User talk:Gbroiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Why did you upload a new version of the Clitoris picture? RickK 05:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't mean to - I clicked the wrong link while trying to understand what other people had done to it. Sorry. I can't figure out how to undo whatever it was that I did. You're welcome to do it for me if you know how. gbroiles 05:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Greg, I noticed you blanked the digital signature page. I reverted it to your previous edit; if you do that by accident you can always go to the page history and click on the last time and date and then save it. If you are interested in business and management topics there are a whole bunch of lists such as list of legal topics and list of business topics that might give you an idea of some of this stuff that has and has not been covered here. Once you've looked at some of those pages if you go back to the list and click related changes you will see a list of changes of the pages listed (this way you don't have to clutter up your own watch list with these pages and can check them for changes. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Alex756 05:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nice addition of cases on the digital signatures page. You might want to make them a list and give pages there own names. The naming convention that is most used is ''[[plaintiff v. defendant]]'' [[year]] citation. I usually repeat the citation in the new page with the name in bold italics (five single apostrophes). Check out the List of leading legal cases in copyright law, list of United States Supreme Court cases or List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council & House of Lords cases, my feeling is the more lists like this the better. Alex756 05:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the page and for your suggestions - I'm still learning my way around. gbroiles 05:44, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I know, thought I'd pass along what little I know to help a fellow jurist; I've been here about six months on and off. I should point out that there will be people who go over your pages and take out all the HTML things like <i> </i> it is better to just use the apostrophes and the headings (which also create automatic TOCs) like
       ==Beginning== 
       body
       ===Subsection=== 
       ==Middle==
       ===Subsection===
       ===Subsection===
       ==conclusion==
       ==External links==
Also I like to link to full text versions of cases, this is one good reason to give each case its own page. Like on your edit on the Convenant on ICCPR, putting that case on a separate page allows someone later on to link to the case when talking about a different treaty that is not self executing. This is one of the beauties of Wikipedia — we can keep creating our own structure, just like being in law school — which I find a very relaxing way to share general knowledge, just remember that nohting is obvious and try to add good content to everything and not take anything significant away (it comes out naturally as part of the editing process). Alex756 06:05, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. Do you think it is good to make a separate page for every case? I haven't done that so far because I don't know if I'll ever have time to go back and brief the cases nicely enough to really justify a page per case, at least for less interesting cases. (Supreme Court cases, at least the popular ones, seem like a good counterexample.) I will see if I can find some full-text links for cases, I agree those are important. Is there a better way to handle citations that avoids HTML markup? gbroiles 06:18, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Even if you finish briefing the case later, or someone else does as long as you have a stub with the name in bold italics and the date. You can always use the <nowiki> ..... </nowiki> commands to get around the limits of the markup language here. Putting links to cases is easy too, just one open bracket the url from http://...... and then the close bracket, the footnote numbers come out automatically like this: [1] and this [2]. You can also change the numbers into words by adding a space after the url and putting a phrase, like this Consitution of Canada. So put a short description of the facts and the holding on the page along with an external link; you or someone else who is interested in the case can go back later. I did one recently linked to I have a dream after finding the citation by accident on that page and then after making the stub by clicking on the red link once I created the link I linked it back to various other copyright law articles that were relevant. Having the details of the case on one page may make it useful to others who you don't even know. Alex756 07:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Eric Hughes / Cypherpunk

Ok, as you wish, but don't you think that this situation calls for a disambig page? Thanks! --Vlad|-> 09:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing stuff you know to be wrong

I didn't want to confuse or inflame the discussion on the FOIA talk page so felt it would be better to make this point separately. If the New York Times ran a story about Schwarz supporting her version of events, I'd be forced to include the points it made even though I know that there is no way it could be accurate. Granted that will never happen, but let me give you an example from my own editing experience. A few months ago Time ran a story about the V-22 Osprey which included details that I know are wrong. Nonetheless because as editors we can't cite our personal opinions or beliefs I went ahead and added it as a source. We've got entire articles about people whom I personally think have no real notability, but are discussed in major sources so by the rules I can't argue to reduce or remove them. (Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, etc.) It's not my favorite part of editing, but thought I'd explain this so that you understand I;m not trying to work material in that shouldn't be there. Anynobody 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)