaced and deleted, because it has become obsolete. So on that one, TJRC is correct. Canadian Paul 15:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Sctechlaw for helping to promote Apple Inc. litigation to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. I hope you're not an Apple fanatic, coz I loathe the fruit and the company. Love your work though. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you so much. If it's a computer, I've birthed it, coddled it, brought it up, sent it off to college, and retired it, many, many times over, no matter who made the parts. As to A/apples, I'll eat the fruit, especially chopped into pies. ;-) — Sctechlaw (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope, if you do have an iDevice, that you select it due to its merits and not because you see people have white earphones stuffed up their ear canals (like a lot of people out there). Fwiw, I too have been keeping a close eye on Samsung and Apple developments -- no offense, but Apple is such a crybaby and patent troll. Btw, I see that you're working on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. atm; keep it up, you've got my full support, and if you need anything, just ask. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I'm too old to stuff things in my ears, but of the mobile devices I've had, my favorites have been an Android phone, a Blackberry phone, a Kindle, and a color Nook I rooted to CyanogenMod for my daughter. As to the Apple v. Samsung article, that one could really use some images. If you have any images of the disputed devices, it would be great if you could upload them so we can use them in the article. Thanks again. — Sctechlaw (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Which disputed device? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of them (turn on to compare) are the:
  • Galaxy 10.1 versus iPad 2; and
  • Galaxy S versus iPhone 3G
Those products images were manipulated in the briefs Apple submitted to Dutch and German courts (see here). Have a look at Florian's analysis. — Sctechlaw (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a post at Talk:Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- you might need to check it out. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Fraser (botanist)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

  • Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
  • If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
  • Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
  • Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
  • If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

  • If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
  • If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Silverwater Women's Correctional Centre

An article that you have been involved in editing, Silverwater Women's Correctional Centre , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rangasyd (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@wikimedia.org) with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A.pl matter (reply)

I didn't add the Apple Inc. litigation entry, 170.252.248.207 did. Rostz (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

GAN

You're welcome; I think it's a better fit. Botany is a field of biology, and one of the natsci subtopics is "biologists and medicinal scientists". —Andrewstalk 02:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

John Fraser, Jr.

Hi Sctechlaw, I noticed your addition of Fraser. f. to the page List of botanists by author abbreviation. I changed his year of birth to 1780, because his IPNI page gives that as the year (IPNI is the International Plant Names Index). You have obviously done a lot of research on Fraser, sr., so I give you the benefit of the doubt that you know a lot about the Fraser family. Perhaps you could let IPNI know of your source(s), as they often rely on the input from others to get their pages right; and many people look to IPNI as the definitive source for information regarding years of birth and death, etc. for botanists. Mr. Kanchi Gandhi <gandhi@oeb.harvard.edu> is in charge of this at IPNI, and the Harvard Herbarium as well, and has been very helpful in the past when given reliable source material. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Heya and thanks for assisting with John Jr.. It's anyone's guess, I think, exactly what year he was born as the sources are all over the map with him. John Sr. is well-documented, but his boy isn't. The most definitive of the sources I found are Ward and Simpson (I have both in the refs section of John Fraser (botanist)). One of them, Simpson if I recall correctly, actually talked a bit about how John Jr. is very hard to pin down. I selected the 1799 date based on all the sources combined, but I could be wrong too, so your 1780 is just as reasonable. Thanks so much for the heads up on Mr. Gandhi, I'll send him a note, but I expect he already is familiar with my sources. Cheers! — Sctechlaw (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad to assist, if I have. Mr. Gandhi may even give you more resources to work with; hope so. Hamamelis (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sctechlaw/Archive_2012&oldid=1254481106"